PDF Version




                                                        S. Hrg. 111-362
 
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION, 
                             111TH CONGRESS

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


                                HEARINGS

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on

                             NOMINATIONS OF

WILLIAM J. LYNN; ROBERT F. HALE; MICHELE FLOURNOY; JEH CHARLES JOHNSON; 
DR. ASHTON B. CARTER; DR. JAMES N. MILLER, JR.; AMBASSADOR ALEXANDER R. 
  VERSHBOW; RAYMOND E. MABUS, JR.; ROBERT O. WORK; ELIZABETH L. KING; 
DONALD M. REMY; DR. MICHAEL NACHT; WALLACE C. GREGSON; JO-ELLEN DARCY; 
  DR. INES R. TRIAY; ANDREW C. WEBER; DR. PAUL N. STOCKTON; THOMAS R. 
  LAMONT; CHARLES A. BLANCHARD; ADM JAMES G. STAVRIDIS, USN; LT. GEN. 
  DOUGLAS M. FRASER, USAF; LTG STANLEY A. McCHRYSTAL, USA; GORDON S. 
HEDDELL; DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE; ZACHARY J. LEMNIOS; LT. GEN. DENNIS M. 
  McCARTHY, USMC (RET.); DR. JAMES M. MORIN; DANIEL G. GINSBERG; GEN. 
  JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC; ADM ROBERT F. WILLARD, USN; HON. JOHN M. 
  McHUGH; DR. JOSEPH W. WESTPHAL; JUAN M. GARCIA III; ADM MICHAEL G. 
MULLEN, USN; CHRISTINE H. FOX; FRANK KENDALL III; GLADYS COMMONS; TERRY 
A. YONKERS; DR. CLIFFORD L. STANLEY; ERIN C. CONATON; LAWRENCE G. ROMO; 
DOUGLAS B. WILSON; DR. MALCOLM ROSS O'NEILL; MARY SALLY MATIELLA; PAUL 
   LUIS OOSTBURG SANZ; JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL; AND DR. DONALD L. COOK

                               __________

    JANUARY 15; MARCH 26; APRIL 28; MAY 12; JUNE 2, 11; JULY 9, 30; 
        SEPTEMBER 15; OCTOBER 22; NOVEMBER 19; DECEMBER 17, 2009

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services




                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-953                    WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC 
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 
20402-0001




                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                   (From January through August 2009)

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island              SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BILL NELSON, Florida                 JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia                   RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado                 SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois

                   Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director

               Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director

                                 ______

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                  (From August through December 2009)

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island              JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
BILL NELSON, Florida                 LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JIM WEBB, Virginia                   GEORGE S. LeMIEUX, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARK UDALL, Colorado                 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina         SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARK BEGICH, Alaska
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
PAUL G. KIRK, JR, Massachusetts

                   Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director

               Joseph W. Bowab, Republican Staff Director

                                  (ii)



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                    CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

                                                                   Page

                            january 15, 2009

Nominations of William J. Lynn III to be Deputy Secretary of 
  Defense; Robert F. Hale to be Under Secretary of Defense 
  (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer; Michele Flournoy to 
  be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Jeh Charles 
  Johnson to be General Counsel, Department of Defense...........     1

Statements of:

Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island.....     6
Skelton, Hon. Ike, U.S. Representative from the State of Missouri     8
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.     9
Lynn, William J., III, Nominee to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.    10
Hale, Robert F., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense 
  (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer......................    12
Flournoy, Michele, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Policy.........................................................    14
Johnson, Jeh Charles, Nominee to be General Counsel, Department 
  of Defense.....................................................    15

                             march 26, 2009

Nominations of Dr. Ashton B. Carter to be Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Dr. James 
  N. Miller, Jr., to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
  Policy; and Ambassador Alexander R. Vershbow to be Assistant 
  Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs........   181

Statements of:

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Connecticut....................................................   183
Carter, Ashton B., Ph.D., Nominee to be Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.............   186
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island.....   188
Miller, James N., Jr., Ph.D., Nominee to be Deputy Under 
  Secretary of Defense for Policy................................   189
Vershbow, Hon. Alexander D., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of 
  Defense for International Security Affairs.....................   190

                             april 28, 2009

Nominations of Raymond E. Mabus, Jr., to be Secretary of the 
  Navy; Robert O. Work to be Under Secretary of the Navy; 
  Elizabeth L. King to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
  Legislative Affairs; Donald M. Remy to be General Counsel of 
  the Department of the Army; Dr. Michael Nacht to be Assistant 
  Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs; Wallace C. 
  Gregson to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and 
  Pacific Security Affairs; Jo-Ellen Darcy to be Assistant 
  Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and Dr. Ines R. Triay to 
  be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management..   321

                                  iii

Statements of:

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana.........   323
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi...   324
Wicker, Hon. Roger F., U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi   325
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana.   326
Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island.....   327
Mabus, Raymond E. Jr., Nominee to be Secretary of the Navy.......   329
Work, Robert O., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Navy.......   331
King, Elizabeth L., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Legislative Affairs........................................   333
Remy, Donald M., Nominee to be General Counsel of the Department 
  of the Army....................................................   333
Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia..........   428
Nacht, Dr. Michael, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Global Strategic Affairs...................................   432
Gregson, Wallace C., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs.........................   433
Darcy, Jo-Ellen, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army 
  for Civil Works................................................   433
Triay, Dr. Ines R., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Energy 
  for Environmental Management...................................   434

                              may 12, 2009

Nominations of Andrew C. Weber to be Assistant to the Secretary 
  of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense 
  Programs; Dr. Paul N. Stockton to be Assistant Secretary of 
  Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs; 
  Thomas R. Lamont to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
  Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and Charles A. Blanchard to be 
  General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force.............   615

Statements of:

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana...   618
Durbin, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....   619
Farr, Hon. Sam, U.S. Representative from the State of California.   620
Weber, Andrew C., Nominee to be Assistant to the Secretary of 
  Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense 
  Programs.......................................................   622
Stockton, Dr. Paul N., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of 
  Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs....   623
Lamont, Thomas R., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Army 
  for Manpower and Reserve Affairs...............................   623
Blanchard, Charles A., Nominee to be General Counsel of the 
  Department of the Air Force....................................   624

                              june 2, 2009

Nominations of ADM James G. Stavridis, USN, for Reappointment to 
  the Grade of Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. European Command 
  and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; Lt. Gen. Douglas M. 
  Fraser, USAF, to be General and Commander, U.S. Southern 
  Command; and LTG Stanley A. McChrystal, USA, to be General and 
  Commander, International Security Assistance Force and 
  Commander, U.S. Forces, Afghanistan............................   717

Statements of:

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska......   721
Stavridis, ADM James G., USN, Nominee for Reappointment to the 
  Grade of Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. European Command and 
  Supreme Allied Commander, Europe...............................   723
Fraser, Lt. Gen. Douglas M., USAF, Nominee to be General and 
  Commander, U.S. Southern Command...............................   724
McChrystal, LTG Stanley A., USA, Nominee to be General and 
  Commander, International Security Assistance Force and 
  Commander, U.S. Forces, Afghanistan............................   725

                             june 11, 2009

Nominations of Gordon S. Heddell to be Inspector General, 
  Department of Defense; Dr. J. Michael Gilmore to be Director of 
  Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense; Zachary 
  J. Lemnios to be Director of Defense Research and Engineering; 
  Lt. Gen. Dennis M. McCarthy, USMC (Ret.), to be Assistant 
  Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs; Dr. James M. Morin to 
  be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial 
  Management and Comptroller; and Daniel B. Ginsberg to be 
  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve 
  Affairs........................................................   837

Statements of:

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont...   841
Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota...   843
Heddell, Gordon S., Nominee to be Inspector General, Department 
  of Defense.....................................................   845
Gilmore, Dr. J. Michael, Nominee to be Director of Operation Test 
  and Evaluation, Department of Defense..........................   845
Lemnios, Zachary J., Nominee to be Director of Defense Research 
  and Engineering................................................   846
McCarthy, Lt. Gen. Dennis M., USMC (Ret.), Nominee to be 
  Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.............   859
Morin, Dr. James M., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air 
  Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.................   860
Ginsberg, Daniel B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air 
  Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.........................   861

                              july 9, 2009

Nominations of Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC, for Reappointment 
  to the Grade of General and Reappointment as the Vice Chairman 
  of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and ADM Robert F. Willard, USN, 
  for Reappointment to the Grade of Admiral and to be Commander, 
  U.S. Pacific Command...........................................   975

Statements of:

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii....   976
Cartwright, Gen. James E., USMC, Nominee for the Position of Vice 
  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff..........................   980
Willard, ADM Robert F., USN, Nominee to be Commander, U.S. 
  Pacific Command................................................   981

                             july 30, 2009

Nominations of Hon. John M. McHugh to be Secretary of the Army; 
  Dr. Joseph W. Westphal to be the Under Secretary of the Army; 
  and Juan M. Garcia III to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
  for Manpower and Reserve Affairs...............................  1073

Statements of:

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...  1076
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of New York  1076
Collins, Hon. Susan, U.S. Senator from the State of Maine........  l079
Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas.  1081
Cornyn, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas..........  1082
McHugh, Hon. John M., Nominee to be Secretary of the Army........  1083
Westphal, Dr. Joseph W., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the 
  Army...........................................................  1085
Garcia, Juan M., III, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs..........................  1086

                           september 15, 2009

Nomination of ADM Michael G. Mullen, USN, for Reappointment to 
  the Grade of Admiral and Reappointment as the Chairman of the 
  Joint Chiefs of Staff..........................................  1225

Statement of:

Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, Nominee for Reappointment to be 
  Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff................................  1231

                            october 22, 2009

Nominations of Christine H. Fox to be Director of Cost Assessment 
  and Program Evaluation, Department of Defense; Frank Kendall 
  III to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
  Technology; Gladys Commons to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Navy for Financial Management and Comptroller; and Terry A. 
  Yonkers to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
  Installations and Environment..................................  1333

Statements of:

Reed, Hon. Jack, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island.....  1336
Fox, Christine H., Nominee to be Director of Cost Assessment and 
  Program Evaluation, Department of Defense......................  1338
Kendall, Frank, III, Nominee to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Acquisition and Technology.........................  1339
Commons, Gladys, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
  for Financial Management and Comptroller.......................  1340
Yonkers, Terry A., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the Air 
  Force for Installations and Environment........................  1341

                           november 19, 2009

Nominations of Dr. Clifford L. Stanley to be Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Erin C. Conaton to be 
  Under Secretary of the Air Force; and Lawrence G. Romo to be 
  Director of the Selective Service System.......................  1443

Statements of:

Skelton, Hon. Ike, U.S. Representative from the State of Missouri  1446
Stanley, Dr. Clifford L., Nominee to be Under Secretary of 
  Defense for Personnel and Readiness............................  1448
Conaton, Erin C., Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Air Force.  1449
Romo, Lawrence G., Nominee to be Director of the Selective 
  Service........................................................  1450

                           december 17, 2009

Nominations of Douglas B. Wilson to be Assistant Secretary of 
  Defense of Public Affairs; Dr. Malcolm Ross O'Neill to be 
  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
  Technology; Mary Sally Matiella to be Assistant Secretary of 
  the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller; Paul Luis 
  Oostburg Sanz to be General Counsel of the Department of the 
  Navy; Jackalyne Pfannenstiel to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Navy for Installations and Environment; and Dr. Donald L. Cook 
  to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National 
  Nuclear Security Administration................................  1535

Statements of:

Skelton, Hon. Ike, U.S. Representative from the State of Missouri  1538
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  Hampshire......................................................  1539
Wilson, Douglas B., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  for Public Affairs.............................................  1542
O'Neill, Dr. Malcolm Ross, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of 
  the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology............  1543
Matiella, Mary Sally, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Army for Financial Management and Comptroller..................  1544
Sanz, Paul Luis Oostburg, Nominee to be General Counsel of the 
  Department of the Navy.........................................  1545
Pfannenstiel, Jackalyne, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of the 
  Navy for Installations and Environment.........................  1546
Cook, Dr. Donald L., Nominee to be Deputy Administrator for 
  Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.....  1547

APPENDIX.........................................................  1667


 NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM J. LYNN III TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; 
ROBERT F. HALE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) AND CHIEF 
 FINANCIAL OFFICER; MICHELE FLOURNOY TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
 FOR POLICY; AND JEH CHARLES JOHNSON TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT 
                               OF DEFENSE

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2009

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in room 
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Akaka, E. 
Benjamin Nelson, Webb, McCaskill, McCain, Inhofe, Chambliss, 
Graham, Thune, and Wicker.
    Other Senators present: Senators Hagan, Begich, Menendez, 
and Udall.
    Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel; 
Gabriella Eisen, counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional 
staff member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; 
Michael J. Kuiken, professional staff member; Peter K. Levine, 
general counsel; William G.P. Monahan, counsel; John H. Quirk 
V, professional staff member; Arun A. Seraphin, professional 
staff member; Russell L. Shaffer, counsel; and William K. 
Sutey, professional staff member.
    Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican 
staff director; William M. Caniano, professional staff member; 
Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., deputy Republican staff director; 
David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, 
professional staff member; Diana G. Tabler, professional staff 
member; Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel; and Dana W. White, 
professional staff member.
    Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Jessica L. 
Kingston, and Christine G. Lang.
    Committee members' assistants present: Bethany Bassett and 
Jay Maroney, assistants to Senator Kennedy; James Tuite, 
assistant to Senator Byrd; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator 
Reed; Bonnie Berge, assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher 
Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Christiana Gallagher, 
assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to 
Senator Bayh; Jennifer Park and Gordon I. Peterson, assistants 
to Senator Webb; Stephen C. Hedger and Elizabeth McDermott, 
assistants to Senator McCaskill; Anthony J. Lazarski and Nathan 
Reese, assistants to Senator Inhofe; Clyde A. Taylor IV, 
assistant to Senator Chambliss; Adam G. Brake, assistant to 
Senator Graham; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; 
Brian W. Walsh, assistant to Senator Martinez; and Erskine W. 
Wells III, assistant to Senator Wicker.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody.
    The committee meets today to consider the nominations of 
Bill Lynn to be Deputy Secretary of Defense; Robert Hale to be 
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Michele Flournoy to 
be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Jeh Charles 
Johnson to be General Counsel of the Department of Defense 
(DOD).
    This is the first meeting of the 111th Congress, so I want 
to begin by welcoming back all of our members, starting with 
our ranking member--although he's not here at the moment, he 
can't be here until a little later in the hearing. We all know 
that Senator McCain had hoped to be serving in a somewhat 
different position, but we're delighted to have him back, and 
we welcome the huge contribution that he has made, and will 
continue to make, to this committee, to Congress, and to the 
Nation.
    I also want to extend a special welcome to our new members: 
Senator Hagan, who is here, Senator Begich who is here--I did 
not see Senator Udall, he's not here yet. They--although 
technically not members yet of the committee--are going to be 
members both technically and in reality, in a few days. So 
we've invited them to join us at today's hearing and they'll be 
free to ask questions if they'd like, later on. We're delighted 
to have you both here.
    The Senate Armed Services Committee has, I think, and our 
new members particularly will find out, a real determination to 
act on a bipartisan basis. We are a committee that historically 
has acted that way, it's been our hallmark. It's been something 
we've been very proud of, it's something we protect.
    The commitment to national defense is not a partisan 
commitment on the part of any Member of Congress, and it is 
surely something which we feel very strongly about, this common 
commitment to the security of our Nation, and to the men and 
women in uniform who put themselves in harm's way for our good.
    We look forward to working with you. I know every member of 
the committee feels that way, regardless of party affiliation. 
This year our committee is in a unique position because we have 
a new administration, but we do not have a new nominee for 
Secretary of Defense.
    We asked Secretary Gates to return to the committee on 
January 27, to provide us with his views, and the views of the 
incoming administration on challenges facing DOD. That hearing 
is going to give us the opportunity to ask many of the 
questions that we might have asked a new nominee.
    Today we're going to hear from nominees for four of the 
most senior positions at DOD who serve directly under the 
Secretary. We welcome our nominees and their families to 
today's hearing. We will tell our nominees' families something 
that many of them already know from previous experience. That 
is that senior DOD officials put in long hours, and they make 
sacrifices for the Nation's good, and their families make 
sacrifices, as well, to make it possible for the officials to 
serve our country, and to take out the kind of time that is 
necessary from their lives, and that will also come from your 
lives.
    So we thank the families for their service, as well as our 
nominees for their willingness to serve our Nation. We'll ask 
the nominees to introduce their families as we call upon them 
later, for their opening statements.
    Each of our nominees has a distinguished career of public 
service, and a strong commitment to the Nation's defense. They 
are exceptionally well-qualified, and the committee looks 
forward to working with them, and hopefully a swift 
confirmation.
    Mr. Lynn served in DOD from 1993 to 2001, first as Director 
of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) and then as DOD 
Comptroller.
    Mr. Hale served in the Department as Air Force Comptroller 
from 1994 to 2001. Before that, he spent 12 years as the head 
of the Defense Unit of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
    Ms. Flournoy served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Strategy in the 1990s, and helped prepare the 
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
    Mr. Johnson has served as General Counsel of the Air Force 
from 1998 to 2001.
    Mr. Lynn also gained, we think, his most important 
experience before he went to the Pentagon, and that is when he 
spent 6 years working with this committee as Senator Kennedy's 
military legislative assistant. We look forward to having 
Senator Kennedy back with us, he is looking very good, and 
sounding good. We look forward to his coming back.
    But in the meantime, Bill, we want to make reference to the 
fact that you cut some of your teeth here, with this committee, 
and that will serve you in good stead, we believe, in your new 
position.
    If confirmed, our nominees will resume substantial 
responsibility for leading DOD at a critical time. Almost 
200,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are 
deployed far from home. As we meet here, they're in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and Kuwait and other theaters around the world.
    After more than 7 years of war, our military--particularly 
our ground forces--are stressed. Many of our troops have been 
worn out, their families have been faced--as they have--with 
repeated deployments. Our equipment is being used up.
    At the same time, DOD spends hundreds of billions of 
dollars every year on the acquisition of products and services. 
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported last year 
that cost overruns on the Department's 95 largest acquisition 
programs now total almost $300 billion over the original 
program estimates, even though the Department has cut unit 
quantities and reduced performance expectations on many 
programs to reduce costs.
    At a time when the Federal budget is under extraordinary 
strain, as a result of the economic crisis we face, we cannot 
afford this kind of continued inefficiency.
    Our Nation faces a host of challenges at home and abroad. 
Our witnesses today are going to help the Department and this 
country face those challenges. I'm confident that our 
nominees--working with the President-elect, Secretary Gates, 
others in the incoming administration, and with this 
committee--will do everything in their power to ensure that our 
Nation meets the challenges that face us. We look forward to 
hearing their views.
    As I indicated, Senator McCain has informed us that he will 
be here later in the morning, and we will then give him an 
opportunity to make an opening statement. But in his absence we 
will call upon Senator Inhofe to make whatever statement that 
he might wish to make before we call upon those that are going 
to be introducing our nominees.

              STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I am sitting in for Senator McCain until he 
arrives, and he has a statement I'd like to enter into the 
record at this point.
    Chairman Levin. It will be made part of the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
               Prepared Statement by Senator John McCain
    Thank you, Senator Levin.
    I join you in welcoming our nominees. I thank them for their 
willingness to serve in the new administration, and I look forward to 
working with Secretary Gates and the new members of his leadership team 
on the numerous challenges facing the Department of Defense (DOD).
    Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Johnson have each 
previously served in important positions in the Department. I 
appreciate their previous contributions, and I particularly want to 
acknowledge the support provided by their spouses and family members, 
several of whom are in attendance today, and thank them as well.
    If confirmed for your new positions, you will be responsible for 
the achievement of vital national security objectives. I'd like to 
underscore some of these objectives.
                                  iraq
    We must continue our success in Iraq. Supporting our military 
leaders as they implement the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement 
needs to be among our highest priorities--even as we turn our attention 
increasingly to the war in Afghanistan. Ensuring the final defeat of al 
Qaeda in Iraq, continuing to improve security for the Iraqi people in 
cooperation with the Iraqi Army and police, and supporting conditions 
that will guarantee the success of Iraq's fragile democracy are 
essential.
    As we draw down forces in Iraq, we must not create opportunities 
for al Qaeda and sectarian extremists to re-emerge. I was pleased to 
read reports yesterday of Senator Biden's pledge that the incoming 
administration will not withdraw troops in a manner that will threaten 
Iraqi security.
                              afghanistan
    Afghanistan poses a central challenge to the United States and our 
allies. I believe we need a comprehensive civil-military plan, backed 
by the troops and resources necessary to implement it, in order to 
prevail in Afghanistan. Our strategy and tactics must be reviewed and 
modified to respond to the growing threat posed by the Taliban. A 
holding action in that troubled nation has not succeeded and will not 
succeed. I believe our allies in NATO can be persuaded to increase 
their contributions, and I intend to do all I can to achieve this goal. 
I look forward to hearing the witnesses' plans in this regard.
                             guantanamo bay
    The President-elect has clearly stated his intent to direct the 
closure of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. I agree wholeheartedly 
with this decision, but recognize that carrying it out will raise 
difficult questions about the transfer of the detainees and the 
procedures that will be used to determine their status and culpability. 
I look forward to working with the administration as they address these 
issues, and I would invite the nominees to comment on the way forward.
                           acquisition reform
    I continue to believe that acquisition reform at DOD is critical. 
Especially in these turbulent economic times, America cannot afford the 
costly weapons procurement failures and mismanagement of the past. We 
must have personnel, procedures, and systems in place which ensure 
decisionmaking that is responsive to our national security imperatives 
in a fiscally responsible manner. While we have made some progress in 
reforming the system over the last few years, we need to do much more. 
To this end, I call for a comprehensive audit of the DOD budget aimed 
at identifying the unnecessary, wasteful programs and procurements that 
should be terminated or suspended immediately; changes to the Nunn-
McCurdy law designed to reinforce the process by which cost estimates 
are independently assessed and to strengthen congressional oversight 
over chronically poor performing weapons programs; and the 
establishment and adequate resourcing of an Office of Independent 
Assessment to provide the Department and Congress independent 
assessments of cost, technological maturity, and performance.
                                earmarks
    Fully consistent with acquisition reform, we must continue to 
demand complete elimination of earmarks, and transparency into 
congressionally-directed changes. I am pleased at the comments of the 
President-elect in this regard.
                        readiness and personnel
    Continued support for the men and women of the Armed Forces and 
their families remains my highest priority. Every effort must be made 
to recognize and respond to the sacrifices of the families of our 
deployed servicemembers, and we must continue to find ways to help our 
heroic wounded warriors recover and move on to new challenges in 
service and in life. The Army and Marine Corps need more Active-Duty 
personnel, and, despite budgetary pressures, I expect the new 
administration to support this critical requirement.
    I am also concerned about the ability of our combat units to be 
trained and ready for the next fight. Army leadership testified last 
year about the deteriorating condition of our current unit readiness, 
which has affected the strategic depth of our combat units to be able 
to respond to threats against U.S. national security interests in areas 
other than Iraq and Afghanistan. The Navy and Air Force also have 
expressed concerns about reduced current unit readiness rates due to 
aging and worn out equipment and systems. Congress has provided over 
$25 billion in the past 3 years towards the reset of equipment and 
material for Active and Guard forces returning from deployments. Even 
with these resources, we still are faced with a serious strategic risk.
    Again, I appreciate our nominees' service, and, Senator Levin, I 
thank you for your many courtesies over the years, and I look forward 
to working together with you and all the members of the committee as we 
begin the 111th Congress.

    Senator Inhofe. Also, I've had a chance to get to know--not 
as well as I hope to later on--our new members, Kay Hagan and 
Mark Udall.
    Mark, you have baggage. One of the things we always do when 
we have new members coming on the committee, you read about 
them, and I'm very pleased that you made the decision to get on 
this committee. All three of you are going to be great 
additions. I look forward to working with you.
    I see my friend, Ike Skelton, here. I worked under his 
leadership for many years. We were on the House Armed Services 
Committee and I'm glad you're here to lend your support as I am 
doing at this time.
    Let me just make one comment, and that is that most of 
you--all of you, I guess--had experience back when things were 
really different, back in the 1990s. Sometimes I look back, 
somewhat wistfully, at the days of the Cold War. Things were 
predictable then. We had an enemy out there, we knew who the 
enemy was, we knew how the enemy thought.
    Now everything is asymmetrical, we have threats that are 
totally different than the threats that existed in the 1990s. I 
know that you all have been keeping up with that.
    I had a very good conversation between flights, a few days 
ago, with President-elect Obama. He called--I was actually in 
Memphis, between flights, and we had a chance to talk. I was 
complimentary of him on what he's done with the defense and 
other appointments and nominations, and the fact that Secretary 
Gates is going to be staying on. General Jim Jones, I just 
think that was a great idea to do that. Of course, Eric 
Shinseki--we've all served with him, and think so much of him.
    You folks will be working with these people, and I'm 
looking forward to supporting you. I'm looking forward to 
working with you. As we get into the problems that are there, I 
think we'll have debate from time to time, disagreement, right 
up here around this table. But we all respect each other, we 
all want one ultimate goal, and that is to defend this country 
and everybody in it.
    With that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe. We're 
delighted today to have with us colleagues to introduce our 
nominees. The first colleague who I'll call on is a member of 
the committee, and an incredibly valuable member of the 
committee and the Senate.
    Senator Reed, do you want to make your introduction first? 
Then I think we'll call upon Representative Skelton, and then 
Senator Menendez in terms of your schedule, if that's all 
right. We'll call upon you third in terms of the order of the 
witnesses will be appearing. But also to accommodate 
Representative Skelton who I know has to get back to the House.
    Senator Reed.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                          RHODE ISLAND

    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's an 
honor to be here today. I'm particularly pleased with the 
appointments that the President-elect has made, beginning with 
Secretary Gates. The gentlemen and the lady that are here 
today, are representative of the superb quality, patriotism, 
and commitment that has been evidenced by all of the 
appointments, to date, at DOD.
    I want to join Chairman Skelton in recognizing Michele 
Flournoy. We've had an opportunity over many years to work 
together, she is superbly prepared for this job, and someone 
that I admire immensely.
    But my great task, and indeed a great honor, is to 
introduce Bill Lynn. As you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, Bill 
has a superb career, embracing service here, on Senator 
Kennedy's staff, as a military legislative assistant. Service 
in the Pentagon, in the Program Analysis and Evaluation Office, 
as the Director, and as Comptroller. I don't think anyone knows 
more about the intricacies of the budget and the institutional 
culture of the Pentagon than Bill Lynn. He certainly knows a 
bit about Congress.
    He also is someone who, over the last several years, has 
been a significant participant with Raytheon Company, and their 
major operations with respect to supporting DOD. Bill combines 
the three pillars, I think, of someone who has to be successful 
in this job as Deputy Secretary--knowledge of Congress, 
intricate knowledge of the Pentagon, and knowledge of the 
contractors who support the operations at the Pentagon.
    He is, besides being experienced, a man of great character 
and integrity. Bill graduated from Dartmouth College, with a 
law degree from Cornell Law School, and a Masters in Public 
Affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School. He is a superb choice.
    Today, he is joined by his wife, Mary Murphy. Their young 
daughter, Catherine, is at home--supposedly watching on TV. I--
from practical experience--suggest it's probably not C-SPAN, 
it's Sprout. But, nevertheless, they have shouldered the 
challenge, not only of service to the Nation, but parenthood, 
and I commend them for both.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Reed.
    We will make part of the record a statement of Senator 
Kennedy, welcoming Bill Lynn here. We will put that statement 
in the record in the same place, right next to the introduction 
by Senator Reed.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
            Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
    It's an honor to join in welcoming Bill back to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, and I look forward to his confirmation. The 
Department of Defense and the Nation will benefit from Bill's 
extraordinary level of experience, expertise, and integrity on matters 
of vital importance to our Armed Forces and our national security at 
this critical time in our history. The brave men and women of our 
Nation's armed services and their families will have a devoted servant 
and outstanding advocate in Bill.
    I've known Bill for many years. He did an outstanding job as my 
legislative assistant on committee issues from 1987 to 1993. Since 
then, he has excelled in a number of challenging and demanding 
positions in both the public and private sectors and his knowledge, 
background and command of Defense Department policy, procedure, and 
budget are broad and deep.
    From 1993 to 1997, Bill served as Director of Programs Analysis and 
Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, steering and 
overseeing all aspects of the Department's strategic planning process 
and going on to become Comptroller of the Department in charge of the 
budget and fiscal planning. He then furthered his experience with 
comprehensive departmental budget and fiscal planning and assumed the 
position of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
    In the private sector, Bill's leadership has contributed to the 
continued strength of America's vital defense and homeland security 
capabilities during an unprecedented period of challenge and crisis.
    This compelling array of defense skills across government, 
industry, and the national security community and commitment, will 
greatly benefit the Obama administration, and I strongly support his 
nomination.

    Chairman Levin. Ike Skelton, our dear friend, chairman of 
the House Armed Services Committee, it's one of the great 
pleasures of being chairman of this committee, is the 
opportunity to work with my counterpart over at the House.
    Ike, welcome.

  STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 
                       STATE OF MISSOURI

    Representative Skelton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
Senator Inhofe. It's good to be with you today, and it's a 
thrill to be here, especially to see my friend and colleague 
from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, who's distinguished herself so 
well back home, as well as here.
    It's also interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that there are 
four members from the House on the committee, if I'm correct, 
three former members of our committee--the House Armed Services 
Committee--and I know that speaks very well for their continued 
service for the national security.
    Mr. Chairman, I couldn't be more delighted today than I am 
in support of the nomination of Michele Flournoy to be the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. She and I have spent 
many hours together. I could talk long about her professional 
qualifications and excellent personal qualities. But, in 
deference to your preference for brevity, I will not do so.
    I've gotten in the habit, Mr. Chairman, of asking each of 
the Service Chiefs from time to time, whether their war 
colleges are producing graduates who are capable of engaging in 
high-level discussion of strategy with someone at the level of 
George C. Marshall. In truth, the question is a little bit 
unfair, because very few of its civilians are capable of such a 
discussion ourselves. We're entrusted as much--or really more 
so--with decisions about overall strategy.
    However, the Senate has the opportunity to confirm just 
such an individual as Michele Flournoy. She is nominated for 
exactly the job within DOD for which her remarkable skills are 
uniquely suited.
    Michele developed a sterling reputation during her highly 
decorated service in the Department during the 1990s, she 
served as both Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Strategy, as well as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction.
    Among many other accomplishments, Michele was a leading 
figure in the development and performance of the first two QDRs 
in 1997 and 2001. Her hallmark in these efforts was an 
insistence on rigorous analysis and reliance on hard data and 
modeling at a time when the use of these tools on issues of 
planning and strategy were poorly understood.
    She continued her public service in recent years by serving 
on the Defense Policy Board and the Defense Science Board Task 
Force for Transformation. She also served as Professor at the 
National Defense University, where she led its QDR Working 
Group in 2001.
    Not least among her contributions during this time was her 
work in educating Members of Congress--including me--and I 
know, also, Senator Reed, in the deep nuances of military 
readiness, and the best way to restore it.
    In 2007, Michele cofounded the Center for a New American 
Security, to provide analysis and advocacy for a strong, 
pragmatic, national security strategy for our country. This 
group has quickly become known as that rare animal--a think-
tank focused on developing pragmatic solutions to difficult 
national security problems.
    Her leadership on their Project Solarium which took the 
name from President Eisenhower's attempt to put together a 
strategy--is examining new approaches to our national security 
strategy has been extremely important. I know that I need not 
remind anyone on this committee about the pressing need we face 
for a pressing and balanced review of our global strategy, as 
well as those in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
    The President-elect has chosen exactly the right person to 
assist him, as well as Secretary Gates, in this effort in 
ensuring that this Nation is focused on the challenges around 
the corner that we don't yet have a clear view of.
    Finally, I would say that Michele understands the 
significant personnel and readiness issues facing our military. 
She understands that the senior leaders at the Pentagon have to 
be more than just policy wonks, but also responsible stewards, 
serving the needs of the military families as well as the 
taxpayers of our country.
    She's married to Scott Gould, a 26-year veteran of the 
United States Navy, thereby a military spouse herself, of many 
years' standing. Her ability to put policy decisions in this 
context will serve her, the Secretary, and our Nation, well.
    Michele's qualifications are exemplary. Her judgment, her 
knowledge, her character all are first-rate. Confirming her 
will bring credit to this committee, as well as to DOD, and Mr. 
Chairman, to our Nation.
    I urge you to confirm as expeditiously as possible, this 
lady for this very high-level position. Thank you so much.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Representative Skelton. We very 
much appreciate your coming by this morning, as I know Ms. 
Flournoy does.
    Now, another good friend of ours, a good friend of the men 
and women in the military, Senator Menendez.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
                         OF NEW JERSEY

    Senator Menendez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--to 
you and all of the distinguished members of the committee. I'm 
honored to appear before you today to introduce Jeh Johnson on 
his nomination hearing to serve as the next General Counsel of 
DOD. I am confident that the committee--and the full Senate--
will conclude that he is exceptionally well-qualified to serve 
in this important position with great distinction.
    Jeh Johnson's distinguished legal career has included both 
public service as well as private practice; his private 
practice with a prominent New York-based law firm of Paul, 
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, he is a graduate of 
Morehouse College and Columbia University Law School.
    In 1989 and 1991, he was a Federal prosecutor in the 
Southern District of New York, where he was responsible for 
investigating and prosecuting cases involving public 
corruption. He then resumed a successful private practice in 
the litigation department of Paul, Weiss, which included being 
elected a fellow in the prestigious American College of Trial 
Lawyers.
    But he is not a stranger to the Defense Department. In 
1998, he left private practice at Paul, Weiss to take the 
position of General Counsel at the Department of the Air Force. 
He served as Air Force General Counsel for over 2 years, and 
during that time, gained a solid understanding of the unique 
challenges and demands of being one of the top attorneys within 
our largest government agency. He is, without a doubt, ready 
now to serve as the senior legal authority at the Defense 
Department.
    The lawyers at DOD will have to deal with some very complex 
and difficult issues in the months ahead. No doubt, there are 
other equally difficult issues than those that we see now, and 
those will lie over the horizon.
    In remarks that he made to a conference of Air Force Judge 
Advocates General in 2007, Jeh Johnson said that, ``In the 
absence of a Constitutional amendment, an act of Congress, or 
some new interpretation of the constitution of the laws by the 
courts, the rule of law does not change. It remains consistent 
throughout changing times.'' As legal advisor in DOD, your 
challenge is to provide consistent advice and guidance to 
policymakers and commanders about what the rule of law means.
    I am confident that Jeh Johnson will provide just such 
advice and guidance to policymakers and commanders, as General 
Counsel to DOD, for them to be able to--not only pursue the 
rule of law--but meet their challenge in defending and 
protecting our Nation. He will do so with intellect and 
integrity that have been the hallmarks of his life, and I'm 
pleased to present such a distinguished individual from the 
State of New Jersey to this committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Menendez.
    Let me now call on our witnesses for their opening 
statements, and when I call on you, perhaps you would introduce 
those who accompany you here today.
    First, Bill Lynn. Let me call on you for any opening 
statement you might wish to give us, and introduce your family.

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. LYNN III, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY 
                      SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

    Mr. Lynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin, Senator Inhofe, and members of the 
committee, it's a privilege to appear before this committee. 
I'm particularly honored to return to the committee where I--as 
the chairman noted--spent so many years.
    I'm also honored that President-elect Obama has nominated 
me for the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense. I 
appreciate the confidence that he and Secretary Gates have 
placed in me, and if confirmed, I look forward to the 
opportunity to serve again with the dedicated men and women of 
our Armed Forces, particularly those serving in combat 
operations, including more than 140,000 in Iraq, and more than 
30,000 in Afghanistan.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm particularly grateful to you, and to 
Senator McCain, for your exceptional efforts to act on our 
nominations so expeditiously. This is our first war-time 
transition in many years, and reducing any gaps in civilian 
leadership at the Pentagon is critical.
    I also want to thank Senator Reed for the kind 
introduction. The Senator's leadership on issues of national 
security is inspiring. I look forward to working with Senator 
Reed and all of the members of the committee on the great 
challenges facing us.
    Let me express my gratitude to Senator Kennedy who--as the 
chairman noted--is unable to attend this hearing. Senator 
Kennedy has been a superb boss, a great mentor, and a loyal 
friend. His leadership and courage are unsurpassed, and I--with 
the chairman--look forward to seeing him, again, back here very 
soon.
    Finally, I want to thank my wife, Mary, who's here in the 
audience, and my daughter, Catherine, who Senator Reed noted is 
not here, to avoid disruption for the committee. They're 
embarking on this journey with me. They don't know where it 
will take us, precisely, but they do know--as the chairman 
noted--there will be numerous sacrifices, and I greatly 
appreciate their support.
    This committee is noted for its bipartisan commitment to 
national security, and for its attention to the needs of our 
men and women in uniform, particularly at a time we're engaged 
in two wars. I appreciate the decades of experience on defense 
matters that are resident on this committee, and I commit to 
continuing in supporting Secretary Gates' effort to engage 
Congress, and this committee in particular, in constructive and 
candid discussions.
    I approach this confirmation hearing, and if confirmed, 
this position, with humility. Serving as the chief management 
officer of an organization as large and diverse as DOD is a 
task that no one is truly qualified to perform. If the Senate 
confirms me in this position, I have two co-equal 
responsibilities. On one hand, I'll work alongside the 
Secretary to advance our national security strategy. On the 
other hand, as the chief management officer, I will have 
primary responsibility for ensuring the smooth functioning of a 
vast, and sometimes unwieldy, bureaucracy.
    There are serious challenges facing the Department today, 
and the next Deputy Secretary will have the responsibility to 
assist the Secretary in a myriad of critical tasks.
    If confirmed for this important position, I would focus on 
three initial challenges. First, during a transition in a time 
of war, it is essential that the Department execute a smooth 
transition of leadership as quickly as possible. To that end, I 
would work with the Secretary and Congress to assemble a top-
quality cadre of civilian leaders. As part of that effort, I 
would also place a high priority on strengthening the 
capabilities of the career staff who are essential to address 
the many near-term challenges, as well as the longer-term tasks 
of the Department.
    A second challenge will be to conduct at least three sets 
of major program and budget reviews in the first few months of 
the new administration. These include a review of the 2009 
supplemental appropriation, revisions to the draft fiscal year 
2010 budget, and its timely submission to Congress, and 
finally, the expeditious completion of the QDR.
    In the QDR, a key task will be to lay the foundation for an 
effective force for the 21st century that establishes the right 
balance among capabilities for addressing irregular and 
counterinsurgent warfare, potential longer-term threats from a 
high-end, or a near-term competitor, and the proliferation of 
threats from rogue states, or terrorist organizations.
    A third challenge will be to pursue an active reform agenda 
for the management of the Department as a whole. If confirmed, 
I would devote considerable time and energy to improving the 
Department's processes for strategic planning, program and 
budget development, and acquisition oversight.
    At a time when we face a wide range of national security 
challenges and unprecedented budget pressures, acquisition 
reform is not an option, it is an imperative. It is time to 
improve all aspects of the Department's acquisition and budget 
processes, so that every dollar we spend at the Pentagon is 
used wisely and effectively to enhance our national security.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 
the honor of appearing before your committee, and for your 
efforts to schedule such a prompt hearing. I look forward to 
answering your questions, and if you see fit to confirm me for 
this position, I stand ready to serve to the best of my 
ability.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much. Our next nominee is 
Robert Hale, nominated to be Under Secretary of Defense and 
Chief Financial Officer.
    Mr. Hale.

 STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. HALE, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF 
       DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

    Mr. Hale. Thank you Chairman Levin, Senator Inhofe, and all 
of the members of the committee. I want to thank the committee 
for having this hearing, and again, express my appreciation--
joining Mr. Lynn--in thanking you for the expedited nature of 
it.
    I'm very grateful to the confidence President-elect Obama 
has placed in me by indicating his intent to nominate me for 
this position, and then also the support of Secretary Gates. If 
confirmed, I'll be honored to serve as the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller), and the Chief Financial Officer of the 
Department of Defense.
    I especially want to thank my family, as you said, Mr. 
Chairman. This is a journey that will take a considerable 
amount of their time, as well, or take me away from them. 
Particularly Susan Hale, my wife of 35 years, who's right back 
here.
    I thank Sue in advance for putting up with all of the long 
hours that I know are coming. I have two grown sons, Scott and 
Michael, who live and work in California, and unfortunately 
were not able to be here at the hearing, but I certainly want 
to acknowledge them, they are very much important parts of my 
life.
    Mr. Chairman, the responsibilities of the DOD Comptroller 
are many and varied. I served for 7 years as the Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and 
Comptroller, 12 years before that--as the chairman mentioned--
as head of the National Security Division at CBO. I am well-
aware of the challenges that the DOD Comptroller faces.
    I also had the honor early in my career of spending a 
couple of years as an Active-Duty officer in the United States 
Navy, several more years in the drilling Reserve, so I have a 
sense, I think, of the culture of the brave men and women who 
serve in uniform.
    With that as background, and if confirmed, my top priority 
will be to help DOD obtain the necessary resources, so that the 
men and women of the Department can meet our national security 
objectives.
    As Mr. Lynn indicated, an early high priority will be an 
expedited review of the second portion of the fiscal year 2009 
supplemental, and an expedited review of the fiscal year 2010 
budget request.
    I understand the importance of working with this committee, 
as with the appropriating committees in all of Congress, as we 
seek to accomplish these critical goals. At a time when we have 
tens of thousands of Americans serving overseas and in harm's 
way, we all need to work together to be sure they have the 
resources that they need.
    The committee and Congress have also charged the DOD 
comptroller with the authority and responsibility for 
overseeing defense financial management, financial operations 
in the Department. We need to make continued improvements in 
how we pay our people, how we pay our vendors. We need to 
improve financial systems, and approve the way we account for 
funds in the Department. These latter two items are fundamental 
to the goal of continued progress toward auditable financial 
statements. This, overall, will be another high priority for 
me.
    The Department also needs better financial information in 
order to spend the dollars that are appropriated to it 
efficiently and effectively, and I think wise spending of 
defense dollars is always important, but it's especially 
important right now, as the Nation weathers this really serious 
economic crisis.
    I'm well aware of the daunting and longstanding challenges 
associated with improving financial operations and financial 
management in the Department, but if confirmed, I will 
certainly pledge my best efforts with this committee and many 
others, to accomplish these goals.
    Another priority, Mr. Chairman, the Department must have a 
capable and well-trained workforce in order to accomplish 
defense financial management. We have the best systems in the 
world, we can have the best accounting practices, if we don't 
have the people out there that are well-trained, and in 
adequate numbers, it's not going to work.
    I'm familiar with this workforce through my current job as 
the Executive Director of the American Society of Military 
Comptrollers, a nonprofit professional association. If 
confirmed, I plan to spend some time supporting DOD, the 
military departments, and the agencies as they seek to recruit, 
train, and retain the right defense financial management 
workforce so that we can do this job well into the 21st 
century.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd again like to thank 
President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates for selecting me as 
the nominee for this position. If the Senate confirms me as the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), I will make every 
effort to live up to the confidence that you will have placed 
in me.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Hale.
    We notice now another of our new Senators, Senator Udall, 
has joined us. We're delighted to have you as a Member of the 
Senate, and a member of this committee, welcome.
    Senator Udall. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Our next nominee is Michele Flournoy, to be 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
    Ms. Flournoy, welcome.

STATEMENT OF MICHELE FLOURNOY, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF 
                       DEFENSE FOR POLICY

    Ms. Flournoy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inhofe, 
members of the committee, it is truly an honor to appear before 
you today as President-elect Obama's nominee for the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy. Serving our Nation in this 
capacity would be a great privilege, and I'm grateful both to 
President-elect Obama, and to Secretary Gates, for choosing me 
for this position.
    I'm also very grateful to Representative Skelton for that 
kind introduction, and for being such a wonderful colleague and 
mentor to me over the years. I was very honored by his presence 
here today.
    I also, particularly, want to thank my family for being 
here, my husband and partner in all things, Scott Gould, and my 
children, Alec, Victoria, and Aidan--they are my foundation and 
my joy, and I could not even contemplate public service without 
their steadfast love and support.
    If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this 
committee in shaping our Nation's defense policy. Over the 
years, the Senate Armed Services Committee has shown a strong, 
consistent--and as you said, Mr. Chairman--a bipartisan 
commitment to advancing our Nation's security, and to caring 
for the men and women in uniform. I appreciate Congress' 
critical role under our Constitution in providing for the 
common defense, and I also appreciate this committee's 
willingness to expedite the confirmation process, when more 
than 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are 
deployed in harm's way, supporting operations in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
    At this time of war we owe them--and we owe the American 
people--the smoothest transition possible between 
administrations.
    At this moment in our history, the United States--as you 
all know--faces a daunting number of national security 
challenges, but also some very hopeful opportunities. We can, 
and we must, restore our Nation's global standing, and protect 
America, our interests, and our allies from attack.
    We can, and must, craft whole of government, integrated 
strategies to deal more effectively to defeat threats like 
violent extremism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD).
    We can, and must, rebalance our efforts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and ultimately achieve successful outcomes in 
both.
    We can, and must, work to reduce the strains on our forces, 
the brave men and women in uniform, and their families who have 
rendered such extraordinary service--and tireless service--to 
this Nation.
    We can, and must, restore the economic power that 
underwrites our military strength, and prepare for a very 
complex and uncertain future. This is a critical time for our 
country, the stakes are high, the resources are tight, and the 
need to make hard choices is pressing.
    If I am confirmed by this committee, and by the Senate, as 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I promise you that I 
will work diligently to help the President-elect and Secretary 
Gates responsibly conclude the war in Iraq, and continue the 
fight against al Qaeda and its associated movement. I will work 
closely with inter-agency partners, and international partners, 
to support the stabilization of Afghanistan.
    Working with our colleagues at the State Department, I will 
engage with our allies and our partners, to advance common 
security interests, and help build their capacity to move 
forward. I will do my best to help the U.S. military adapt to 
the challenges of the 21st century. I will also do my best to 
ensure that our brave men and women in uniform have what they 
need to be successful in the field, and that they have the 
peace of mind, knowing that their families are receiving the 
support that they deserve.
    Over the course of my career, I have been truly blessed, 
with remarkable opportunities to contribute to U.S. national 
security and defense policy, in government, and in the think-
tank world.
    If confirmed, I assure you that I will work very hard to 
ensure that DOD implements the President-elect's national 
security strategy in a way that is both principled and 
pragmatic. I pledge to listen to the best available civilian 
and military advice, and to offer my own best advice and 
counsel to the Secretary of Defense and the President-elect.
    In closing, I just, again, want to thank President-elect 
Obama for nominating me for this position, Secretary Gates for 
supporting my nomination, and my family and my friends for 
their love and support. I am both honored and humbled to be 
before you today, and if the Senate chooses to confirm me in 
this position, I hope to fully justify your trust, and I look 
forward to working closely with all of you and your staff, 
going forward.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Ms. Flournoy.
    Now we have the nominee to be General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense, Jeh Charles Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson.

    STATEMENT OF JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL 
                 COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe.
    I want to thank the members of the committee and the staff 
for expediting the review of our nominations. I want to 
obviously acknowledge and thank the President-elect for 
designating me to be the nominee for General Counsel of DOD, 
and for the support of Secretary Gates. I've gotten to know him 
a little bit over the last several weeks, and I am as impressed 
as everyone else seems to be with Secretary Gates and his 
leadership of the Department.
    Obviously, I want to thank my family. My wife, Susan, is 
here behind me--my wife of 15 years--my sister and brother-in-
law from Alabama are here, my two children could not be here 
today. My son's obligations to his World Civ class overrode his 
desire to appear before this committee. [Laughter.]
    I also want to note some friends of mine from the Air Force 
from when I was General Counsel of the Air Force. Retired Major 
General Bill Morman, former Judge Advocate General of the Air 
Force, is here today. I also want to note the presence of Judge 
Stucky from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, former 
counsel to this committee.
    I appeared here for confirmation 10 years ago, in front of 
Chairman Strom Thurmond. I first worked for the United States 
Senate in 1978 as an intern for Pat Moynihan, and so my respect 
for the United States Senate is enormous. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with the Senate, with this committee, and I 
look forward to supporting the men and women in uniform who 
sacrifice so much.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Johnson.
    Now there are some standard questions which we ask of all 
of our nominees. I'll ask you all to answer together on these 
questions.
    Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations 
governing conflicts of interest? [All four witnesses answered 
in the affirmative.]
    Have you assumed any duties, or undertaken any actions 
which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation 
process? [All four witnesses answered in the negative.]
    Will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines 
established for requested communications, including questions 
for the record in hearings? [All four witnesses answered in the 
affirmative.]
    Will you cooperate in providing witnesses, and brief 
written response to congressional requests? [All four witnesses 
answered in the affirmative.]
    Will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their 
testimony or briefings? [All four witnesses answered in the 
affirmative.]
    Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify, upon 
request, before this committee? [All four witnesses answered in 
the affirmative.]
    Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of 
electronic forms and communication, in a timely manner, when 
requested by a duly-constituted committee, or to consult with 
the committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or 
denial in providing such documents? [All four witnesses 
answered in the affirmative.]
    Thank you. I think we'll try an 8-minute first round. We 
have four witnesses, so there will likely be a second round, 
but in order to give everybody an opportunity to ask questions, 
we'll start with an 8-minute first round.
    Mr. Lynn, you've made reference to the cost growth and 
other problems on DOD's major acquisition programs, and those 
problems have reached crisis proportions. Last spring, as I 
mentioned, GAO reported that the cost overruns on the 
Department's 95 largest system acquisition programs now total 
roughly $300 billion over original program estimates, even 
though we have cut unit quantities and reduced performance 
expectations on many programs, in an effort to hold down costs.
    In response to a pre-hearing question, you note that some 
of this cost growth is a result of ``a reluctance'' to balance 
performance demands, particularly in the early stages of 
programs, when decisions have a major impact on subsequent cost 
and schedule outcomes. The Department recently instituted an 
organization, which is called the ``tri-chair'' committee, 
bringing together senior officials that are responsible for 
acquisition, budget, and requirements, in an effort to better 
balance cost, schedule, and performance early in the 
acquisition cycle.
    My question to you is, if confirmed, do you anticipate 
continuing that process, or a similar process, to ensure the 
tradeoffs between cost, schedule, and performance of a major 
weapons system are fully considered, before it's too late?
    Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the thrust 
of your comments, that the key to getting a handle on programs 
costs is to ensure that we are able to establish the 
requirements upfront, and adhere to those requirements, unless 
there is some overriding need, but not to regularly change 
those. It's critical to do that upfront.
    I'm aware of the tri-chair process, I haven't had time to 
study it, but I think the direction that goes--the setting of 
requirements--is done at the highest level, and that any 
changes later in the program be also approved at the highest 
levels, is the right principle.
    Chairman Levin. A year ago, Mr. Lynn, we established an 
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, to ensure that the 
Department will have the workforce that it needs to ensure that 
the billions we spend on acquisition programs every year get 
the planning, management, and oversight they need.
    Over the last 8 years, the Department's spending on 
acquisition programs has more than doubled, but the acquisition 
workforce has remained essentially unchanged in numbers and in 
skills. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Acquisition 
Workforce Development Fund is fully implemented, and used for 
the intended purpose of rebuilding the acquisition workforce?
    Mr. Lynn. I agree with the Chairman that rebuilding the 
acquisition workforce is a critical tenant in improving our 
overall acquisition process. As you've noted, Mr. Chairman, 
we've had an increase in the program costs and not a 
corresponding increase in the acquisition workforce.
    I'd add to that, there's also a bubble of retirement. Many 
of the current workforce is eligible for retirement, they're 
going to need to be replaced with expert personnel, and I think 
the mechanism that the committee has put in place for the 
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund is going to be an 
important part of improving and developing the future cadres of 
our acquisition workforce.
    Chairman Levin. Mr. Hale, will you agree to keep that 
mechanism in place, or a similar mechanism?
    Mr. Hale. Mr. Chairman, we will definitely work with the 
committee to make sure that we support from the Comptroller's 
shop, the Acquisition Fund, and more generally, the improvement 
in acquisition planning.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, and Mr. Johnson, this question is 
for all three of you. I've spoken to each of you about my 
concerns regarding the use of contractors in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, to perform functions that have historically been 
performed by government personnel.
    I think you're aware of recently enacted legislation with 
regard to private security contractors, and contract 
interrogators. Now, I have a few short questions for each of 
you. Would you agree that the Department needs to undertake a 
comprehensive review of whether, and to what extent, it is 
appropriate for contractors to perform functions like 
performing private security in high-threat environments, and 
interrogation of detainees, and that the congressional views 
expressed in two sections of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 should be fully considered in the 
course of that review?
    First, would you agree with the need to undertake that 
review, Mr. Lynn?
    Mr. Lynn. I do agree, Mr. Chairman, that we do need a 
baseline to understand what the appropriate roles are for the 
military, for civilian personnel, and for contractors, and we 
ought to base our judgments on the size of each of those forces 
on those judgments.
    Chairman Levin. Will you undertake that review?
    Mr. Lynn. I will certainly work on that review. My 
understanding is Secretary Gates has asked Admiral Mullin to 
begin, at least, a piece of that, and we'll be working--
together with Admiral Mullin, under the direction of Secretary 
Gates--on that matter.
    Chairman Levin. Okay.
    Ms. Flournoy, do you agree with the need for that review?
    Ms. Flournoy. I do, sir. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Okay, thank you.
    Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator, I do. I know from our 
conversations with Secretary Gates that he is concerned about 
increased accountability of private contractors in the field.
    Chairman Levin. Now, for each of you, would you agree that 
long-term policy decisions about the roles that may or may not 
be performed by contractors should guide our future force 
structure, rather than being driven by limitations on our 
existing forces?
    Mr. Lynn?
    Mr. Lynn. That was the thrust of my earlier comment, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy.
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes, sir, I agree with that.
    Chairman Levin. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Would each of you agree that while policy 
decisions on these issues should be informed by the views of 
our uniformed military, that they must ultimately be made by 
Congress, the President, and the civilian leadership of DOD?
    Mr. Lynn.
    Mr. Lynn. I agree with that.
    Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy.
    Ms. Flournoy. I do, as well, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. This is for you, Ms. Flournoy.
    President-elect Obama has called for additional combat 
troops for Afghanistan. The Defense Department has plans for 
sending up to four combat brigades and support units, or 30,000 
additional U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan, potentially doubling 
the nearly 32,000 soldiers currently serving there.
    Secretary Gates has said that most of these combat brigades 
will not be available for deployment to Afghanistan until late 
spring or early summer, in part due to continuing deployments 
in Iraq. It's now been reported that the Department is saying 
that the additional troops for Afghanistan will not be fully 
deployed by the end of the summer. Do you support a proposal, 
first of all, to nearly double the U.S. troop presence in 
Afghanistan?
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I do believe that we need to 
substantially plus-up the size of our forces in Afghanistan to 
secure and stabilize the environment there, yes.
    Chairman Levin. How aggressive should we be in our efforts 
to get the additional U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan faster?
    Ms. Flournoy. I actually think the intent of both 
President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates is to move as quickly 
as possible. I have not yet been briefed on the details in 
terms of what would be required to do that, but I do believe 
that in principle, we should be moving as quickly as possible.
    Chairman Levin. What would you think about drawing down 
U.S. forces in Iraq faster, in order to accelerate the 
deployment of additional forces in Afghanistan?
    Ms. Flournoy. Again, Senator, I think the key principle is 
to shift the emphasis, but to do so in a very responsible 
manner. I, again, have not been briefed on the details of 
what's possible there, but I do look forward to looking into 
that, and getting back to discussing that with this committee.
    Chairman Levin. Okay, thank you.
    Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, as we were having opening remarks, I wrote 
down a couple of things that were said.
    Mr. Hale, having the necessary resources--I was glad to 
hear that because--and I think Ms. Flournoy, you said 
essentially the same thing--restore economic power to the 
military. I think that's a recognition that there's no cheap 
way out of this thing. I know a lot of people used to talk 
about a percentage of gross domestic product that should go 
toward military, but it won't serve any useful purpose to talk 
about that.
    I think there are some areas where we just have to 
recognize that we are faced--as I said in my opening 
statement--with, in my opinion, greater threats than we have 
been in the past, because of the asymmetrical nature of the 
enemy.
    Each of us up here on this committee has programs that we 
have watched work in the field. Rather than just to hear 
testimony from various committees here in Washington, see how 
they work on the ground. I have some that I think work very 
well, and I would like to ask Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy your 
opinions of these.
    First of all, the International Military Education and 
Training (IMET) program is an education program, I'm sure 
you're familiar with that. Ironically, back in the beginning of 
that program, we were doing the IMET program as if we were 
doing a favor to them--I'm talking about other countries--who 
would be sending their officer material to be trained in the 
United States.
    The more I served--was in the field, and observed this 
program--the more I felt that this was something that really, 
we're doing for ourselves. There's no better relationship than 
one that comes from training. I've seen some of the officers go 
back to their countries--whether it's in Africa or elsewhere--
and they have an allegiance that is there.
    Second, if we don't do it, either China is going to do it, 
or somebody else is going to do it. That's one of the programs 
that I have strong feelings about.
    Next are the train-and-equip programs--the section 1206, 
1207, and 1208 programs. It's been my opinion, as we go around, 
that by doing this, we can avoid having our own troops have to 
do a lot of the things that they otherwise can be trained to do 
for us.
    The third one is the Commander's Emergency Response Program 
(CERP). I think they've changed the name of that, they always 
do that to confuse us, I think. But nonetheless, this allows 
the commanders in the field to have a greater latitude of what 
they can do. Some of the experiences that I had, early on, in 
Baghdad when it appeared that if the commander were in a 
position to take care of some of the transmitting problems, of 
electricity into some of the neighborhoods--they could do it, 
and do it cheaper--a lot cheaper--than going through the 
lengthy process of acquisition to get these things done.
    These are three of the programs that I feel personally very 
strongly about, and I'd like to know if you have any comments 
about your feelings toward IMET, train-and-equip, and CERPs.
    Mr. Lynn. Let me respond, first, Senator Inhofe, and then 
turn to Ms. Flournoy.
    I agree with you, Senator, overall, the military exchanges, 
the military training programs, should be seen in the light of 
a benefit to the United States, not as a favor to someone else. 
They develop relationships that we build on over decades, they 
provide an understanding for us of other country's militaries 
and how they operate, and equally importantly, they provide 
these other countries senior leadership when these individuals 
rise to the senior leaders, as many of them do. It provides 
them with an understanding of how we operate, and the strengths 
of this Nation.
    Just one comment on CERP. I agree it's a very important 
program, Senator. I think we have to be conscious that we have 
to balance the importance of knowledge at the front end that 
those commanders on the ground understand, I think, best the 
needs that are right in front of them.
    On the other hand, we have to have appropriate controls of 
taxpayer dollars. We have to ensure that we have a process that 
both gives the flexibility that's needed on the ground and 
assurance that the money is spent in an appropriate manner.
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, thank you for that.
    I believe that all three of the programs--well, the two 
programs that you mentioned, IMET and the train-and-equip 
authorities--are very critical to our engagement with other 
militaries, and to building partner capacity--helping them to 
be able to do more alongside us, where we have common 
interests.
    On CERP, in particular, I think the intention of that 
program was originally for force protection and also to assist 
affected populations in counterinsurgency and stability 
operations, and so forth. I think it's a very critical tool for 
our military in the field. I would also say that all of these, 
really, are most effective when they're part of an integrated, 
sort of whole of government approach to a particular country, 
or to a particular region. So, I would hope that we would view 
and use them in the future in that context.
    Senator Inhofe. I think I would agree with your response to 
this. I would only ask that you get into this, look at some of 
the examples where, Mr. Lynn, we've actually saved a lot of 
money, on the example that I used on the transmission 
situation. It was about 10 percent of what it would have cost, 
having to go through the whole thing.
    Second, another program that I have been very interested 
in. The African continent is so important. When we had that 
divided up into three commands, it wasn't working very well. Of 
course, we had the Pacific Command, the European Command, and 
the Central Command. They're doing a great job with that 
program right now. But it is really suffering in terms of 
getting the resources necessary for it.
    It is my hope when we established the Africa Command 
(AFRICOM), that we would actually have the headquarters in 
Africa someplace, thinking, perhaps in Ethiopia or some of the 
other places where it would have worked better.
    Unfortunately, even though it's my experience talking to 
the presidents, and I'm talking about including Yoweri Museveni 
(President of Uganda), Meles Zenawi (Prime Minister of 
Ethiopia), Paul Kagame (President of Rwanda), and all of the 
rest of them, that they think it would work better, but they 
can't sell the idea.
    It's going to require, I think, more resources for AFRICOM 
than they have had before, and I'd just like to ask Mr. Lynn 
and Mr. Hale if you would be willing to get into that, and to 
see how well it's working, and perhaps they have transportation 
needs, and other needs to make that program work better.
    Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. We certainly will look at 
AFRICOM. I certainly agree that it's a far better situation to 
have a unified command, have responsibility for the continent, 
rather than divide it up under three different commands. This 
is an important initiative. We need, certainly, to look at the 
resources, and I'd undertake to do that.
    Senator Inhofe. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Hale. We'll certainly support him from the 
Comptroller's standpoint.
    Senator Inhofe. All right. Finally, my time is about to 
expire, we have had discussions in this committee, and we've 
had a lot of discussions--some pretty lively--on the floor, 
about the Future Combat System (FCS). My goal has always been 
that we give our kids that are out there the best resources 
that are available and all of these resources that are better 
than our prospective opponents.
    Things like the non-line of sight cannon. It happened that 
we're still relying on the old Paladin, which is World War II 
technology. There are five countries, including South Africa, 
that have a better artillery piece than we do.
    I would hope that you would look very carefully on all of 
the elements--some 12 to 15 elements of a FCS--that you could 
bring me into your discussion, your thinking process. Because 
some of us have a greater interest than others do in those 
programs. Any thoughts on the FCS that you'd like to share? Any 
of you?
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, I think the fundamental premise that you 
stated is absolutely right, that the elements that are in the 
FCS are going to be essential to the modernization of the Army 
towards the next generation of equipment. We will want to do, I 
think, a complete review of that program, and the underlying 
technologies need to be part of the future force, and we'll 
certainly work with you and with the other Members of Congress, 
as we undertake that review.
    Senator Inhofe. I appreciate it very much. My time is 
expired.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
    Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for 
allowing me to make just a few comments. I was over at the 
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
introducing Governor Janet Napolitano to the committee. She's 
been nominated for Secretary of Homeland Security.
    I would like to congratulate the nominees. We look forward 
to a rapid confirmation.
    Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy, we've had other encounters in 
the past, and welcome Mr. Hale and Mr. Johnson. We look forward 
to your rapid confirmation and movement to the floor of the 
Senate, so you can get to work.
    I'd also like to say welcome to the new members of the 
committee, and we look forward to working with them.
    Mr. Chairman, I've forgotten how many years now this makes 
that you and I have worked together, I look forward to a very 
productive year--or two--in very challenging times. Thank you 
for all of the cooperation that you have displayed, which is a 
long tradition of this committee of bipartisanship. I look 
forward to working with you.
    Gentleman, and Ms. Flournoy, we have very great challenges 
over in DOD. Some very tough decisions are going to have to be 
made, whether it be the F-22, or whether it be the larger issue 
of our engagement--disengagement--in Iraq, or further 
engagement in Afghanistan, as well as all of the myriad of 
other challenges that we face.
    I look forward to working with you. I congratulate you and 
your families, and I appreciate your willingness to serve.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator McCain. You and 
your staff, as always, are playing an instrumental role in the 
success of this committee, and we are grateful for that, and 
all that you do.
    It's the rule of the committee, here, the tradition that we 
call on members, we go back and forth between Democrats and 
Republicans, but for the new members, we do that on the basis 
of an ``early bird'' rule.
    Senator Reed has just arrived in time to ace out Senator 
Webb. [Laughter.]
    He didn't want any questions. I already had asked Senator 
McCain. Thank you so much.
    Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. This is the first and last time I'll ace out 
Senator Webb. Forgive me.
    Senator Webb. I doubt that. [Laughter.]
    Senator Reed. Again, I think the President-elect has chosen 
a superb team.
    Let me address a general question to both Mr. Lynn and Ms. 
Flournoy. Secretary Gates has written his fundamental concern 
is that there's not commensurate institutional support, 
including in the Pentagon for the capabilities needed to win 
today's wars, and some of their likely successors, which raises 
a host of issues that the tradeoff for preparing for 
conventional warfare against near peer competitors, versus 
irregular asymmetrical warfare.
    It also raises the issue of the integration of private 
contractors into the operations of DOD, and it raises the issue 
of the intergovernmental activities necessary--particularly to 
conduct irregular warfare, asymmetrical warfare. I'm sure my 
colleagues have touched on some of these issues.
    But I wonder if--first Mr. Lynn, and then Ms. Flournoy--you 
could give us an idea of your views at the moment on these 
complex issues?
    Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator.
    I think Secretary Gates has it right, I think the 
fundamental challenge in doing the next QDR which will start, 
if confirmed, as soon as we get there, is to balance between 
the near-term needs of the force in the field, and the longer-
term threats that are perhaps beyond the horizon, but still out 
there.
    That's complicated by what you mentioned, Senator, that 
there's a tension between the potential for a high-end, near-
peer threat, as well as a lower-end counterinsurgency, and the 
types of equipment, types of forces, types of training, types 
of doctrine that you would use for one, don't necessarily apply 
fully to the other. Establishing that balance, I think, is 
going to be critical in the next QDR.
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would agree. I think looking at 
the initial review that the Department will undertake, I think 
the first question is going to be how do we strike the right 
balance, set the right priorities, allocate risk in current 
operations between Iraq, Afghanistan, larger operations around 
the world to combat terrorism.
    But then as we look forward, in the QDR, thinking about 
what kinds of warfare do we really need? As we want the force 
as a whole to be full-spectrum, we're going to have to make 
choices that essentially allocate risk along that spectrum.
    I really am looking forward, if confirmed, to working with 
members of this committee to try to frame and form those 
judgments going forward, so that we have a force that is robust 
across the spectrum.
    Senator Reed. Let me raise another issue, Mr. Lynn, which 
touches on almost everything we do today. That is the issue of 
energy. First of all, internal to your responsibilities to run 
the Department efficiently, you have to have a much more 
energy-efficient approach not just in simply management, but 
also in terms of the strategic challenges that poses.
    I saw, yesterday, where the Army took delivery of about 
several thousand vehicles, I believe, electric vehicles for use 
on various forts around the country. That might be an example 
of forward thinking. But, can you comment at all about the two 
issues, here. Internally--how to be more energy effective--is 
that going to be one of your priorities? Then, internationally, 
if any comments you would want to make.
    Mr. Lynn. I think the President-elect has made a new energy 
policy one of his priorities, so it will certainly be one of 
mine. The Department is, I think, a critical component of the 
President-elect's direction in this area, not just that we can 
make progress in terms of energy efficiency, the threat of 
global warming, but as, I think, you were alluding to, the 
potential cost savings for the Department of moving away from 
an oil-based dependency are huge. Whether it's fuel cells or 
synthetic fuels or other mechanisms, the potential in a time of 
real budget stress for the Department to make that kind of 
savings makes it an essential initiative on that basis, as 
well.
    Senator Reed. Thank you.
    Just let me ask Mr. Johnson, and then Mr. Hale a question.
    Mr. Johnson, over the last several years, many of the 
uniformed lawyers in DOD--and some of their civilian 
counterparts--had serious misgivings about policies that were 
being pursued. As much as a comment, but also assurance that 
you will, one, listen to these uniformed officers, that you'll 
make sure that their opinions are respected, and at least 
passed along, and that you, yourself, will be actively engaged, 
and seeking out--particularly when there are tough questions--
both sides of the argument. Is that something you can assure 
us?
    Mr. Johnson. Senator, when I was General Counsel of the Air 
Force I think that we had, between the civilian and military 
lawyers in the Department, as good a working relationship as 
ever existed in the Department. I'd like to think that the 
Judge Advocates General (JAGs) would say the same thing.
    My style of legal analysis, decisionmaking, putting 
together recommendations for the Secretary is collaboration. I 
want all points of view. I'd want to hear from the two-star, 
now three-star Judge Advocate, as well as the major who works 
the issue, who understands it better than anybody.
    If I know that the military lawyers in the Department have 
a strong view about something, have an opinion about something, 
that the Secretary is considering, I had no problem with 
bringing the JAG in with me to the Secretary's Office, so that 
I would express my General Counsel's view, and he had an 
opportunity to express his view, and the Secretary would make 
up his own mind about what to do.
    From a practical point of view, if you're wrestling with 
tough legal issues, you have every interest in wanting to get 
the input of the cross-section of lawyers across the 
Department. We have many excellent military lawyers who, 
frankly, have experiences and viewpoints that, as a civilian, I 
don't share. I want to know what they think.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    Finally, Mr. Hale, one of the realities of the last several 
years has been robust supplemental appropriations. I think that 
is not something that you're going to enjoy as Comptroller. 
Have you given any thought as to how you rebalance the budget 
system, given the fact that we have to get away from these big 
supplementals?
    Mr. Hale. Senator, we need to move away from supplementals, 
I think the Secretary has said that, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs has said that--I certainly agree. We're going to need a 
supplemental in fiscal year 2009 for the second portion, 
without question. I think after that, and if confirmed, I need 
to look at how quickly we can make that happen, obviously, 
working with Mr. Lynn if he's confirmed and others in the 
Department. But we do need to move away from supplementals.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
    Senator Chambliss.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me welcome each of you, and thank you for your 
willingness to serve. All of you are making a real commitment 
to America, and for that we appreciate it very much. We look 
forward to moving you into position in a hurry, so as Senator 
McCain said, you can get to work.
    Particularly, I want to welcome Mr. Johnson. As has been 
stated, he is a graduate of Morehouse College, one of the 
premiere institutions in the country. I'm not prejudiced just 
because it's in Atlanta, but we certainly know that he is well-
educated, and we look forward to working with you, Mr. Johnson.
    To Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, Mr. Hale--one of the things that 
I think is a very smart decision of the Department over the 
last several years is to purchase major weapons systems on 
multi-year contracts. It's saved, literally, millions and 
millions of dollars for the Government and allowed us to buy 
more weapons systems then we would have been able to do 
otherwise within the budget constraints that we've had.
    The F-22 has been a success in that standpoint, as well as 
the C-17 and the C-130. I'm not sure what else we could include 
down the road, but I would simply say to you, I hope as you go 
through the budget process--which is going to be extremely 
difficult, we all know that--that we give great consideration 
to trying to figure out, at least lots of weapons systems that 
we know we're going to have to buy. Let's look at moving into 
multi-year contracts on as many of these different lots of 
weapons systems as we can.
    If any of you have any comment one way or the other, 
relative to multi-years, I would appreciate that.
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, I think multi-year contracting does 
offer an opportunity to get savings. I think you have to look 
at it on a case-by-case basis and see if the economic order 
quantities, and the up-front justify the commitment over a 
multi-year period, but I think when we find cases that occurs, 
the savings to the Department are certainly well-needed, as you 
suggested.
    Mr. Hale. I certainly share that view. I'm mindful that we 
have a tough challenge to make ends meet in DOD, so I encourage 
the components to look where it's appropriate, at things like 
multi-year contracting.
    Senator Chambliss. Mr. Lynn, you and I talked the other day 
about depot maintenance, and the issue of modifications being 
an issue that may be revisited by the Department, with respect 
to whether or not modifications are going to be included within 
the definition of depot maintenance, and how that's going to 
affect 50/50. I would simply ask you for the record, if this 
discussion does come up, and there is any consideration of 
changing current statutes relative to the definition of 
modifications within depot maintenance, that you commit that 
you're going to come back and discuss this with us before any 
kind of major shift in that is done.
    Mr. Lynn. I do commit, Senator, that we'll discuss any 
major changes in depot policy with members of this committee, 
as well as other appropriate Members of Congress.
    Senator Chambliss. Ms. Flournoy, I--along with Senator 
Levin--serve on the Board of the Western Hemisphere Institute 
for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), which has been a very 
effective entity in dealing with our neighbors to the south. 
We've obviously had some controversy with respect to WHINSEC, 
but with the changes that have been made, we now are providing 
a valuable service to our country because of the relationship 
that's been developed with Central and South American 
neighbors, particularly as it regards the emerging threats.
    I think this has the potential to be--if not the next hot 
spot--certainly one of the hot spots relative to WMD, drug 
trafficking, weapons trafficking, as well as other issues. As 
this policy with respect to WHINSEC is reviewed, I would simply 
ask that you, number one, keep an open mind, listen to the 
commanders at Northern Command and Southern Command who are 
openly, very much in support of what we're doing at WHINSEC 
right now, and I don't know how familiar you are with it, but 
if you have any comments relative to that, I would appreciate 
it.
    Ms. Flournoy. Sir, I have not had the opportunity yet to be 
briefed on details. I am generally familiar, but I would 
certainly pledge to keep an open mind, and hear all views going 
forward, and I do share your belief--fundamentally--that 
engagement with WHINSEC--not only because of the transnational 
threats, but because of all kinds of opportunities that exist 
for our country in relations with our neighbors. But that's a 
critical strategic issue and I will, if confirmed, give it 
strong attention.
    Thank you.
    Senator Chambliss. Again, to all of you, thank you for your 
willingness to serve, we look forward to a very strong working 
relationship with the Department, as we've always had.
    Thank you.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
    Senator Webb.
    Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the time constraints on 
this process. I would say that it's also a bit difficult to 
prepare for nominations each of which has such 
responsibilities. Having gone through two confirmations in this 
committee, each time sitting there for several hours by myself 
while you, actually, and others had your way with me.
    It's a pretty short time period to be able to do all of 
this. I would hope that all of you would pledge to us to remain 
available over the next several months, if we have follow-up 
questions to clarify some of these matters.
    Chairman Levin. If I can interrupt you----
    Senator Webb. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. That's a very important point. We are going 
to keep the record open for questions. In addition to your 
request, which I would expect that they would honor, that they 
always be available to us, but they be particularly available 
to us in the next few months because of the way in which we 
have compacted these hearings, it's an important point.
    Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    A minor point, but Mr. Johnson, a counsel on my staff has 
some specific questions with respect to your replies to written 
questions. I think he wants some further clarification. You 
were very lawyerly and precise in your responses, he may want 
just a little more information on a couple of areas. If you 
could contact our office at some point today, I don't want to 
take up my time during the hearing on it. They're probably 
small points.
    Mr. Johnson. I would be happy to do that, Senator.
    Senator Webb. Great, thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. I apologize for being lawyerly.
    Senator Webb. We would expect that, and we will always 
follow up.
    Mr. Lynn, we had, I think, a very fruitful meeting with 
you, yesterday. I appreciate your time, and listening to your 
comments today, the second and the third points that you made 
about your goals, I think, are very relevant to where we need 
to go. When you speak of the need to really get into proactive 
reform measures, I want to work with you on that. We had a long 
conversation about this whole notion of independent 
contractors.
    There is, I think, a fallacy right now when people start 
talking about ``the total force'' as Active, Reserve, and 
independent contractors. Having spent a great deal of my life, 
early on, working on the total force, when something fell into 
long-term, semi-permanent independent contractors, that was 
essentially viewed as a flaw in the total force, not a part of 
it.
    We have a situation now where we probably have more 
independent contractors in Iraq than we do military people, and 
I don't think that's healthy for the country.
    Your second point about making a commitment to really scrub 
the budget--this year's, next year's--and to bring the type of 
tightness to this budget that we haven't seen in awhile, is 
very important to me, and actually, Ms. Flournoy, you have 
written about this. There's an article here from the Washington 
Quarterly, where you went into your own views about the 
environment that we're now going to be in, and how important it 
is to really put a new sense of responsibility and 
accountability into this process.
    In that regard, I'm going to ask you about this Mayport 
issue, both of you. This decision by the Navy to relocate a 
nuclear carrier to Mayport, FL, with the additional requirement 
that it has to refix the process down there in order to enable 
it to handle nuclear carrier facilities--they haven't done this 
in 47 years. Forty-seven years ago, we started having nuclear 
carriers here in Norfolk. There was never a decision--at the 
height of the Cold War--to do something like this.
    The United States Navy, right now, has put forward a budget 
that is $4.6 billion in unfunded priorities--unfunded 
requirements. They have a shipbuilding program that is behind 
schedule. They have about 276, I think, ships. They had 568 
when I was Secretary of the Navy. They're trying to get to 313.
    They have, in my view, a lamentable record over the past 
several years in terms of their aircraft procurement programs, 
and they want to take $1 billion--which is what it's going to 
end up being, if you look at history--above these amounts in 
order to create a redundant facility in Mayport, FL.
    I'm not asking for an answer from you today, but what I 
would like from you is a commitment to examine this at the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level.
    You and I talked yesterday a good bit about the processes 
of the Defense Resources Board--which I sat on for 4 years--and 
I certainly think this is an item--whether I was representing 
Virginia or not, if I were in the Pentagon today, I would be 
saying the same thing. We have $4.6 billion in unfunded 
requirements? We're going to put this on top of it? How are we 
going to build the aircraft fleet back where it needs to be? We 
have empty squadrons out there--how are we going to get to 313 
ships--which is a floor?
    Ms. Flournoy, you've mentioned in a lot of the stuff you've 
written about, how important it is now for us to re-engage in 
terms of our maritime strategy around the world.
    I'm asking for your commitment to take a look at this at 
the OSD level, in terms of strategy and budget priorities.
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, we're going to have to look at the 
entire Navy program as well as the other Services. As you 
suggest, this is a major budget item. We'll commit to you that 
we will review it with you and Congress, about where we think 
we need to go on this program.
    Senator Webb. All right.
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would just add that from a policy 
or strategy perspective, I think we need to take a look at our 
global posture, including our home porting and basing structure 
is going to be, certainly, on the table in the QDR, going 
forward. I would hope that it would be.
    Senator Webb. We're entering a period where DOD, and I 
think the people at this table understand it--other people in 
DOD have to realize that these budgets are going to get a lot 
tighter, these programs are going to have to be justified. We 
haven't even seen a clear strategic justification for this. All 
we've seen is a little bit of rhetoric. We have the briefings 
from the Navy--it's not there.
    I appreciate your saying you will look at this, and we will 
continue to discuss it.
    Ms. Flournoy, you suffer from the same problem that I do, 
in that you are a rather prolific writer, so you have a large 
paper trail behind you on a lot of these different issues. But 
I would like a few clarifications, and if my time runs out, I 
may stay for a second round.
    You have written in the past, that you believe that there 
should be a residual force in Iraq of approximately 60,000 
American military, do you still believe that?
    Ms. Flournoy. Sir, I'm not willing to stand behind that 
number at this time, given that when I wrote that, we were in a 
somewhat different circumstance. There was no Status of Forces 
Agreement (SOFA) commitment, for example, the security 
environment was somewhat different.
    What I do believe is that I think there's a very strong 
commitment to implementing the SOFA, to bringing U.S. forces 
out of the combat role.
    I don't know what the long-term support for Iraqi forces in 
our long-term relationship is going to look like. I don't know 
if the Iraqi Government will want any U.S. forces in Iraq, once 
we reach the end of the SOFA. So, I think it's an open 
question.
    I would not want to be digging my heels on any particular 
number or posture at that point in time. I think the key thing 
is to implement the SOFA, and to reduce our role and our 
numbers there. I think a little bit down the road, we will have 
a better sense of what a security cooperation relationship with 
Iraq, going forward, looks like.
    Senator Webb. My time is up in this round--but I want to 
make sure I fully understand what you're saying. Do you believe 
that the U.S. strategy for that region requires a long-term 
presence of the U.S. military in Iraq?
    Ms. Flournoy. Not necessarily.
    Senator Webb. So, you don't believe it's a requirement?
    Ms. Flournoy. I don't think we know, yet. I don't think we 
know where we'll be at the end of 2011. The honest answer is, I 
don't know. But what I can say is if I am in this position, I 
would welcome the opportunity to continue to look at this, to 
discuss it with you, and other members of the committee----
    Senator Webb. This needs to be clarified.
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes.
    Senator Webb. You don't see--and I'm not trying to put 
words in your mouth--from what I'm hearing, you would not 
analogize the situation in Iraq to, for instance, the basing 
system that we have in Korea, in that----
    Ms. Flournoy. No, sir, I would not.
    Senator Webb. American military presence in Iraq is a 
regional requirement----
    Ms. Flournoy. I do not think Korea provides the right 
metaphor for what our relationship, long-term, with Iraq may, 
or should, be.
    Senator Webb. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
    Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Continuing along Senator Webb's line of thought, do you 
believe our relationship, militarily, with Kuwait, has been 
beneficial?
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes, I do, sir.
    Senator Graham. What about the United Arab Emirates?
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes, sir.
    Senator Graham. The point is, whatever relationship we have 
with Iraq is yet to be determined, I think that's a fair 
answer. The SOFA has a 2011 date on it with the ability to 
renegotiate a long-term agreement. As I understand it, their 
navy and air force are almost nonexistent, so I encourage you 
to keep that line of thinking up. Let's evaluate each year 
where we are with Iraq, and make a good decision that when we 
leave that we have a stable partner behind, that like Kuwait 
and other partners in the region, has been very beneficial in 
terms of our long-term strategic interests.
    I applaud you for that kind of thinking, and nobody here 
expects you to make a decision 3 years out until we look at the 
information.
    Now, one of the things that we're going to be dealing with 
in this new administration is the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I 
can assure you in this regard, a fresh start at the Pentagon is 
welcome.
    Where I stand, in terms of looking at detainee policy, Mr. 
Johnson, you come with great recommendation and high opinion by 
the military lawyers. The chairman hit on a very important 
point, along with Senator Reed, we need to make sure we do not 
make the mistakes of the past.
    I look forward to working with you, as well as the 
uniformed lawyers, to make sure that as we go forward, and when 
we close Guantanamo Bay--which I think we will--that we make 
some very wise decisions as a Nation. To make sure we humanely 
treat detainees, regardless of who they are, and what their 
ideology may be. That we have a transparent justice system, and 
that we also protect the Nation against people who are 
committed to our destruction.
    In that regard, Mr. Lynn, one thing I would ask from you--
there's been a report in the media that 61 of the detainees who 
have been released have gone back to the fight in some form. I 
don't know if that's accurate or not, but if you play the role 
of Gordon England, it will be up to you, really, under the 
current system--and I think we want to maybe change that, quite 
frankly--as to who stays and who goes.
    Two things--see if you can confirm how many people have 
gone back to the fight. Define what the fight is. Also, see if 
you can tell us, of the detainees that have been captures, how 
many of them were inappropriately detained? So that we can make 
a logical decision, going forward, about what kind of system to 
employ.
    There's two things we want to be sensitive of. We don't 
want to put someone in custody, long-term, who's in the wrong 
place at the wrong time. We don't want to let people go who 
present a military threat in the future. We have to do that 
based on a system that's competent, that's transparent, and 
that has checks and balances.
    Now, as we go forward, Mr. Lynn, what is your view of long-
term detention policy when it comes to people that we have 
captured that may not be subject to the normal criminal 
process? Have you thought about that much?
    Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. I'm aware of the role that, 
at least, the current Deputy Secretary plays, in terms of the 
detention release policy. I think the new administration will 
be looking at that, and I can't tell you right now whether I 
would be continuing that role or not. You're correct--I think 
that's going to be reevaluated.
    In answer to your specific question, clearly where 
possible, we want to prosecute. There are going to be 
circumstances where that's not going to be possible, and we're 
going to have to evaluate those individually. There's clear 
authority to hold enemy combatants. There's discussion as to 
what actually constitutes an enemy combatant, but we have that 
authority, and----
    Senator Graham. Would you think a member of al Qaeda should 
be classified as an enemy combatant?
    Mr. Lynn. I'd have to know more circumstances than simply 
that, Senator, really, to fully answer the question.
    Senator Graham. Okay, well, if I gave you a situation where 
the evidence was conclusive that this person was a part of an 
organization called al Qaeda that was actively involved with 
activity with al Qaeda, would they be a good candidate to be 
considered an enemy combatant?
    Mr. Lynn. Without quite going down the line of your 
hypothetical, Senator, I think there are certainly cases that 
al Qaeda operatives would be considered enemy combatants.
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    Mr. Johnson, when it comes to the criminal law--domestic 
criminal law and military law--do you see a difference between 
what the military justice system can do, and traditional 
domestic criminal law regarding detaining enemy combatants?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, Senator, I believe I do.
    First, let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm pretty much 
a traditionalist when it comes to the essential mission of the 
military. I believe that implicit in the ability of the 
military to do its job is the inherent ability to detain an 
enemy combatant captured on the battlefield. I think that's 
implicit in the job. I believe that the Supreme Court would say 
the same thing, and, in fact, it did, in the Hamdan decision.
    When Congress passed the authorization for the use of 
military force, the Supreme Court determined that, implicit in 
that was the authority to detain an enemy combatant----
    Senator Graham. If I could interrupt you right there. If a 
person is, in fact, detained as an enemy combatant, as I 
understand the law of armed conflict, once that decision has 
been properly made, there is no requirement to release them 
back to the fight if they still present a military threat.
    Mr. Johnson. If, in fact, Senator, that person was properly 
captured, and the circumstances suggest in your hypothetical 
that you posed is, in fact, a member of al Qaeda----
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Mr. Johnson. The al Qaeda that Congress had in mind in 
2001.
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Mr. Johnson. Then, I think the answer to your question is 
yes.
    Senator Graham. I look forward to working with you to clean 
up what is, quite frankly, a mess. The Military Commissions Act 
that was originally passed by our committee that enjoyed 
complete Democratic support, and three Republicans, may be a 
good document to look at in terms of how you would try somebody 
who is alleged of committing a war crime against the United 
States. This idea, how you detain someone that we believe to be 
an enemy combatant, indefinitely, is a thorny issue. But I 
think we can get there.
    My goal would be to tell the world that the reason this 
person is in prison, under military control, is not because we 
say so, but because there's competent evidence to suggest 
they're part of an enemy force that's been reviewed by an 
independent court, outside of DOD, and that more than one 
person reached that conclusion.
    If we could accomplish that goal, I think we'll improve our 
image and keep America safe. Just as sure as we're sitting 
here, we're going to pick somebody up in Afghanistan, and there 
are 900 people imprisoned in Afghanistan, that's going to have 
high intelligence value, may not be subject to trial in the 
United States, but presents a very serious threat to our 
national security and our troops in the field. Let's get ahead 
of that in a bipartisan manner, and I think this team can 
deliver. I think you're outstanding nominees, and I look 
forward to supporting you all.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
    Senator Ben Nelson.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to add 
my appreciation for your decision to serve, and certainly I am 
impressed with the comments that you've all made this morning, 
as well as your written statements.
    We're fighting two wars, and we're preparing for threats 
that emerge in the future, and are emerging right now. So the 
challenges that you're going to face are, needless to say, 
daunting. But I believe that you have the capacity to help us 
all deal with those emerging, as well as continuing, threats 
that we face today. I have a question regarding--and as 
chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee in the past--I certainly 
have a question regarding dwell time, as it might relate not 
only to the current circumstances, but to the future 
circumstances with the reduction of forces in Iraq, and an 
increase in Afghanistan.
    Mr. Lynn, we've already had challenges, meeting the goals 
for dwell time between deployments for troops with certain 
specialties. What do you consider a minimum for dwell time, 
under the circumstances we face today, and will that--in some 
respects--change as this transition goes forth?
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, I don't have a specific minimum at this 
point, prior to review, but I agree with the thrust of your 
question--deploying forces on repeated tours with 3, 6, 9 
months only, between those tours is a long-term detriment to 
the quality of the force. I think it's often been said that you 
recruit individuals and you retain families. I believe strongly 
that's the case.
    I think we have to be true to our military families and 
increase the dwell time to a level that reduces the burden on 
those families.
    Senator Ben Nelson. I know that Secretary Gates is 
committed to increasing it, and we all are. I guess the 
practicalities that we're going to face in terms of that 
transition are certainly going to have to be dealt with. I'm 
assuming that both you and Ms. Flournoy will do everything 
within your power to get the dwell time as generous as 
possible, under all circumstances.
    Mr. Lynn. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Hale, you said something about 
working diligently to get to the point of an audit. Do you 
honestly think that it's possible to get an audit of DOD?
    Mr. Hale. Senator, the Department has a plan. You're 
probably familiar with it, the Financial Improvement and Audit 
Readiness Plan, and I think the Department is working toward 
it. I'm mindful that the hardest things have been put to the 
end, and that there are enormous challenges remaining. I think 
at this point I'm not prepared to answer, definitively, your 
question, but I'd take your point, and if I'm confirmed, that's 
certainly something I want to look at.
    We may need to look at some priorities. What do we do first 
that would be most helpful? The goal of the audit, in my view, 
is just not simply to have an unqualified opinion, but to 
verify that we have good financial information. There may be 
some priorities we can impose on the audit, that lead most 
quickly to getting verification that we have good data.
    Senator Ben Nelson. In response to your answer, would it be 
possible to have, let's say, the equivalent of a partial audit 
in certain areas, that could be stairstepped? In other words, 
there are some high priority areas where probably the 
challenges are the greatest, in terms of getting an audit. 
There are going to be other areas where the necessity of an 
audit is stronger than, perhaps, some others. Are you going to 
look at trying to do this in some rational, stairstepping 
process?
    Mr. Hale. I think the answer is yes. There are some limits 
on partial audits, and the degree to which they can be done, 
but consistent with those limits--or abiding by those limits--I 
think we do need to look at priorities.
    Senator Ben Nelson. But your goal is to, essentially, at 
some point, get an unqualified audit?
    Mr. Hale. That is the law, and we are trying to pursue it. 
So, yes, it remains a goal. If confirmed, I certainly want to 
look at this issue. I'm mindful of the challenges.
    Senator Ben Nelson. It's Herculean.
    To increase public support for crucial nuclear security 
programs, and to achieve effective allocation of resources, Mr. 
Hale, what is your opinion on the possible recommendation for 
the executive branch to submit--as part of the annual budget 
request--both an unclassified, and a classified accounting of 
all nuclear weapons-related spending?
    Mr. Hale. Senator, that's a good question. I have to 
confess, I know about it only in general terms. I think that's 
one where borrowers learn more if I'm confirmed, and get back 
to you with a specific answer to the committee.
    Senator Ben Nelson. Because generally what we get is fairly 
sketchy, if it's related to something that's classified. 
Perhaps it is sketchy, in total, as well. But I'm hopeful that 
you'll look at that very carefully. I think it's a great 
recommendation, I hope we can see it followed.
    Ms. Flournoy, as we've talked in the past, the shortages of 
mid-level officers is continuing to be a problem for our 
military. The mid-level, because many of those mid-career 
warfighters are opting out of the military, because of the 
high-demand, high-stress deployment tempo, which puts this in 
connection with the previous question about dwell time. Do you 
have any thoughts about whether we can continue to have 
incentives? Or have we reached the point where incentives are 
not going to be sufficient to help us retain those mid-level 
career officers?
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I think you've put your finger on 
something that's very important to the long-term health of the 
All-Volunteer Force. I would hope that, going forward, the 
Department would take a close look at this issue.
    I think when you think about incentives, we have to define 
that broadly, not just financial incentives, but educational 
opportunities, career development opportunities, flexibility, 
and so forth. I think we are asking so much of the people who 
serve, and particularly our officer corps--our field-grade 
officer corps today--that if we're going to retain these 
incredibly skilled, experienced people, we're going to have to 
look anew at their career paths, at their incentives, and so 
forth. I would hope, if confirmed, to have an opportunity to be 
part of that examination.
    Senator Ben Nelson. I would assume that would apply, as 
well, to the professional ranks, with physicians, dentists, and 
other professional areas? The challenge there is both 
recruiting in the professional ranks, officers, but the 
retention is true in both cases--of our warfighters as well as 
those who provide the backup services.
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes.
    Senator Ben Nelson. I see that my time is expired. Thank 
you very much, all of you, and we look forward to working with 
you in the days ahead.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator Nelson.
    Senator Thune.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 
nominees for their willingness to serve their country, and many 
of you have had careers in public service, and it's a great 
calling. We appreciate your willingness to answer that call 
again.
    Thank you for being here, thank you for the opportunity to 
meet with you individually, as well, and pull some of these 
questions.
    I do want to expand upon some of these issues that perhaps, 
have been covered, at least at some level already. But I'd like 
to get Mr. Lynn's and Ms. Flournoy's response to some questions 
relating to energy issues. Like I said, I think some of that 
ground has perhaps been covered. But, as we all know, we spend 
an awful lot of money every single year, sending that money to 
unfriendly foreign nations to purchase oil, some of which ends 
up in terrorist hands, and perhaps then is used by those 
organizations to destroy us, and to attack Americans.
    Our military is, of course, one of the biggest consumers of 
energy and of oil. The Air Force, alone, is the Federal 
Government's largest energy buyer, and spent $5.6 billion for 
aviation fuel in fiscal year 2007.
    As we all know, too, in 2007, 2008, oil prices reached 
record highs, which had a direct impact on the Air Force's 
readiness. Now we have oil prices that have come down, compared 
to what they were only a few months ago, and we tend to put 
those issues on the back burner, and get a little bit 
complacent, which I think is a big mistake.
    I think it's important that we look at ways that we can 
prevent that sort of crisis in the future, when those fuel 
prices go up again--which we know they will. That's why I've 
been pleased that the Secretary of the Air Force, Mike Donley, 
has signed an Air Force Energy Program Policy Memorandum last 
month which, among other things, establishes the goals of 
certifying the entire Air Force fleet, to use synthetic fuel 
blends by early 2011, and to acquire 50 percent of the Air 
Force domestic aviation fuel requirement be an alternative fuel 
blend by 2016.
    My question is, do you think that the Air Force's energy 
initiatives regarding synthetic and alternative fuels is worthy 
of Department-wide consideration?
    Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. Let me come back to your 
specific question, just make a couple of general points that--I 
agree with your emphasis on the energy area. The President-
elect, as a general policy, extending well beyond the 
Department, is committed to reducing the oil dependency, given 
the foreign sources of supply, given the global warming 
implications, and so on. The Department will certainly be a 
critical part as the largest government consumer of energy.
    As you suggest, there's a second reason, beyond those broad 
policy reasons. The financial implications to the Department of 
relying on oil are severe and have the potential to get much 
worse. There's an enormous savings out there if we can move 
away from that, as you indicated.
    Finally, I'd add one thing to yours. There's an operational 
benefit if we can move away from oil-based products, in that a 
huge part of the logistics strain of the United States military 
is just providing fuel to the forward forces. To the extent 
that we can find other, more efficient ways of supplying 
energy, whether they're fuel cells or other means, I think it 
will allow the military to perform the mission in a more 
effective way.
    For all of those reasons, I agree with the thrust of your 
comments. I'm not completely familiar with Secretary Donley's 
initiative, but your description is certainly compelling, and 
we'll take a close look at it--and what kind of broader 
application it might have, if confirmed.
    Senator Thune. Ms. Flournoy?
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would agree that, given the size 
of the enterprise, DOD has an opportunity to be a leader in 
areas of conservation and efficiencies, alternative fuels, and 
so forth. I have not had the opportunity to look at the 
specific proposal you put on the table, but I look forward to 
having that opportunity.
    I would also just underscore the importance of thinking 
about energy security and climate change together, and as key 
elements of the future that DOD has to grapple with in its 
military planning. I think this goes beyond current practices 
in how we use energy, but also to understanding how some of 
these energy trends are going to change the security 
environment that the U.S. military operates in 10, 15, 20 years 
out.
    Senator Thune. The RAND Corporation recently issued a study 
that estimates that synthetic fuel would reduce the U.S.'s 
reliance on foreign oil by as much a 15 percent, while possibly 
generating up to $60 billion in domestic revenue each year.
    One of the things that I've been advocating, and we've 
worked with my colleagues on the committee the last couple of 
years in the defense authorization bill, is to try to and get 
some procurement authority, multi-year procurement authority 
for purchasing synthetic fuel. The question I have is, would 
the Defense Department be supportive of efforts by Congress to 
provide incentives to promote private sector investment in 
synthetic fuel production, such as expanding the military's 
multi-year procurement authority for purchasing domestically-
produced synthetic and alternative fuels? I would direct the 
question, again, to Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy.
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, I would have to look at the question, 
and I pledge to you that I would do so, but I can't make a 
commitment prior to that kind of review.
    Senator Thune. Okay.
    Ms. Flournoy. I'm afraid I'm going to say the same thing.
    Senator Thune. I expected that response. But I do look 
forward to working with you, and hope we can find a way to make 
that happen. I think it will incentivize a lot greater 
participation by the private sector in expanding synthetic fuel 
production, if we have that type of multi-year procurement 
authority.
    As you probably know--and again, I would direct this to Mr. 
Lynn and Ms. Flournoy--the 2006 QDR stated the Department plans 
to develop a new land base penetrating long-range strike 
capability that would be fielded by 2018. Secretary Gates 
recently discussed that new national defense strategy in an 
article that was published in this month's edition of Foreign 
Affairs Journal, and it stated the U.S.'s ability to strike 
from over the horizon will be at a premium, and will require 
shifts from short-range to long-range systems, such as the 
next-generation bomber.
    In your view, will the next-generation bomber be vital to 
our national defense strategy, and what steps would the 
Department take to ensure that the next-generation bomber is 
able to achieve initial operational capability by 2018, which 
is currently the goal?
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, the review of the next-generation bomber 
program, and the underlying strategic premises that led to it, 
is going to be one of the central parts of the QDR that we'll 
undertake, if confirmed.
    The general trend, I think you're right, as we've moved 
towards more of an expanded view to look at Pacific scenarios, 
as well as European scenarios, the range of aircraft has 
certainly become a more important variable. The proliferation 
and the sophistication of air defenses have made stand-off 
almost essential to survivability. Both those strategic trends, 
I think, continue, but we're going to have to evaluate each 
program within those trends in this QDR that's coming forward.
    Senator Thune. Yes.
    Ms. Flournoy, anything to add to that?
    Ms. Flournoy. I would agree with that. I think the need for 
a long-range precision strike that can penetrate the most 
sophisticated enemy air defenses is absolutely critical. 
Hopefully the Department will use the QDR to examine the range 
of possible capabilities that will actually get us to meeting 
that need. Certainly the long-range bomber will be part of that 
discussion, a central part of that discussion.
    Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expired, so I 
want to thank our nominees for their service. We look forward 
to your speedy confirmation, thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Thune.
    After Senator McCaskill, I'm going to have to leave for a 
few minutes, and then Senator Webb is kindly going to take over 
for that period of time.
    Senator McCaskill.
    Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd like to begin with Mr. Johnson, if I could. Procurement 
fraud in DOD--in the 1990s, between 130 and 391 cases per year 
were referred for criminal prosecution. In 2007, that number 
was a whopping 11. Now, at the same time, you had the same 
drop-off in civil fraud cases. This defies common sense. We've 
had a massive explosion of procurement during the conflict in 
Iraq, and I would like to get a commitment from you today that 
this would be one of your highest priorities, as we strive to 
tell the taxpayers of this country that we get it, that they 
have been fleeced, in many instances, and our military has been 
shortchanged as a result of some of the procurement fraud that 
has gone on during the Iraq conflict, and that what is rumored 
to be a backlog of these cases that exist right now, would be 
immediately forwarded to the Department of Justice for 
appropriate prosecution.
    Mr. Johnson. Senator, I agree, given the growth of 
procurement dollars, that a dramatic fall-off like that--I'm an 
optimist in life, but I tend to doubt that it's because there's 
so much less procurement fraud out there in 2007.
    My recollection is, I actually prosecuted procurement fraud 
when I was a prosecutor, and this is obviously a very important 
area and I certainly would make that a priority. Yes.
    Senator McCaskill. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Hale, you and I had a chance to visit about the scandal 
at the Defense Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA). Obviously, the 
credibility of contracting is split apart at its core, if the 
very agency that's supposed to be looking over everyone's 
shoulder has the kind of problems that were documented by GAO, 
I mean, nothing's worse than an audit agency being found not to 
be compliance with auditing standards in government. It doesn't 
get any worse than that.
    Part of the examination of that scandal disclosed the 
lawyer for the audit agency wrote a letter to the 
whistleblower. I want to make sure that I share it with both 
you and Mr. Johnson, because it is the most egregious example I 
have ever seen of an unethical and completely inappropriate 
memo, saying to this person, ``Be quiet. You are not supposed 
to talk about this stuff to anyone, Congress or anyone else.'' 
It is enough to make your blood boil, when you read this memo.
    At the time, I asked what kind of action had been taken 
against the lawyer that wrote this memo? I got two excuses. 
One, the Special Counsel's investigation was still open, making 
any action inappropriate. Then, unfortunately for you Mr. 
Johnson, they passed the buck to you. That, in fact, the lawyer 
at the DCAA is in your chain of command, rather than the DCAA's 
chain of command.
    I would like your comment, Mr. Hale, about what you intend 
to do about the lawyer--I'm sure that lawyer is still there--
and I would like some comment about what will happen to this 
lawyer, who basically said to someone who was trying to right a 
wrong, ``Be quiet or you're going to pay.''
    Mr. Hale. Senator, I am concerned about the issues at DCAA, 
as we talked about yesterday. It is also an ongoing 
investigation, I want to see that investigation completed, and 
if I'm confirmed, I will commit to you that I'll be sure to 
review it, to solicit help from the Department's lawyers, and 
figure out what the right strategy is. But at the moment, I 
can't say what that is, but you have my attention, the issue is 
important, and we, if I'm confirmed, will certainly seek a 
resolution.
    Senator McCaskill. I certainly understand that employees 
within DOD have a standard of conduct. But I also understand, 
we can't do our job in oversight, if they are all stifled. I 
wanted to make sure that they understand that there are certain 
times, an obligation to come forward, and talk about what is 
happening internally.
    Mr. Johnson, I didn't mean to cut you off. Did you have 
anything to add?
    Mr. Johnson. I obviously am not familiar with the 
particular circumstances here. I agree with Mr. Hale, this is 
something important to look into.
    Just as a practical matter, my experience in life is, if 
you tell somebody to be quiet and go sit in a corner, it's 
probably going to come back and bite you, at some point.
    Senator McCaskill. It did.
    Mr. Johnson. Right.
    Senator McCaskill. Yes, in this instance, it did.
    Finally, Mr. Lynn, first of all, all of you, I appreciate 
your service. All of you are not coming back for the glory or 
the money, you're coming back because you want to serve, and I 
thank all four of you for that. I don't mean, by directing this 
question to you, to any way impugn your integrity.
    But the revolving door is an important issue for us to talk 
about, between the Pentagon, and the defense contracting 
community. You went directly from the Pentagon to a defense 
contractor. You are coming back directly from a defense 
contractor--one of the largest defense contractors--into DOD. 
In that role, you have a major responsibility over acquisition 
and procurement. This is troubling to a lot of people who are 
just looking at this situation.
    We have gone a long way in Congress to try to begin to stop 
the revolving door. We haven't done as well as we'd like to, 
but there's a whole lot of attention in the public about the 
revolving door between working in Congress and lobbying in 
Congress. Frankly, there isn't as much attention in the defense 
sector. It's an incestuous business, what's going on, in terms 
of the defense contractors, and the Pentagon, and the highest 
levels of our military.
    I'd like to give you an opportunity to speak to it, since 
you're an example of it. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, when I left the Department, I followed 
the strict ethics procedures, and didn't have any contact with 
the Department for the period that's set by law. On coming back 
into the Department, there are equally strict ethics procedures 
on what issues I can handle, and what issues I can't. I will be 
working with the General Counsel's Office to ensure I follow 
those ethics procedures completely.
    Senator McCaskill. Do you feel like you could be somebody 
who could be a reformer, in this regard? Do you sense that 
there's something else that we need to do? Do you sense that 
there may not be a problem that there is, maybe, too much 
short-cutting of picking up the phone, and dialing into the 
Pentagon from a defense contract agency because of former 
friends that are there, and vice versa? I mean, do you have any 
sense that reform is needed here?
    Mr. Lynn. Well, I----
    Senator McCaskill. Do you hear the hopeful tone in my 
voice?
    Mr. Lynn. I do hear the tone, Senator.
    I'm not aware whether the DCAA case, you probably have more 
familiarity with the details as to whether that was people 
leaving DCAA and contacting back to DCAA, I hadn't heard that, 
but perhaps you know more. I think we need to keep----
    Senator McCaskill. The best example I can give you is the 
Thunderbird scandal. That was somebody who had left the 
military and was working for a contractor, and reached back in 
the get a contract, a sweetheart contract, no bid, 
noncompetitive contract for some public relations work for the 
Air Force Thunderbirds--that's one example, I can give you some 
other examples.
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, I certainly believe that we need to 
maintain the highest ethical standards. I pledge to you that I 
will do that personally.
    In terms of your hopefulness that we can reform, I will 
work to not only ensure that we follow the highest ethical 
standards, but that we have the transparency that provides the 
public with the belief, the understanding that indeed those 
standards are being followed. It's not just the reality, it's 
the perception, and I understand that, and we plan to work on 
both.
    Senator McCaskill. Okay. Thank you all very much. I look 
forward to working with you.
    Senator Webb [presiding]. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
    Senator Hagan.
    Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In the absence of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, 
I am definitely honored to be on this committee, and I am 
excited about being here and working with all of you.
    North Carolina has one of the largest military footprints 
of any State in the country, and we're very proud that in North 
Carolina, our long-term support of the military--and as a 
member of this Armed Services Committee--I truly hope to be 
able to provide the support and advocacy that the many North 
Carolina men and women in our Armed Forces deserve.
    To the nominees, I want to offer you my congratulations. 
None of you would be here before this committee, if not for 
your competence, and your records of service. Should you all be 
confirmed, I am confident that you will serve our Armed Forces 
with distinction. So, thank you on that regard.
    As I mentioned, and I hope you know that the military is 
very important to North Carolina, and North Carolina is 
important to the military. It's my hope that, should you be 
confirmed, we can work closely together in the year to come.
    The people of North Carolina are very pleased about the 
results of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, 
and the Army and Marine Corps ``Grow the Force'' initiative. 
Both Fort Bragg and Camp LeJeune are slated to receive a large 
influx of personnel. The Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base 
BRAC Regional Task Force are ultimately expecting total gains 
of about 40,000 military and civilian personnel in and around 
the city of Fayetteville. I think that those changes are 
ultimately going to be a great thing for the military and the 
State of North Carolina.
    But in the meantime, there is a lot to be done in the 
surrounding communities to get ready for that increase in 
personnel that we're going to be seeing in the next few years. 
Obviously, it's a welcome challenge.
    We, in fact, are likely to see a large increase in funding 
for State and local construction projects, as a part of the 
economic recovery package that will be considered soon. I hope 
that in North Carolina some of that funding can be devoted to 
school construction for the added military personnel and 
people, and the infrastructure upgrades around the bases.
    In the case of Fort Bragg, some of these projects will be 
essential to ensuring the security of the Nation's largest Army 
post. But it's very important that BRAC be implemented as 
smoothly and efficiently as possible.
    Mr. Lynn, let me ask you a question. Do you foresee any 
significant barriers to an efficient and timely implementation 
of BRAC? I would ask that you would work with me and the 
committee to ensure as smooth and orderly a transition as 
possible.
    Mr. Lynn. Thank you, Senator. I agree with the Senator that 
the BRAC process has been an incredibly important process for 
the Department as it right-sizes its infrastructure to the new 
size of the force over a couple of decades, and that's been 
something that's gone through, I think, five iterations now, 
and we wouldn't have been able to get anywhere close to the 
right-sized infrastructure without that.
    I would pledge to you that we would want to protect the 
integrity of that process. I can't get into specific 
commitments on individual programs or projects, but it's 
certainly something we would want to work with you and ensure 
that the process remains as strong as it has been.
    Senator Hagan. Thank you.
    Again, congratulations to all of you. I certainly do look 
forward to working very closely with you in the years to come.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Webb. Thank you, Senator Hagan.
    Senator Begich.
    Senator Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There's good and bad being last. The good is, everyone 
knows there's only about 8 minutes left.
    Senator Webb. Just for the record, Senator, there will be a 
second round.
    Senator Begich. I know, I'm saying from this round.
    Senator Webb. Don't think it's going to be over in 8 
minutes.
    Senator Begich. This round, and the bad is, lots of the 
questions have been asked.
    I'm going to give a couple, very parochial, but before I do 
that--Mr. Lynn, your earlier comment about your child, I 
clearly understand that. If my son were here, it would be 
totally disruptive, and I'm not sure how it would all go.
    To you, your family, I'm watching your son, here--I'm going 
to get some lessons of how you do this for 2 hours--very good, 
I give you great credit, there.
    I'm going to ask two very parochial questions, but then 
I'll ask a couple of general questions. I'll leave them to you, 
Mr. Lynn, and you can direct them to whoever would like to 
answer them.
    Contrary to popular belief, we really don't see Russia from 
most of Alaska, just for the record. [Laughter.]
    But Russian military jets often push the envelope and make 
flyovers along the Alaska border, prompting intercepts to 
launch from Elmendorf Air Force Base and other Alaskan military 
installations.
    Alaska also finds itself the closest American State to 
North Korea, and Alaskans often get nervous when China and 
Taiwan start arguing, because of our proximity to the Pacific 
Rim.
    Anchorage, Alaska's port has been deemed one of the 
Nation's top 16 strategic ports because of its vital mission of 
launching the Stryker Brigade from Fort Richardson and Fort 
Wainwright in Fairbanks. In short, Alaska truly, in my belief, 
is on the front-line of the national defense. What is your 
assessment of the strategic importance of Alaska when it comes 
to America's interest on the Northern Pacific Rim?
    Mr. Lynn. Clearly, as the Senator stated, Alaska plays a 
very important role in terms of the U.S. military posture in 
the Pacific Region, both in terms of the ballistic missile 
defense capabilities that are resident there, as well as the 
forces from all of the Services that are in Alaska. I don't 
want to say one State is more important than another, but 
clearly, Alaska's size and position makes it a critical element 
of our national security.
    Senator Begich. Let me ask you another question, again, 
very specific to Alaska, but yet to the national defense. We're 
very proud, in this Nation, to be the first fully-deployed in 
operational defense against ballistic missile attack, at Fort 
Greeley, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system.
    First conceived under the Clinton administration, in a very 
strong, bipartisan approach here in Congress, including members 
of this committee, the GMD is an important element in homeland 
security, providing a deterrent, and if necessary, active 
defense against threats around the globe.
    This past December, the program completed another 
successful intercept test by detecting, intercepting, and 
destroying a target warhead over the Pacific.
    I remain, and continue to be, very supportive of this 
testing of the GMD system against a wide range of targets, and 
I strongly encourage the Pentagon to adequately fund the GMD, 
including testing, operations, maintenance at Fort Greeley and 
other Alaska sites, and expansion of the Fort Greeley 
interceptor inventory, especially if we do not immediately 
deploy interceptors in Europe.
    For either one of you, or whoever would like to answer 
this--can you give me your opinion and thought of how you would 
support this type of system?
    Mr. Lynn. Why don't I start and ask Ms. Flournoy to follow?
    Senator Begich. Very good.
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, I think missile defense programs should 
be treated like all defense programs, and that is that one, 
they should be based, fundamentally, on a judgment of the 
threat that we face. Then they need to do the best that we have 
to meet that threat, and diffuse it.
    Second, they need to be cost-effective. We need to follow a 
program that's going to get the best return for the taxpayers, 
and then finally, we need to follow a strong testing regime to 
make sure that, in fact, they will work to do the mission that 
they've been intended to you.
    I think the missile defense program, as you've said, the 
GMD program in Alaska is proceeding down those paths. Without 
making any specific commitments on that, that would be the 
approach that we would take to that program, as well as the 
other missile defense programs.
    Senator Begich. Thank you.
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I would agree with Mr. Lynn's 
remarks. I would only just add that I think there are some 
imminent vehicles for looking at a broad review of missile 
defense, not only for long-range systems, but medium- and 
shorter-range systems. I think that will be an important 
element of both the QDR and the upcoming budget and program 
reviews.
    I would just underscore the need to look at these things 
holistically, and to look across the board to try to look at 
how best we can prioritize. So, I look forward to discussing 
the Alaska system in that context with you, going forward.
    Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't know how the timing works, this is my 
first time. So, I'm going to keep rapping until someone tells 
me, or a hook comes, right? Okay. [Laughter.]
    I didn't hear any discussion, as I'm a former mayor of 
Anchorage, AK, and we do a lot of work, we have--in the State 
population, 11 percent of our population are veterans, another 
4 percent are Active military. A very large percent of our 
population is related--indirect and directly--to the military.
    The program we worked a lot on was family support. I'd be 
interested--and you don't have to go into the detail here, but 
this is my opinion from a mayor's perspective, looking in, that 
there is good support, but not enough.
    An example I would give you, in Anchorage, we have our 
Women, Infant, and Children program satellite office on the 
base, because of the needs. I have personal opinions about why 
that should not be that case. But, can you tell me, as you 
mentioned, about reform and some of the activities you're going 
to take, where are you going to include the support for 
families on base, off base, and those kind of necessary 
elements, that I truly believe from a mayor's perspective, as a 
former mayor, were there, but not as aggressive as they could 
have been?
    I know, as a mayor, we did a lot with the military, great 
relationship, and actually started with the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, a new committee to get other mayors to do the same 
thing, because we think mayors have a great role in supporting 
the military that connects to them. But how do you see support 
and resources to support those families?
    Mr. Lynn. Senator, we're well aware that we've recruited, 
we've trained, we've equipped the best military force the 
world's ever seen. We're equally well aware that we're not 
going to retain that force, and we're not going to retain that 
capability, unless we treat our military families right. So, we 
will provide the resources that military families need to be 
able to sustain the kinds of activities, the wars that we're 
fighting and that we know that the families at home are at 
least as burdened by these deployments as the men and women who 
deploy themselves, so we need to find and support the programs 
that support those families.
    Senator Begich. Will you have, in your process, some sort 
of strategic plan on how you'll do that?
    Mr. Lynn. It will certainly be a critical element as we 
develop the budgets and programs, starting with the fiscal year 
2010 program, and anything else, actually, that's needed in the 
fiscal year 2009 supplemental.
    Senator Begich. Another question, kind of broader, as the 
Arctic continues to be a new frontier in a lot of ways, Alaska 
is going to be right up there. Have you, or do you have any 
commentary regarding how the military will engage in Arctic 
policy?
    Mr. Lynn. I'm afraid I don't, but maybe Ms. Flourney?
    Ms. Flournoy. I don't have a comment on current policy, but 
what I can tell you is that's a great example of what I was 
referring to when I talked about thinking about energy security 
and climate change in our military planning, in our scenario 
development, and so forth. As things change in the high north, 
then you're going to see implications for the U.S. military 
that we need to try to anticipate and plan for. I would hope 
that some of our longer-range planning and thinking would take 
that and other energy developments into account.
    Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
    I have my cue card, my time is up.
    Chairman Levin [presiding]. Senator Webb will start our 
second round.
    Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I would like to express my appreciation that Senator 
Nelson raised this issue of dwell time. I would like to give 
you another group of thoughts on this. I hope you'll keep in 
mind, as someone who wrote and introduced the dwell-time 
amendment in 2007, and someone who also wrote and introduced 
the GI bill.
    We have a tendency inside the Pentagon--I spent 5 years in 
the Pentagon--of looking at these issues simply in terms of 
retention. Specifically, as the dialogue went back and forth, 
we talked about how important it is to retain field-grade 
officers. In the Pentagon, you're hanging around generals, 
admirals, and captains, and you get a lieutenant colonel in 
front of you, and you tend to think he's a lower-ranking 
officer. In a rifle company, a lieutenant colonel is God. We 
tend to forget, in this environment--and I say that as someone 
whose son and son-in-law both are enlisted in the Marines right 
now--we tend to forget that 70 percent of those who enlist in 
the Marine Corps, and 75 percent of those who enlist in the 
Army, leave the Service at or before the end of their first 
enlistment.
    We have a stewardship to those people, that's quite a bit 
different than the way we address the career force. These 
multiple deployments, with very short time periods in between, 
have an emotional impact that stay with people to the end of 
their lives. I say that as someone whose first job in 
Government was working as a counsel on the House Veterans 
Committee, 32 years ago, dealing with the problems of people 
who served in Vietnam.
    So, part of it's a retention issue, part of it is how we 
deploy the force, but the traditional dwell-time ratio has 
always been two to one, until we hit this period. Two years 
here for 1 year gone. One year here for 6 months gone. We got 
all the way down to below 1 to 1. The Commandant of the Marine 
Corps has been very specific about trying to get it back to 2 
to 1, we tried to pass an amendment just saying it ought to be 
1 to 1.
    Whatever your political thoughts are about the wars we're 
fighting, or anything else, we need a safety net under these 
people for their long-term emotional health.
    So, when you're getting the visits of all of these high 
rankers, and we're talking about retention, and we tend to do 
it constantly on this committee, please do not forget that the 
issue is much larger than retention. It is the long-term 
welfare of our citizen soldiers who step forward to serve.
    Ms. Flournoy, I waited for a second round, because I think 
it's very important to hear from you on two other issues with 
respect to your views on where the Department should be going. 
I say this with a little bit of a sense of history of what 
happened in the last administration with the first occupant of 
the position that you're about to move into.
    We'll need to understand clearly what your views are on 
these issues as we move forward. The first is Afghanistan. You 
mentioned that you support the notion of an immediate and 
fairly large-scale increase of the American military into 
Afghanistan. Can you please articulate your view of this 
strategy in military terms, and what the endpoint is, where we 
will see that our mission is complete?
    Ms. Flournoy. That is the question, Senator. What I would 
say is that I think our objective in Afghanistan has to be to 
create a more stable and secure environment that allows longer-
term stabilization, and prevents Afghanistan from returning to 
being a safe haven for terrorism.
    I think job number one, or one of the top jobs for this new 
administration, is going to be crafting the strategy that 
you're asking for. In doing so, not just for the military 
piece, and how many troops we're going to deploy, but for the 
U.S. Government as a whole, working with our North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, working with the Afghan 
Government, working with international donors. We need a 
comprehensive strategy that articulates the end-state we're 
trying to achieve, and then bring all of the elements of 
national power--not just the military--to bear on trying to 
achieve it.
    I can't tell you what that strategy is, yet. But I do know 
that President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have both been 
very clear that they're committed to developing that as an 
early priority going forward.
    Senator Webb. I would hope that in this process, we can end 
up with a clearly articulated end-point. I think that was the 
great failure in Iraq. If you cannot clearly articulate when 
the commitment will be ended, then we tend to move sort of in 
an ad hoc way, based on the situation of the moment, and all 
around the world, we tend to end up staying in different 
places, and not necessarily resolving problems in a way that 
fits our national interest.
    My second question regards NATO expansion. I spent a good 
bit of time working in NATO, when I was Assistant Secretary of 
Defense. This is not the NATO that I was working with in the 
1980s. In my view, NATO was kind of broken down into three 
pieces. This is my concern, anyway, and I would like to hear 
you views on this.
    We have the United States having moved into position--even 
more so than in the 1980s--of being the military guarantor. We 
have the traditional countries of NATO moving into their 
historic relationships with Central and Eastern Europe--there's 
nothing wrong with that, it's to be expected, and it's healthy 
for Germany, particularly--and then we have, in my view, picked 
up a worrisome set of dependencies, for lack of a better term. 
Not allies, in the traditional sense of the word. What do you 
think about that? What do you think about the further expansion 
that's on the table?
    Ms. Flournoy. Senator, I think this is one of those issues 
where the upcoming NATO summit's going to offer a great 
opportunity to sort of elevate the discussion between the 
United States and our allies, on what is the alliance and what 
is our purpose, here?
    I think that NATO expansion originally started out as being 
very much about creating a Europe that's whole and free. I 
think that's still a worthwhile objective. But, I think going 
forward, there's a sense of, we need to have some clear 
criteria for membership, and also evaluate it on a case-by-case 
basis.
    I'm not prepared to go country-by-country and give you that 
evaluation from where I sit now, given that I haven't been 
deeply involved in these issues for awhile. But I do think that 
the question you're raising of the purpose and nature of 
expansion going forward is important to inform case-by-case 
judgments going forward on which additional members would make 
sense, and which would not.
    Senator Webb. Obviously, stability is one issue. But being 
mandatorily committed to coming to the defense of a country 
that has been allowed into the NATO alliance, as in the 
situation last year with Georgia--is very troublesome. Europe 
has a very tangled history when it comes to this, if you go 
back and examine the period leading up to World War I. There's 
a lot of resonance in terms of the tangled commitments that 
were made. I would hope that we could proceed forward in a very 
careful way, in terms of making any more mandatory obligations 
as to where our military would be used.
    I thank all of you for your time today, and I wish you the 
best, and I obviously am going to support your nominations, and 
I look forward to working with you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Webb.
    I have a number of additional questions that I want to ask 
right now, but I want to join my voice with that of Senator 
Webb on the NATO expansion issue, the caution that is 
essential.
    For the reason that he gives, which is the requirement that 
we come to the assistance of all members, but also because of 
the veto that every member has on any military activity--it's a 
very serious matter. There's no easy way to address it. We've 
gone into this in prior years, as to whether that ought to be 
modified in some way. But it's really important that any member 
meet all of the requirements of NATO, to reduce the likelihood 
that there will be such a veto, if all but one member of NATO 
wants to take action, and one member refuses--that's it.
    But there's also, of course, the issue that Senator Webb 
raises, about the requirement of using military action to come 
to the support of any nation that feels it's been attacked. The 
complication and complexity of that kind of a decision, it 
seems to me, was highlighted by the recent activity of Russia 
and Georgia.
    I want to add my voice to the caution that Senator Webb, I 
believe, expressed on that.
    With the time remaining--we have votes in 10 minutes, and 
even if I'm alone here, I have more than 10 minutes of 
questions. But let me start off, first, on Iraq. You have 
addressed, Ms. Flournoy, one aspect of the Iraq issue, and the 
difficulty of knowing what the facts will look like down the 
line, in terms of what our future commitments, if any, ought to 
be to Iraq.
    But one of the issues, of course, would be whether or not 
the Iraqi people ratify the SOFA. What happens if public 
opinion comes out in opposition to the referendum? I would just 
ask you whether you agree that would also be a fact, which 
complicating complexity, which would need to be thrown into the 
mix here?
    Ms. Flournoy. Absolutely, Senator.
    Chairman Levin. On Afghanistan, and I think all of us have 
a lot of questions relative to Afghanistan, and some have 
already been asked, but here are a few additional ones.
    I have believed for a long time that the Afghan National 
Army ought to be placed in the position where it's most needed. 
Where it's most needed is where the greatest threat is, and the 
greatest threat is along the border. Yet, we don't see--as far 
as I can tell--the Afghan Army being located along that border.
    On top of that, there was a commitment made to President 
Bush that the Afghan Border Police would be put under the 
jurisdiction of DOD. The Afghan Army is an army that is very 
highly motivated, highly professional. Their fierce dislike of 
the Taliban comes from a long history, and they have the 
willpower to take on that issue along the border. There's a 
contrast there with the Border Police, and I won't go into too 
many details, but the Border Police does not have that kind of 
professionalism, or willpower.
    I'm just asking you and urging you to look into the 
question, Ms. Flournoy, of the location of the Afghan Army, 
whether we should ask the Afghans to locate more of their army 
along the border. That border is a threat, not only to 
Afghanistan, but the areas in Pakistan which harbor the 
terrorists, Taliban leaders, and extremists are a threat 
directly to this country.
    I would ask you to take on, as one of your early policy 
issues, the question of not just the border, which is obviously 
high-up on your radar already, but the question, specifically, 
of the Afghan Army, where we should urge that it be located, 
whether the Border Police should be part of the Ministry of 
Defense, or the Ministry of Interior--and there's a huge 
different in Afghanistan, in terms of the professionalism of 
those ministries.
    Whether, indeed, a commitment was made to President Bush, 
relative to that Border Police. Whether that commitment's been 
kept, because those cross-border incursions from Pakistan, 
again, not only represent a huge threat to Afghanistan, but the 
presence of that safe haven in Pakistan, I know, is now 
allegedly being addressed more by the Pakistanis, and that's 
great.
    But I have my skepticism as to whether their heart is 
totally in it, and whether or not they're going to succeed, and 
that means that either if the Pakistan heart is not in it, 
whether there's any ambiguity there, or whether they're 
unsuccessful even with the willpower, puts a great onus on the 
Afghans to control their own border, and to stop that 
incursion.
    I would ask you, and to the extent you're going to be 
interested and involved--I know you're interested, Mr. Lynn, 
but involved in this issue--I would ask both of you to put some 
real specific focus on those issues, would you do that?
    Mr. Lynn. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Flournoy. Absolutely.
    Chairman Levin. Missile defense, I think Senator Begich 
asked one part of that question, but I come at it from a 
similar angle, I think to the one that was discussed by Mr. 
Lynn. Let me just ask this question of you, Mr. Lynn. Do you 
agree that the Missile Defense Agency, and the missile defense 
programs of the Department, should be subject to regular 
processes for budgetary, acquisition, testing, and policy 
oversight, rather than being managed outside of ordinary 
management channels?
    Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I think that all of our military 
programs should be managed through those regular programs, that 
would include missile defense. I would think any exceptions 
should be rare, and fully justified.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Ms. Flournoy, on the European missile defense issue--do you 
believe it would be important to review the proposed European 
missile defense deployment in the broader security context of 
Europe, including our relations with Russia, the Middle East, 
and to consider that deployment, as part of a larger 
consideration of ways in which to enhance ours and European 
security?
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes, I do, sir. I think it's an important 
candidate issue for the upcoming QDR.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Lynn, the Air Force and the Navy have been reducing 
their end strengths in recent years, but have announced that 
they are halting the reductions, short of previously stated 
goals. Can you give us your thoughts on the current size of the 
Active Force, both the Air Force and Navy size, but also the 
Army and Marine Corps who have been steadily increasing under 
the requirements established by this Congress, that have pushed 
very hard for increases in the size of the Army and Marines? 
But comment, if you will, specifically on the stated goals of 
the Air Force and the Navy, and whether they should be kept, or 
whether they ought to be modified?
    Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I think that's going to be a 
central part of the review in the next QDR. I think any 
strategic review has to include within it a thorough review of 
the force structure, because it's the first element in terms of 
how we address the threat, is the force structure that we 
develop. Most of the budget implications, at least the initial 
budget implications, flow from those judgments. So, we need to 
start with those judgments. But, I couldn't pre-judge at this 
point, the results.
    Chairman Levin. That's fine.
    Over the past 2 years, we've spend a huge amount of time 
working with DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to 
improve the care and treatment of our wounded warriors. We've 
adopted Wounded Warrior legislation which was comprehensive, to 
try to address some of the problems which were very visible and 
dramatically disclosed by the Washington Post series of 
articles that related to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But 
it was a much deeper problem that we addressed, in terms of the 
relationship between the Departments--DOD and the VA--to try to 
make sure there were seamless transition, that there were 
common standards and criteria for assessments, including 
disability ratings, and we made some major reforms in that 
area.
    Mr. Lynn, if confirmed, will you ensure that the Department 
continues to work with the VA to make sure that the wounded 
servicemembers and their families receive the treatment that 
they need and deserve? Will you assure us that this issue is 
going to remain at a high visibility level in the Department 
throughout the period of transition, and beyond?
    Mr. Lynn. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Let me address this question to both of 
you, Mr. Lynn, Ms. Flournoy, about U.S.-Russia relations, and 
what steps you believe should be taken to improve the 
relationship in the near-term, mid-term, and long-term. What 
issues face the Department now, which can affect that U.S.-
Russia relationship, and how important is it that we try to 
improve that relationship?
    Why don't you start, Mr. Lynn, and then I'll go to Ms. 
Flournoy.
    Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, the Russians still have the largest 
nuclear arsenal, and in that context alone, we need to pay 
attention to that critical relationship. We need to develop 
that relationship as far as we can, we have a Strategic Arms 
Reduction Treaty renewal to evaluate, as to whether that's the 
right way forward. We have ongoing relationships in terms of 
the Nunn-Lugar program. That's an important way that we've been 
able to reduce the threat of the proliferation of those nuclear 
weapons.
    At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the 
most critical relationships, both for defense and foreign 
policy reasons, that the Nation has.
    Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy?
    Ms. Flournoy. Some of our most vital interests--preventing 
further nuclear proliferation, preventing the use of nuclear 
weapons by terrorists--it's very difficult for the United 
States to safeguard those interests without very deep, and 
broad, international cooperation. When you look at the nature 
of some of the tasks, getting Russia to help police nuclear 
materials, ensure the safety of nuclear weapons arsenals, and 
so forth, they're a very critical partner in that regard.
    I guess I would start from the premise that we do have some 
very important common interests, and although recent Russian 
behavior--particularly with regard to Georgia, with regard to 
energy supplies in Europe and so forth, have been great cause 
for concern.
    I would hope that going forward, the new administration 
would reopen a strategic dialogue with Russia that would seek 
to identify areas--both of cooperation, and areas where we 
would like to see more constructive behavior, from Russia, 
going forward. But, I think it's an absolutely critical 
relationship that we need to be working actively, going 
forward.
    Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs recently spoke about the need for a whole of government 
approach, and the limits of the use of military power as a tool 
of U.S. foreign policy. Admiral Mullin stated that our Armed 
Forces ought to be willing to say when it believes that the 
military is not the best choice to take the lead, in place of 
our civilian department, and agencies of government. He 
emphasized the need to provide our civilian departments--
including State Department, U.S. Agency for International 
Development, Agriculture, and Justice, with the resource that 
they need to take the lead, even if that means less resources 
for DOD. I'm wondering whether you agree with that? I think 
Secretary Gates has spoken, even before Chairman Mullin, very 
eloquently about these issues. I'm wondering whether or not you 
basically agree with that?
    Ms. Flournoy. I do agree, sir. Both in the need for much 
more integrated approaches using all of the elements of 
national power to achieve objectives, but also in the need to 
invest in building capacity of our non-military instruments, to 
be able to perform alongside our military.
    Chairman Levin. All right, thank you.
    Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy, the recovery operations in North 
Korea for American prisoners of war who have been missing in 
action since the Korean War is an important humanitarian 
effort, and it should not be caught up, or tied to the 
political and strategic issues surrounding North Korea.
    Since the inception of the bilateral operations in 1996 in 
North Korea, until their untimely suspension by Secretary 
Rumsfeld in 2005, this program was seen by both parties as a 
humanitarian program. It's incredibly important to the families 
of those missing servicemembers that their remains be 
recovered.
    Will you seek to resume those operations in cooperation 
with the North Koreans, Mr. Lynn?
    Mr. Lynn. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to become more 
familiar with that program, but I'll endeavor to do that, as a 
high priority.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Ms. Flournoy, are you familiar with that program?
    Ms. Flournoy. I'm aware that it was stopped, but I am not 
too familiar with the details, but I'd be happy to look into 
it, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, the convening authority for military 
commissions for DOD was quoted yesterday as saying that she 
declined to refer a detainee case for prosecution, because 
``his treatment was torture.'' She said it was abuse of an 
uncalled for and clearly coercive nature, to use her words. 
Now, assuming that Ms. Crawford's statements are accurate, 
would you agree that these interrogation techniques are 
inconsistent with Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions, 
the requirements of the Army Field Manual, and should not be 
used by DOD?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that and I also 
believe that such things are inconsistent with American values.
    Chairman Levin. Mr. Lynn and Ms. Flournoy, would you agree 
with that?
    Mr. Lynn. I certainly agree that our interrogation 
techniques need to follow the Geneva Conventions and the Army 
Field Manual.
    Chairman Levin. Ms. Flournoy, would you agree?
    Ms. Flournoy. I would agree with Mr. Lynn's statement.
    Chairman Levin. With Mr. Johnson's statement?
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes. I believe that torture should never be 
used by the United States, under any circumstances.
    Chairman Levin. But, would you agree that the description 
which she gave met the legal definition of torture? Or are you 
not in a position to----
    Ms. Flournoy. Sir, I am not in a position, I am not 
familiar with that particular case, I'm sorry.
    Chairman Levin. All right.
    Mr. Johnson, according to an article in yesterday's 
Washington Post, the evidence against detainees at Guantanamo 
Bay is ``in a state of disarray.'' Apparently, so chaotic that 
it's impossible to prepare for a fair criminal trial. If 
confirmed, would you personally review the evidence against the 
Guantanamo detainees, for the purpose of determining--in 
consultation with other appropriate administration officials--
how to proceed with those cases?
    Mr. Johnson. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I anticipate being 
part of an inter-agency review with respect to the manner in 
which such cases are brought, and to take a good look at the 
evidence against the detainees--both with respect to potential 
criminal prosecutions, and their continued detention, yes, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Do you have a view as to whether or not 
it's preferable or appropriate to try detainees who are going 
to be charged with criminal offenses before military 
commissions, rather than Article III courts?
    Mr. Johnson. Senator, first of all, I have predispositions. 
I don't, at this point, have an informed view. If confirmed, 
I'd want to get in there and learn a lot more about this 
subject, and learn about the nature of the evidence that we 
have on some of these detainees, so I think I know what I don't 
know.
    But I do have some predispositions on this subject, which I 
think are similar to the President-elect's. I think that it is 
preferable that we proceed in Article III civilian courts. I do 
not rule out the possibility and the need for prosecutions in 
some form of Uniformed Code of Military Justice court-martial 
or a properly constituted military commission. Military 
commissions have existed since before World War II. I have some 
qualms and some issues with how they are currently constituted, 
and I think the new administration will take a serious look at 
that.
    But I think that, if I could add this--we need to also be 
mindful of the future, not just the 250 or so detainees at 
Guantanamo. We are certainly going to have detainees in the 
future, so we need to build a system that has credibility and 
survives legal scrutiny for the future as well as the people 
that are currently there.
    Chairman Levin. In that review, I would recommend that you 
take a look at the debates and decision of this committee and 
Congress, relative to those procedures. There was some 
reference to that by Senator Graham, and I would urge you to 
take a look at the decisions, the debates, the issues which we 
confronted, and ultimately divided on. But, for a time, we 
thought, at least a pretty good majority--bipartisan majority--
to put in place.
    If you would just take a look at that history, that, I 
think, will inform some of your thinking as to what direction 
we need to go in this area.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Can you do that?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Levin. On access to documents, Mr. Johnson, the 
Senate Armed Services Committee has conducted an extensive 
investigation into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. 
For a long period of time, at least, that investigation was 
impeded by objections from the Department of Defense, and 
particularly by the Office of the General Counsel, to providing 
requested documents and information to the committee.
    There were a number of excuses that were provided to us, 
for why documents and information were withheld, including 
claims that the communications were ``deliberative'' or that 
advice was ``pre-decisional,'' or other privileges. None of 
those privileges, and a number of others that were asserted, 
were recognized, or ever have been recognized, by Congress or 
the Courts as a basis for withholding documents from Congress.
    The objections that the Department raised delayed our 
investigation and report. I would ask you this--whether you 
would agree that a good working relationship between the 
Department and the committees of Congress is in the interest of 
everybody? It's important for the Department to cooperate to 
the maximum extent practical with requests for documents and 
information made in the performance of our oversight function.
    Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I do and I will undertake this 
if any member of the committee or your committee staff believes 
that DOD has asserted an objection that does not have a basis 
in law, I want to know about that right away.
    Chairman Levin. Okay.
    Mr. Johnson. I'd appreciate a phone call directly to me.
    Chairman Levin. That's great. After you're confirmed, we'll 
not only make certain that that happens in the future, and 
hopefully is not needed, but we're going to ask you to take a 
look at some of the documents that are denied us, the reasons 
for them, and to see whether or not you are able to make them 
available, based on prior requests.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Okay.
    The President-elect has made a very strong commitment to 
openness and transparency in government and you're going to be 
right in the center of that when it comes to oversight, and 
your decisions will be important in that regard, and we welcome 
your commitment to that kind of openness and transparency.
    Mr. Lynn, President-elect Obama said that it's possible for 
us to keep the American people safe, while adhering to our core 
values and ideals, and that's what he intends to carry forward 
in the new administration. Would you agree that restoring 
America's moral leadership globally is essential to our 
security?
    Mr. Lynn. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Levin. Will you agree that sending the clear 
signal that the United States does not engage in torture, or 
cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, which are prohibited by 
our anti-torture laws, that that clear signal will enhance our 
standing globally, and enhance our security?
    Mr. Lynn. I do.
    Chairman Levin. Finally, I don't want to leave you too much 
off the hook, Mr. Hale, because you're----
    Mr. Hale. That's quite all right, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. I know your family and you would be 
disappointed if that were true, so let me ask you this. Our 
current defense plans and programs are extremely expensive. You 
have a huge budget deficit. What we're going to need you to do 
is to work, obviously, with the leadership of the Department to 
work with us to find places where we can save money. We know 
where we have to spend money. We're going to spend money to 
support our men and women in uniform, to give them everything 
they need to prevail on their missions, and we're going to give 
our military families the support that they deserve. We're 
going to provide the equipment that's essential, and the 
healthcare that's essential.
    What we cannot do is spend money either on systems we don't 
need, or excesses that we've seen too much of.
    I think you're familiar, are you, with some of the 
Inspector General's reports on expenditures in Iraq?
    Mr. Hale. Yes, in general terms.
    Chairman Levin. We're talking tens of billions, maybe 
hundreds of billions of unaccounted for dollars. So we're going 
to need your energy to not just help us reform business 
systems, which we need to do, and we need all your help, I 
guess, in the area of reforming acquisition. I know a number 
one priority, or one of the top priorities I guess, not quite 
number one, but one of the top priorities of the new 
administration is acquisition reform.
    But you're going to be in a key position, Mr. Hale, we're 
going to need your full energy and your passion in this area if 
we're going to succeed.
    We have a vote on, now, in the Senate, and you've been here 
a long time.
    Ms. Flournoy, I particularly want to compliment your 
children.
    Ms. Flournoy. Thank you, aren't they wonderful?
    Chairman Levin. They're great. I want to compliment all of 
you for your answers, and for your commitments in working with 
this committee.
    But I really want to embarrass your children, Ms. Flournoy, 
because of all of the people here this morning, I think they've 
been the most outstanding. [Laughter.]
    With that, again, we will move these nominations as quickly 
as we can. There are some things that have to be given to this 
committee which are not yet available to this committee. We 
expect they'll be fully routine, but nonetheless, they have to 
be provided. We're just going to bring your nominations as 
quickly to fruition as we can in terms of confirmation.
    With that, we congratulate you, we thank you for your 
service, and again, thank your families. We thank all of the 
families and friends who have shown up here today in support of 
these nominees, and we will stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to William J. Lynn III by 
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD) 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. As the executive director of the Defense Organization 
Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, I was 
involved in developing the analytical work that served as a foundation 
for the eventual Goldwater-Nichols Act. I believe that Act has yielded 
enormous benefits to the Department through strengthened joint 
operational commanders, better joint advice in the Pentagon, and 
improved acquisition management structures. At this time, I do not see 
the need for any specific changes. If confirmed, my subsequent 
experience in the Deputy Secretary of Defense position could 
potentially suggest needed changes and I would consult with Congress on 
any such issues.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. I believe the Department's acquisition management processes 
and organizations should be a high priority for review by the new 
administration with the objective of improving the cost controls and 
responsiveness of that system. That review could potentially suggest 
changes to certain aspects of Goldwater-Nichols. I also believe it will 
be important to address recommendations for interagency reform.
                             relationships
    Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense and each of the following:
    The Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. I expect the Deputy to be able to perform any of the duties 
of the Secretary, but to be largely focused on the daily operations of 
the Department. The Secretary and the Deputy would work together to 
develop defense strategy and policy, but the Deputy would serve largely 
as the Department's Chief Operating Officer, responsible for the 
operation of DOD and implementation of national defense policy and 
strategy. This will include financial management, personnel policies, 
acquisition management and integrity, oversight of military 
departments' roles, base realignment and closure (BRAC), Quadrennial 
Defense Review (QDR) management, legislative affairs, public affairs 
and the like.
    Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. If confirmed, my role as Chief Operating Officer would be 
to ensure collaboration across the various offices of the Under 
Secretaries of Defense. I would further provide that the Secretary's 
guidance and priorities are understood and implemented, and that 
matters requiring the Secretary's attention are raised to his level.
    Question. The Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) of DOD.
    Answer. As a direct reporting relationship, the DCMO would provide 
feedback on the progress of the Department toward achieving its 
management goals. The DCMO would also work closely with me, if 
confirmed, to determine future changes to our strategic plan. The DCMO 
would routinely interact with the Military Department Chief Management 
Officers (CMOs) to ensure success.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense (ASD).
    Answer. If confirmed, for direct reporting ASDs the relationship 
would be the same as with the Under Secretaries. For those reporting to 
an Under Secretary, I would rely primarily on that Under Secretary to 
manage each area.
    Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff.
    Answer. The Chairman is the principal advisor to the President and 
National Security Council. If confirmed, I will work closely to 
coordinate any issues with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.
    Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretaries of 
the Military Departments to ensure that the policies of the President 
and the Secretary of Defense are carried out in their respective 
military departments.
    Question. The Chief Management Officers of the Military 
Departments.
    Answer. If confirmed, one of my most important duties would be to 
ensure that the Department can carry out its strategic plan. 
Interactions with the military department CMOs would largely be through 
the DCMO. This would allow for monitoring and measuring of the 
Department's progress by establishing performance goals and measures 
for improvement.
    Question. The Service Acquisition Executives.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will be actively involved in setting 
acquisition policy. However, I would expect most policy coordination to 
occur through the USD(AT&L). My objective would be to ensure 
acquisition policy, procedures, and regulations are followed and 
appropriate improvements pursued.
    Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the Service Chiefs are 
aware of the Secretary's guidance and their concerns are coordinated 
with the Secretary.
    Question. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
    Answer. If confirmed, I would, together with the Secretary of 
Defense, routinely interact with the DNI. More detailed coordination 
will occur between the DNI's staff and the USD(I).
    Question. The Inspector General of DOD.
    Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage the Inspector General to 
carry out his/her duties in accordance with the Inspector General Act 
while ensuring there are no barriers to independence or mission 
accomplishment.
    Question. The General Counsel of DOD.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will seek advice from the General Counsel 
on all relevant subjects.
    Question. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau to understand all Guard-related issues and to 
ensure he understands the Secretary's guidance.
    Question. The Judge Advocates General of the Services.
    Answer. The Services' Judge Advocates General have important roles 
in their respective Services. However, the majority of Service Judge 
Advocate General issues would be coordinated through the Office of the 
General Counsel.
               duties of the deputy secretary of defense
    Question. Section 132 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the duties 
of the Deputy Secretary of Defense are to be prescribed by the 
Secretary of Defense.
    Assuming that you are confirmed, what duties do you expect the 
Secretary to prescribe for you?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to function as a traditional deputy, 
serving as the alter ego to the Secretary of Defense in a variety of 
forums. However, I expect the Secretary would continue to focus 
primarily on external aspects of the Defense Department, while I would 
focus on the internal management functions of the Department, similar 
to that of a Chief Operating Officer. Those functions would most likely 
be particularly focused on the Department's planning, budgeting, 
acquisition, personnel, and management activities.
    Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you 
believe qualify you to perform these duties?
    Answer. My background includes service in two previous civilian 
positions in the Defense Department, more recent experience in defense 
industry, and previous work in support of Congress. I believe these 
three bodies of experience will provide a solid foundation for 
performing the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, if confirmed. 
I served as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) from 1997 to 
2001. In that position, I was the chief financial officer for DOD and 
the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense for all budgetary and 
fiscal matters. From 1993 to 1997, I was the Director of Program 
Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, where I oversaw the Defense Department's strategic planning 
process. I currently serve as senior vice president of Government 
Operations and Strategy at Raytheon Company, leading the company's 
strategic planning. Before entering DOD in 1993, I served for 6 years 
on the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy as liaison to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. Earlier in my career, I worked as a Senior Fellow 
at the National Defense University and on the professional staff at the 
Institute for Defense Analyses, and served as the executive director of 
the Defense Organization Project at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies. Although I believe my background provides a 
solid foundation for the position, I also recognize that the job of 
Deputy Secretary of Defense encompasses a very diverse set of 
challenges and responsibilities, and I also know that the Defense 
Department and its programs have undergone significant changes in the 8 
years since I left government service. So I have much to learn and my 
success in fulfilling the duties of the position will be dependent on 
the knowledge and advice of the civilian experts and military 
servicemembers in the Department.
    Question. Do you believe there are actions you need to take to 
enhance your ability to perform the duties of the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense?
    Answer. The Defense Department has experienced profound changes 
over the 8 years since I left government service in 2001. If confirmed, 
I will need to receive extensive information and advice from the 
civilian and military professionals in the Department on recent 
developments on operations, defense programs, and organizational and 
process changes. I believe it is important to establish strong working 
relationships with the senior leaders in the Joint Staff and the 
military departments and to establish an atmosphere of open 
communications so that I can assist the Secretary with the benefit of 
the best information and advice available for decisionmaking. I also 
look forward to the opportunity to spend time with Deputy Secretary 
England and previous incumbents of the office to receive the benefit of 
their experience and wisdom.
    Question. What changes to section 132, if any, would you recommend?
    Answer. Based on my previous experience in the Department, I 
believe the statutory authorities for the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense are appropriate for the effective performance of the assigned 
duties. So at this time, I have no changes to recommend, though, if 
confirmed, my view could change at a later date based on experience in 
the position.
    Question. Section 132 was amended by section 904 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, to provide that the 
Deputy Secretary serves as the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of DOD. 
The Deputy Secretary is to be assisted in this capacity by a DCMO.
    What is your understanding of the duties and responsibilities of 
the Deputy Secretary in his capacity as CMO of DOD?
    Answer. If confirmed, my most important duty as DOD CMO will be to 
ensure that the Department can carry out its strategic plan. To do 
this, I will ensure the Department's core business missions are 
optimally aligned to support the Department's warfighting mission. I 
will develop and maintain a strategic management plan for business 
reform, and will monitor and measure the Department's progress by 
establishing performance goals and measures for improving and 
evaluating overall economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the 
Department's business operations.
    Question. What background and expertise do you possess that you 
believe qualify you to perform these duties and responsibilities?
    Answer. My previous service as Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) included major responsibilities for the oversight and 
improvement of the Department's financial management processes and 
organizations, and I devoted considerable time and attention to those 
aspects of my responsibilities. Although the responsibilities of the 
Deputy Secretary are far broader, I believe my experience as 
Comptroller provides a strong foundation for the CMO duties. In 
addition, as Director of the Office of PA&E, I was responsible for the 
Department's strategic planning. My experience in that area has also 
been broadened over the past 6 years through my experience with 
industry strategic planning.
    Question. Do you believe that the CMO and DCMO have the resources 
and authority needed to carry out the business transformation of the 
DOD?
    Answer. My understanding is that an office has been established and 
funded, and a career senior executive civilian has been appointed as 
Assistant DCMO to provide continuity in overseeing business 
transformation initiatives. The DCMO has been added to the membership 
of all of the Department's senior decision boards, and the DCMO has 
been named as vice-chair of the Defense Business Systems Management 
Committee (DBSMC). The charter of the Business Transformation Agency 
(BTA) has been amended so that the Director of BTA reports directly to 
the DCMO. Finally, the military departments have established CMO 
organizations, which will oversee newly established Business 
Transformation Offices. This provides a framework for ensuring 
integrated information sharing and collaborative decisionmaking across 
the Department. These organizational changes occurred after I left 
government service, so, if confirmed, I will need to review their 
effectiveness and determine, in consultation with the DCMO, whether any 
additional authorities or resources are appropriate.
    Question. What role do you believe the DCMO of DOD should play in 
the planning, development, and implementation of specific business 
systems by the military departments?
    Answer. I expect the DCMO will provide integrating guidance and 
liaison with the Director of the BTA and the CMOs of the military 
departments. The DCMO will also work to resolve policy impediments to 
implementing cross-functional solutions across the Department.
    Question. Do you believe that the DCMO should have clearly defined 
decisionmaking authorities, or should the DCMO serve exclusively as an 
advisor to the Deputy Secretary in his capacity as CMO?
    Answer. The DCMO is a new position that did not exist during my 
tenure in the Department, and the position has not yet been filled and 
fully implemented. I believe some time will be needed to review the 
Department's experience with the operation of the new position in order 
to determine the precise authorities and relationship to the Deputy 
Secretary.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the 
statutory provisions establishing the positions of CMO and DCMO?
    Answer. I would defer any recommendations regarding potential 
changes to statutory provisions pending experience with the new 
position and time to review its operation within the Department.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the next Deputy Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. There are an enormous number of challenges facing DOD 
today, and the next Deputy Secretary will have the responsibility to 
assist the Secretary of Defense in addressing a large number of 
critical tasks. If confirmed for this important position, I would focus 
on three initial challenges. First, during a transition in a time of 
war, it is essential that the Department executes a smooth transition 
of the leadership as quickly as possible. To that end, I would work 
with the Secretary and Congress to assemble a top-quality cadre of 
civilian leaders with the expertise and experience to effectively 
perform the duties of the key positions that must be filled. As part of 
that effort, I would also place a high priority on strengthening the 
capabilities of the career staff, which is essential to address the 
many near-term tasks facing the Department as well as the longer-term 
challenges. A second challenge will be to conduct at least three sets 
of major program and budget reviews in the first few months of the new 
administration. These include review of the second fiscal year 2009 
supplemental appropriation submission, revisions to the draft fiscal 
year 2010 budget and its timely submission to Congress, and the 
expeditious completion of the QDR and the associated formulation of a 
defense strategy and the fiscal year 2011 defense program and budget. 
In the QDR, I believe a key task will be to lay the foundation for an 
effective force for the 21st century and to establish the right balance 
among capabilities for addressing irregular warfare and 
counterinsurgent operations, potential longer-term threats from a high-
end or near-peer competitor, and proliferation threats from rogue 
states or terrorist organizations. A third major challenge will be to 
pursue an active reform agenda for the management of the Department. In 
particular, if confirmed, I would devote a considerable portion of my 
time and energies to efforts to improve the Department's processes for 
strategic planning, program and budget development, and acquisition 
oversight. Improving the Department's record on cost control, and the 
credibility of its budget and cost forecasts, would be a priority 
objective for those efforts.
                               priorities
    Question. What broad priorities would you establish, if confirmed, 
with respect to issues which must be addressed by DOD?
    Answer. My first priority, if confirmed, would be to work with 
Secretary Gates to provide the resources needed to support our forces 
currently engaged in operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts 
of the world. That includes meeting the military end strength goals 
needed to support those operations while easing the deployment burdens 
on our servicemembers and their families. It also includes ensuring the 
effectiveness of the programs needed to support the readiness and 
quality of life of those forces and the equipment they need to operate 
effectively with adequate protection. While I believe the needs of the 
current operations must be the highest priority, the Department's 
leaders must also address the longer-term recapitalization and 
modernization needs of the force. To that end, another key priority, if 
confirmed, would be to provide strong leadership and management of the 
QDR and the various program and budget formulation efforts that will be 
needed over the next few months. The priorities in those efforts would 
be to oversee the development of an integrated strategy, program, and 
budget for meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Meeting the 
recapitalization and modernization needs of the forces will also 
require acquisition programs and processes that deliver effective 
equipment in a timely manner and within cost targets so that the 
Department can sustain the confidence of Congress and the taxpayers 
that public funds are being used effectively.
              fiscal year 2010 president's budget request
    Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the 
development of the President's budget request for DOD for fiscal year 
2010?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to oversee the development of 
the fiscal year 2010 budget request, working with Secretary Gates to 
ensure that it reflects his strategic vision. I would work with the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to shape the Department's fiscal 
year 2010 fiscal controls in a way that allows the Department to 
achieve the Nation's national security goals.
    Question. What steps do you expect the incoming administration to 
take to formally review the Department's 2010 budget request and, as 
necessary, make those changes required to ensure that the budget 
request fully conforms with the policies of the incoming administration 
and the needs of DOD?
    Answer. My understanding is that the Department has prepared a 
draft fiscal year 2010 budget baseline that is ready for review by the 
new administration. Although that budget will eventually be submitted 
by President Obama, there will be only a limited amount of time for DOD 
and OMB to make revisions prior to submission to Congress in the late-
March to mid-April timeframe. This is a problem common to all new 
administrations. The review of the fiscal year 2010 budget request 
will, of necessity, have to be limited in scope, addressing the key 
initiatives of the new administration such as ground forces end 
strength, quality of life programs, and selected acquisition programs. 
A broader review would be conducted as part of the QDR and the 
associated formulation of the fiscal year 2011 defense program and 
budget.
    Question. What steps do you believe need to be taken to ensure an 
appropriate level of investment in the future force in the face of 
pressing requirements for completing the mission in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, for resetting of the force, and for meeting ongoing 
operational commitments across the globe?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will vigorously review the Department's 
resources requirements and work to ensure that any budget request 
provides sufficient resources to achieve the appropriate level of 
investment in the future force to meet the Nation's national security 
needs.
    Question. In the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007, section 1008, Congress required that the President's 
annual budget submitted to Congress after fiscal year 2007 include a 
request for the funds for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and an estimate of all funds expected to be required in that fiscal 
year for such operations.
    What problems, if any, do you anticipate the Department will 
encounter in complying with this budgeting requirement?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2009 defense budget passed by Congress last 
year did not include funding for current war operations. In addition, 
the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriation enacted by Congress 
last year provided funds for war operations for roughly half of the 
fiscal year. As a result, as Secretary Gates recently indicated, 
substantial additional funds will be needed for the remainder of the 
fiscal year. The draft request prepared by the Department will need to 
be reviewed by the new administration, and it will also need to be 
updated to reflect expanded deployments to Afghanistan. For the fiscal 
year 2010 budget, as indicated above, there will be limited time 
available to review and revise the draft prepared by the current 
administration. A key issue for that review will be the formulation of 
new guidelines for what costs are appropriate for supplemental requests 
and identifying items that should be funded in the base budget. An 
objective should be for the Department to work with Congress to move 
away from dependence on supplementals for predictable items, and any 
supplemental requests should be carefully reviewed against strict and 
consistent criteria and should be provided to Congress early in the 
year with full explanatory information.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that the 
Department complies with the requirements of this provision?
    Answer. If confirmed, Secretary Gates and I will work with the 
White House and OMB to comply with the requirements of this provision.
                           management issues
    Question. If confirmed, what key management performance goals would 
you want to accomplish, and what standards or metrics would you use to 
judge whether you have accomplished them?
    Answer. The Department has a long history of using performance 
information to manage. When I last served in the Department, I oversaw 
initial efforts to produce a Department-wide set of performance plans 
and reports under Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). 
Therefore, I know first-hand the challenges of identifying key 
management performance goals--and for establishing metrics supporting 
those goals that capture results accurately for an entity as varied, 
complex, and large as DOD. I know the Department has a suite of 
established performance goals, standards, and metrics. If confirmed, I 
would need to work with Secretary Gates to align the strategic outcomes 
of the Department to the defense missions assigned to us by the 
President before I would be in a position to select which of these I 
would retain, change, or revise. In general, it is important that the 
Department establish goals that focus on outcomes, not activities or 
programs. Any supporting measures should account for all aspects of 
performance, including but not limited to financial performance and 
savings.
    Question. GPRA is intended to provide managers with a disciplined 
approach--developing a strategic plan, establishing annual goals, 
measuring performance, and reporting on the results--for improving the 
performance and internal management of an organization. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that DOD's initial Strategic 
Management Plan, issued in July 2008, fails to meet statutory 
requirements to address performance goals and key initiatives to meet 
such goals.
    What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that the 
Department meets statutory requirements for a Strategic Management 
Plan?
    Answer. The Department is on record that it will provide 
performance goals and key initiatives in its July 2009 update to the 
Strategic Management Plan. If confirmed, a priority will be to work 
with Secretary Gates to review this plan for any revisions.
    Question. Section 2222 of title 10, U.S.C., requires that the 
Secretary of Defense develop a comprehensive business enterprise 
architecture and transition plan to guide the development of its 
business systems and processes.
    Do you believe that a comprehensive, integrated, enterprise-wide 
architecture and transition plan is essential to the successful 
transformation of DOD's business systems?
    Answer. I believe that a federated enterprise-wide architecture and 
transition plan can contribute significantly to the development of 
business systems and processes.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that 
DOD's enterprise architecture and transition plan meet the requirements 
of section 2222?
    Answer. It is a common challenge throughout government to bring new 
systems on line, while keeping legacy systems in place. Therefore, if 
confirmed, I will ensure that the Department adheres to the necessary 
goals and milestones. I also will work to ensure that architecture 
efforts are synchronized across all the military departments and 
defense agencies.
    Question. What are your views on the importance and role of timely 
and accurate financial and business information in managing operations 
and holding managers accountable?
    Answer. There is no question that financial and business 
information is a primary tool in managing operations well and 
establishing a fact trail that holds managers accountable for results. 
The Department is a complex enterprise that requires input from many 
diverse programs and activities to achieve its goals. Therefore, our 
financial and business information should be viewed within the context 
of overall mission performance across the Department.
    Question. How would you address a situation in which you found that 
reliable, useful, and timely financial and business information was not 
routinely available for these purposes?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would take steps to make sure that any such 
gaps were filled. However, the Department cannot afford to optimize for 
all information needs. If confirmed, it will be my responsibility to 
set priorities for identifying what kinds of information should be 
routinely available to decisionmakers, and to guide investments in new 
technology and business processes accordingly.
    Question. What role do you envision playing, if confirmed, in 
managing or providing oversight over the improvement of the financial 
and business information available to DOD managers?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to develop a refined Defense 
Strategy and Strategic Management Plan. Once our priorities are 
defined, I will ask the Department's senior military and civilian 
leaders to identify key performance goals and measures. This is an 
example of an area where I will rely on the DCMO leadership to guide 
the Department in aligning financial and business information systems 
and initiatives to achieve the goals of the defense strategy.
    Question. The Department has chosen to implement the requirement 
for an enterprise architecture and transition plan through a 
``federated'' approach in which the BTA has developed the top level 
architecture while leaving it to the military departments to fill in 
most of the detail. The Comptroller General has testified that ``the 
latest version of the [business enterprise architecture] continues to 
represent the thin layer of DOD-wide corporate architectural policies, 
capabilities, rules, and standards'' and ``well-defined architectures 
[do] not yet exist for the military departments.''
    If confirmed, would you continue the federated approach to business 
enterprise architecture and transition plan?
    Answer. Yes, this approach has value, as it shares the 
responsibility and accountability for architectural development and 
transition planning at the appropriate level of the Department. This is 
an example of an area where, if confirmed, I will rely on the DCMO and 
the Military Department CMOs to help continue and extend an important 
business transformation initiative to all components of the Department.
    Question. What is your understanding of the extent to which the 
military departments have completed their share of the federated 
architecture and transition plan?
    Answer. My understanding is that each military department is at a 
different place in the development of their component level 
architectures. Accordingly, this is an area that, if I am confirmed, 
will require my review, working through the DCMO.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Secretaries and 
Chief Management Officers of the military departments to ensure that a 
federated architecture meets the requirements of section 2222 and the 
GAO framework?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will ask the DCMO to work with the Military 
Department CMOs to ensure adherence to the DOD Federated Strategy 
guidance for architecture development and implementation.
                          financial management
    Question. You were the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
prior to 2001 and testified before the committee about financial 
management issues in that capacity.
    What is your understanding of the efforts and progress that have 
been made in DOD since 1999 toward the goal of being able to produce a 
clean audit?
    Answer. My understanding is the Department has made significant 
strides toward a clean audit but still has substantial work left to 
achieve the objective. If confirmed, I will ensure that appropriate 
actions are taken to continue progress toward meeting clean audit 
goals.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department can achieve a clean 
audit opinion through better accounting and auditing, or is the 
systematic improvement of the Department's business systems and 
processes a prerequisite?
    Answer. I do not believe the Department's clean opinion goals can 
be met without improvements to its business systems and processes.
    Question. When do you believe the Department can achieve a clean 
audit?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the Department's 
current plan for clean audit, including the goals for timing. If 
confirmed, I will review the plan and ensure that appropriate actions 
are taken to make progress toward meeting clean audit goals.
                    acquisition of business systems
    Question. Most of the Department's business transformation programs 
are substantially over budget and behind schedule. In fact, the 
Department has run into unanticipated difficulties with virtually every 
new business system it has tried to field in the last 10 years.
    Do you believe that unique problems in the acquisition of business 
systems require different acquisition strategies or approaches?
    Answer. I understand there are a myriad of reasons for the failure 
to deliver these systems, some based on the way responsibilities are 
divided and many based on technical complexities. Based on my 
experience with financial management systems during my service as Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), many of the problems are based in 
culture and the failure to fix the underlying business process before 
buying the business system. Therefore, the approach to acquisition must 
be tailored to the unique challenges of each business area. In many 
instances, to achieve progress, it may be necessary to do more than 
simply upgrade the business systems, but instead change the underlying 
approach to the business processes.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the DCMO and the 
Under Secretaries of Defense to address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would empower the DCMO to resolve the 
cross-functional issues that the Department faces in fielding business 
transformation programs. I believe cultural and business process 
alignment is required for any business transformation effort.
                     business transformation agency
    Question. Four years ago, the Secretary of Defense established the 
BTA to ensure an organizational focus for business transformation 
efforts within the Department. The Director of BTA reports to the DCMO 
in his capacity as vice chairman of the DBSMC.
    What role do you believe the BTA should play in improving the 
business operations and business systems of the DOD?
    Answer. Working with the principal staff assistants, BTA is 
responsible for developing enterprise level business processes, 
standards, and data elements, and ensuring that they are accurately 
reflected in the Business Enterprise Architecture. BTA also has the 
responsibility of delivering certain Enterprise-wide business 
capabilities and working with the Combatant Commands to identify and 
satisfy operational business needs of the warfighter.
    Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the 
supervision and management of the activities of the BTA?
    Answer. The Director of BTA will report to the DCMO. However, if 
confirmed, I will set key priorities for performance that business 
operations and business systems must achieve, and the DCMO will be 
accountable to me for ensuring that BTA demonstrates how those 
priorities are reflected in the Department's enterprise architecture 
and enterprise-wide system investments.
    Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the BTA, or the 
statutes authorizing the BTA? If so, what changes would you recommend?
    Answer. I have no changes to recommend at this time.
                    major weapon system acquisition
    Question. What are your views regarding the defense acquisition 
process and the need for reform?
    Answer. I believe the management of defense acquisition programs 
needs to be improved substantially to achieve better outcomes with 
regard to delivering effective equipment within reasonable cost and 
schedule objectives. A number of studies over the years have observed 
significant problems of cost growth, schedule slips, and insufficient 
responsiveness to urgent warfighter needs. These problems have reached 
the point where they have the potential to erode the credibility of the 
Department in this area and the confidence of Congress and the 
taxpayers that public funds are being used effectively. It is not clear 
that reform efforts over the past several years have achieved the 
desired objectives in terms of better outcomes in cost and schedule 
control as well as responsiveness. If confirmed, a high priority would 
be to review acquisition processes with the objective of improving 
stability, realism, accountability, and effective execution.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you improve all three aspects of 
the acquisition process--requirements, acquisition, and budgeting?
    Answer. I believe there are critical linkages among requirements, 
acquisition managing, and budgeting. To achieve effective outcomes, all 
three areas must be addressed in an integrated way, which requires 
active involvement by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, working closely 
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics (USD(AT&L)) and other key officials in the Department. I 
believe effective acquisition programs require realism and stability, 
together with accountability for effective execution of program 
outcomes. To promote these principles, I believe the overall defense 
program needs to be realistic and balanced within the programming and 
budgeting process. Within the acquisition process, realism and 
stability can be fostered through greater emphasis on independent 
assessments of costs, technology readiness, and testing maturity, 
particularly during the early stages of programs. Successful programs 
also require a careful balancing among cost, schedule, and performance 
goals. From my observation, the current requirements and acquisition 
processes have a reluctance to balance performance demands, 
particularly in the early stages of programs when decisions have a 
major impact on subsequent cost and schedule outcomes. Early cost and 
technology maturity assessments of the impacts of various performance 
requirements have the potential to achieve a better balance among cost, 
schedule, and performance, thus leading to better outcomes in 
subsequent program execution.
    Question. Do you believe that the current investment budget for 
major systems is affordable given increasing historic cost growth in 
major systems, costs of current operations, projected increases in end 
strength, and asset recapitalization?
    Answer. I believe this is a major challenge facing the Defense 
Department and that addressing these trends should be a central theme 
of the QDR conducted later this year. If current trends continue, it 
will be very difficult to sustain a force large enough to meet the 
demands associated with both near-term operations and the long-term 
defense strategy. A key task for the QDR will be to formulate a 
strategy, force structure, and overall defense program that are in 
balance and are affordable within the national resources available for 
defense.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to address out-
of-control cost growth on DOD's major defense acquisition programs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would assign this as a key priority for the 
new USD(AT&L). Central themes would be greater competition, stability, 
realism, and accountability. Close integration of the requirements, 
acquisition, and resource processes is key to achieving these 
objectives, as is better balancing of cost, schedule, and performance 
objectives. I also believe that improvements can be made through 
greater emphasis on, and attention to, independent assessments of 
costs, technology readiness levels, and testing maturity.
    Question. What steps do you believe that the Department should 
consider taking in the case of major defense acquisition programs that 
exceed the critical cost growth thresholds established in the ``Nunn-
McCurdy'' amendment?
    Answer. Congress recently passed legislation revising the 
methodology for establishing cost baselines used for the purposes of 
establishing Nunn-McCurdy thresholds. I believe this type of approach 
has the potential to change institution incentives in a way that will 
promote greater realism and accountability in the management of 
acquisition programs. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I would assess 
the impact of this change on institutional behavior and examine other 
measures that would promote the objective of enhancing realism and 
accountability as a central theme in improving acquisition management.
                        contracting for services
    Question. Over the past 8 years, DOD's spending on contract 
services has more than doubled with the estimated number of contractor 
employees working for the Department increasing from an estimated 
730,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year 
2007. As a result, the Department now spends more for the purchase of 
services than it does for products (including major weapon systems).
    Do you believe that DOD should continue to support this rate of 
growth in its spending on contract services?
    Answer. Service contractors provide a valuable function to DOD. But 
if confirmed, I would support efforts by the USD(AT&L) and other 
leaders to review the level of contracting services required in keeping 
with President-elect Obama's pledge to have the Department improve its 
strategy for determining when contracting makes sense.
    Question. Do you believe that the current balance between 
government employees (military and civilian) and contractor employees 
is in the best interests of the DOD?
    Answer. DOD requires some mix of Federal employees and contractors 
to carry out its mission effectively. If confirmed, I would support 
efforts to help ensure the appropriate balance in that mix.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to control the 
Department's spending on contract services?
    Answer. Service contractors provide a valuable function to DOD, but 
there has been substantial growth in this area over the past decades. 
If confirmed, I intend to review the Department's policies and 
procedures and make any necessary adjustments.
       contractor performance of critical governmental functions
    Question. Over the last decade, the Department has become 
progressively more reliant upon contractors to perform functions that 
were once performed exclusively by government employees. As a result, 
contractors now play an integral role in areas as diverse as the 
management and oversight of weapons programs, the development of 
personnel policies, and the collection and analysis of intelligence. In 
many cases, contractor employees work in the same offices, serve on the 
same projects and task forces, and perform many of the same functions 
as DOD employees.
    In your view, has DOD become too reliant on contractors to support 
the basic functions of the Department?
    Answer. Over the last several years, the Defense Department has 
implemented very large reductions in the government workforce, and I 
believe a careful review is needed of whether, in the process, DOD has 
become too dependent on contractors to perform inherently governmental 
functions. Congress has recently codified a definition of inherently 
governmental functions and required a review by the Department. I 
believe this review provides a mechanism to address this important 
question.
    Question. Do you believe that the current extensive use of personal 
services contracts is in the best interest of DOD?
    Answer. I am not familiar with the degree to which DOD is using 
personal services contracts. I do know, however, that there are 
statutory restrictions that govern the use of personal services 
contracts. If confirmed, I will ensure that if personal services 
contracts are being used in a manner that is inappropriate, that 
practice is ended immediately.
    Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on 
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military 
operations. According to widely published reports, the number of U.S. 
contractor employees in Iraq exceeds the number of U.S. military 
deployed in that country.
    Do you believe that DOD has become too dependent on contractor 
support for military operations?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. What risks do you see in the Department's reliance on 
such contractor support? What steps do you believe the Department 
should take to mitigate such risk?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. Do you believe the Department is appropriately organized 
and staffed to effectively manage contractors on the battlefield?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. What steps, if any, do you believe the Department should 
take to improve its management of contractors on the battlefield?
    Answer. It is my understanding that Secretary Gates has tasked 
Admiral Mullen to personally oversee a Department-wide review of 
contractor roles and missions. If confirmed, I will work with the 
Secretary and Chairman Mullen in this review and implement 
recommendations where appropriate, and if necessary, work with Congress 
to institutionalize reforms.
                      private security contractors
    Question. Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely 
upon contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be 
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public 
areas in an area of combat operations?
    Answer. As a general matter, DOD should use all elements of the 
``total force'' (military forces, DOD civilians, and contractors) to 
address the full spectrum of operational requirements. President-elect 
Obama has cited the need to improve transparency in how private 
security contractors are utilized and to establish clear standards 
regarding Rules of Engagement, personnel policies, and communications 
guidelines. If confirmed, I will work with the Department and 
interagency process, as well as with the committee, to address these 
issues.
    Question. In your view, has the United States' reliance upon 
private security contractors to perform such functions risked 
undermining our defense and foreign policy objectives in Iraq?
    Answer. I do not have a view on this matter. If confirmed, I will 
review this issue and keep Congress informed.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that 
any private security contractors who may continue to operate in an area 
of combat operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S. 
defense and foreign policy objectives?
    Answer. I do not have any specific recommendations at this time. 
But, if confirmed, I will review the question of private security 
contractors and work with the committee on any needed changes.
    Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of private 
security contractors in Iraq are likely to be affected by the new 
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Iraq?
    Answer. It is my understanding that since January 1, U.S. 
Government private security contractors no longer have immunity from 
host nation law. Furthermore, they must comply with host nation 
registration and licensing and, therefore, they already have been 
impacted. Many contractors already have had other contractual 
relationships within Iraq and already have been subject, for those 
contracts, to Iraqi law and regulations. For all contractors, the SOFA 
has meant substantially more liaison and coordination with Iraqi 
authorities at all levels.
    Question. Do you support the extension of the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to private security contractors of 
all Federal agencies?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What is your view of the appropriate application of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice to employees of private security 
contractors operating in an area of combat operations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review this issue in conjunction with 
the advice of the General Counsel.
            contractor performance of information operations
    Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts 
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information 
operations'' through the Iraqi media.
    What is your view on the effectiveness of information operations 
conducted by the United States through the Iraqi media?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the 
details of these programs. If confirmed, I would be happy to look into 
these matters and discuss them with the committee.
    Question. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the United 
States to pay for media campaigns to build up support for the 
government and the security forces of Iraq at a time when the Iraqi 
Government has a surplus of tens of billions of dollars?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. Do you believe that the U.S. Government, or the Iraqi 
Government, should be responsible for developing a message to build up 
support for the government and security forces of Iraq, and for 
developing media campaigns for this purpose?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. In your view, is DOD's use of private contractors to 
conduct information operations through the Iraqi media appropriate?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. Do you see a risk that a DOD media campaign designed to 
build up support for the government and security forces of Iraq could 
result in the inappropriate dissemination of propaganda inside the 
United States through the internet and other media that cross 
international boundaries?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. A spokesman for the Iraqi Government has been quoted as 
saying that any future DOD information operations in the Iraqi media 
should be a joint effort with the Iraqi government. According to a 
November 7, 2008 article in the Washington Post, the spokesman stated: 
``We don't have a hand in all the propaganda that is being done now. It 
could be done much better when Iraqis have a word and Iraqis can 
advise.''
    Do you believe that DOD information operations through the Iraqi 
media should be conducted jointly with the Iraqis?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the 
details of these programs. If confirmed, I would be happy to look into 
these matters and discuss them with the committee.
    Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is 
appropriate for the DOD to conduct information operations in a 
sovereign country without the knowledge and support of the host 
country?
    Answer. See previous answer.
                                  iraq
    Question. What, in your view, are the greatest challenges facing 
the Department in implementing the U.S.-Iraq SOFA and what actions, if 
any, would you recommend to maximize the chances of success in meeting 
the requirements for the withdrawal of U.S. forces?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review any plans 
regarding the repositioning and redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. If 
confirmed, I would review such plans and make any necessary 
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.
    Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role for the 
United States in reconstruction activities in Iraq going forward?
    Answer. I support the President-elect's views on bringing in Iraq's 
neighbors to help with reconstruction efforts. I also believe American 
policy should continue to be supportive in working by, with, and 
through our Iraqi partners and that the U.S. role in reconstruction 
should focus on capacity development and assisting our Iraqi partners 
in prioritizing, planning, and executing their reconstruction projects.
                              afghanistan
    Question. What, in your view, are the main challenges facing United 
States and coalition forces in Afghanistan?
    Answer. Our strategic objective is a stable and secure Afghanistan 
in which Al Qaeda and the network of insurgent groups, including the 
Taliban, are incapable of seriously threatening the Afghan state and 
resurrecting a safe haven for terrorism.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to our current 
strategy in Afghanistan?
    Answer. Achieving our strategic objectives in Afghanistan will 
require a more integrated and comprehensive approach to security, 
economic development, and governance. All of the instruments of 
national power and persuasion must be harnessed in order to be 
successful. It is imperative that we improve coordination and 
cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbors and that there be 
better unity of effort among our coalition partners, international 
institutions, and the Government of Afghanistan.
    Question. Do you support an expansion of U.S. forces in 
Afghanistan? If so, would you support drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq 
faster in order to increase U.S. force levels in Afghanistan sooner?
    Answer. President-elect Obama consistently stated throughout the 
campaign that he believed the deteriorating security conditions in 
Afghanistan required additional U.S. and international forces. If 
confirmed, I will work carefully with the Secretary and Congress in 
balancing the demands of our Iraq and Afghanistan deployments while 
ensuring the military is ready to meet other challenges.
    Question. Do you believe that there is a need to develop a 
comprehensive civil-military plan for Afghanistan, akin to that used in 
Iraq?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. How do you assess the contributions of North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to the effort in Afghanistan, and how 
do you believe that the United States can persuade them to increase 
their efforts as the United States does so?
    Answer. Afghanistan would be less secure without the contributions 
and sacrifices of our NATO allies and other international security 
assistance force partners. President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates 
have both called for greater contributions with fewer caveats from our 
NATO allies. By providing better American leadership in Afghanistan, 
and by committing more of our own resources to the challenge, the 
United States will be better positioned to persuade our allies to do 
more.
    Question. One of the main threats to U.S. and coalition forces in 
Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by the Taliban and 
extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's border regions.
    What in your view needs to be done to eliminate the threat posed by 
Taliban and extremist militants hiding out across the Afghan-Pakistan 
border?
    Answer. Both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have cited 
the need to eliminate the terrorist sanctuary in the border regions of 
Pakistan, but there is no purely military solution. The United States 
must have an integrated strategy to promote development and combat 
terrorism across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.
    Question. The cultivation of poppies and trafficking of opium has 
reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan. Some estimate that over 50 
percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with the 
illegal opium trade and that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a 
nation state. Coalition strategies for countering the opium trade have 
not been effective to date.
    What should be the role of the U.S. military forces in the 
counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
    Answer. The international community must play a role in helping the 
Afghan government to strengthen Afghan institutions, including the 
judicial and law enforcement system, intelligence service, and Afghan 
National Security Forces, that will increasingly take the lead in 
combating narcotics in Afghanistan. While current NATO rules of 
engagement restrict NATO forces from direct operations against the 
narcotics industry, NATO can assist in training Afghan counternarcotics 
forces.
    Question. What are the main challenges facing the United States and 
international community's reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the reconstruction 
effort in Afghanistan; however, if confirmed, will make this a high 
priority.
    Question. What would be your priorities for addressing those 
challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working across the 
interagency and with international partners to create a truly 
comprehensive civil-military strategy to build the necessary foundation 
for a stable and secure Afghanistan.
                                pakistan
    Question. In your view, is the Pakistani Government doing enough to 
combat the threat posed by militant groups along the Afghan-Pakistan 
border and to fight terrorism in general? If not, what more should it 
be doing?
    Answer. I have not reviewed this area but, if confirmed, will 
review it as a high priority.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend in the United 
States approach to Pakistan on these issues?
    Answer. See above.
    Question. Tensions between Pakistan and India have increased as a 
result of the horrific attacks in Mumbai, India.
    In your view, what impact has this rise in tensions between 
Pakistan and India had on the stability of the South Asia region, 
generally, and on the prospects for security in Afghanistan?
    Answer. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are linked by history, 
culture, language, and trade, and regional stability cannot be achieved 
without the cooperation of all three countries. It is in America's 
national interest to play a constructive role in helping defuse the 
recent rise in tensions and to help derive from the tragic attacks in 
Mumbai an opportunity for further cooperation between three of 
America's crucial allies.
                                  iran
    Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest 
to engage Iran in a direct dialogue to promote regional stability and 
security, to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program, or 
for other purposes?
    Answer. I support the President-elect's view that the United States 
should be willing to engage with all nations, friend or foe, and be 
willing, with careful preparation, to pursue direct diplomacy. 
Furthermore, I fully support the President-elect's view that we should 
not take any options off the table, but that we should employ tough, 
direct diplomacy backed by real incentives and pressures, to prevent 
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and end their support of terrorist 
organizations such as Hezbollah.
    Question. What more do you believe the United States and the 
international community could be doing to dissuade Iran from pursuing a 
nuclear weapons program?
    Answer. I have no recommendations in this area. But if confirmed, I 
will review it as a high priority.
                                 china
    Question. What do you believe are China's political-military 
objectives regarding Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and globally?
    Answer. Broadly, the overriding objectives of China's leaders 
appear to be to ensure the continued rule of the Chinese Communist 
Party, to continue China's economic development, to maintain the 
country's domestic political stability, to defend China's national 
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to secure China's status as 
a great power. Within this context, preventing any moves by Taipei 
toward de jure independence is a key part of Beijing's strategy. Within 
each dimension there lies a mix of important challenges and 
opportunities for the United States that will continue to deserve 
priority attention.
    Question. What is your view of the U.S. policy of selling military 
equipment to Taiwan, despite China's objections?
    Answer. U.S. policy on arms sales to Taiwan is based on the 1979 
Taiwan Relations Act, which provides that the United States will make 
available to Taiwan defense articles and services in such quantities as 
may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense 
capability. That policy has contributed to peace and stability in the 
region for nearly 30 years and is consistent with the longstanding U.S. 
calls for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue in a manner 
acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. If 
confirmed, I would work closely with Congress and the interagency to 
ensure the continued effective implementation of this longstanding 
policy.
    Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to 
China's military modernization program?
    Answer. The pace and scale of Chinese modernization, coupled with 
the lack of transparency surrounding both capabilities and intentions, 
are a source of concern for the United States as well as for its allies 
and the region more broadly. An appropriate U.S. response would include 
efforts to fully comprehend the future direction of China's programs, 
active engagement to reduce the potential for miscalculations and to 
manage unwanted competition, and, finally, defense preparedness to 
ensure we retain our edge in areas that are critical to achieving 
specific operational objectives. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure 
that DOD places a high priority on this issue and would consult closely 
with Committee members on appropriate U.S. responses.
    Question. What is your assessment of the current state of U.S.-
China military-to-military relations, and do you favor increased 
military-to-military contacts with China?
    Answer. Much more can be done to improve the U.S.-China military-
to-military relationship, both in terms of the quality and the quantity 
of exchanges between the Armed Forces of our countries. If confirmed, I 
would look closely at exchanges with the Chinese armed forces at all 
levels and across a range of issues, including the recently opened 
dialogue on nuclear policy and strategy, which I understand is a 
priority for Secretary Gates. If confirmed, I look to engage in a wide 
range of areas where we can encourage China to act responsibly both 
regionally and globally.
                              north korea
    Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United 
States, its forward deployed forces, and its allies by North Korea's 
ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities 
and the export of those capabilities?
    Answer. North Korea poses a serious threat to the United States, 
the rest of Asia, and the world through its missile and WMD programs 
and proliferation of associated technologies, materials and systems. 
North Korea's continuing nuclear ambitions compound this situation. 
Strong alliances, regional partnerships and forward military presence 
remain key means to deal with these threats. U.S. national capabilities 
are also an essential element in deterring the threat and defending our 
interests. Additionally, in the event of a DPRK collapse, the United 
States would need to work closely with the Republic of Korea (ROK) to 
rapidly and safely secure loose nuclear weapons and materials.
    Question. In your view, how should U.S. forces be sized, trained, 
and equipped to address this threat?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, senior military commanders and members of this 
committee to ensure that the U.S. military has the capabilities needed 
to deal with the range of threats North Korea poses and that our 
contingency planning is adaptive and responsive.
    Question. In your view, what steps, if any, should be taken to 
maintain or strengthen deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
    Answer. Maintaining a strong alliance between the United States and 
the ROK remains central to effective deterrence on the Peninsula. Our 
alliance with Japan is likewise a critical factor in security and 
stability in the wider Asia-Pacific region, including on the Peninsula. 
If confirmed, I would work hard to continue strengthening these 
alliances.
                        republic of south korea
    Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you recommend 
to improve the U.S.-ROK security relationship?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Congress to complete the 
realignment of U.S. forces on the Korean peninsula and return 
facilities our forces no longer require. I would also work to ensure 
that our command and control relationships with Korea and our 
contingency plans remain appropriate to the situations we face. 
Additionally, I believe it is important to ensure the U.S. and Korean 
publics continue to understand the enduring mutual benefits derived 
from this alliance.
    Question. What is your view regarding the timing of the transfer of 
authority for wartime operational command to the ROK?
    Answer. As Secretary Gates said following his meeting with the 
Korean Minister of Defense last October, the ROK military forces and 
U.S. forces are on track to complete the alliance agreement to 
transition wartime operational control in 2012. This effort will enable 
the ROK military to take the lead role in the defense of its nation. If 
confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and this Committee to ensure 
that the important transition in command relationships is carried out 
in a manner that strengthens deterrence and maintains a fully capable 
U.S.-ROK combined defense posture on the Korean Peninsula.
                          u.s. africa command
    Question. On October 1, 2008, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was 
authorized Unified Command status.
    What do you see as the role of AFRICOM in U.S. African policy, in 
development assistance, and in humanitarian engagement?
    Answer. The Department of State and U.S. Agency for International 
Development lead U.S. foreign policy and development engagements 
abroad, to include in Africa. President-elect Obama has argued that 
AFRICOM should promote a more united and coordinated engagement plan 
for Africa. If confirmed, I would take steps to implement that vision.
                          combating terrorism
    Question. How can the Department best structure itself to ensure 
that all forms of terrorism are effectively confronted?
    Answer. I do not have enough information to recommend changes in 
the Department's structure for confronting terrorism at this time. If 
confirmed, I look forward to evaluating the Department's structure for 
counter-terror efforts.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the Defense 
Intelligence Community to ensure optimal support to combating terrorism 
and other homeland security efforts?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review this area. But, if 
confirmed, I will work with the USD (Intelligence) and the Intelligence 
Community to review this area for any improvements.
                              war on drugs
    Question. DOD serves as the single lead agency for the detection 
and monitoring of aerial and maritime foreign shipments of drugs 
flowing toward the United States.
    What is your assessment of the ongoing efforts of the United States 
to significantly reduce the amount of drugs illegally entering into our 
Nation?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my interagency colleagues to 
assess the U.S. Government's efforts to date and craft a strategic way 
forward.
    Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in U.S. 
counterdrug efforts?
    Answer. The Department's global focus, organization, expertise, and 
its ability to act as an honest broker complement law enforcement 
goals, and make it an effective actor in counterdrug efforts. DOD 
brings important tools and global capabilities to interagency efforts 
to counter both terrorist and international criminal networks.
                           engagement policy
    Question. One of the central pillars of our recent national 
security strategy has been military engagement as a means of building 
relationships around the world. Military-to-military contacts, Joint 
Combined Exchange Training exercises, combatant commander exercises, 
humanitarian demining operations, and other engagement activities have 
been used to achieve this goal.
    Do you believe that these activities contribute positively to U.S. 
national security?
    Answer. Military-to-military contacts contribute to U.S. national 
security in a variety of important ways. Such activities can build 
capacity among partner nations to participate in coalition operations 
to counter terrorism and other transnational threats, potentially 
relieving stress on U.S. forces. They can help harmonize nations' views 
of common security challenges. Military-to-military activities can also 
help sustain investments made by other U.S. assistance programs. 
Finally, when performed effectively, military-to-military activities 
should show by example how military forces can act effectively while 
respecting human rights and civilian oversight.
    Question. If confirmed, would you support continued engagement 
activities of the U.S. military?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will support continued U.S. military-to-
military engagement. I believe the current and emerging security 
environment will require robust engagement with the militaries of our 
partners and allies around the world.
    Question. What improvements, if any, would you suggest to the 
interagency process for undertaking these activities?
    Answer. None at this time.
                       building partner capacity
    Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number 
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner 
nations. These include the global train-and-equip authority (section 
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section 
1207).
    In your view, what should be our strategic objectives in building 
the capacities of partner nations?
    Answer. One of the greatest threats to international security is 
the violence that is sparked when human security needs are not met by 
governments. This creates space for terrorists, insurgents, and other 
spoilers to operate and, as the September 11 attacks demonstrated, to 
threaten the United States and its allies. The goal, therefore, is to 
close this space through efforts that strengthen bilateral 
relationships; increase access and influence; promote militaries that 
respect human rights, civilian control of the military and the rule of 
law; and build capacity for common military objectives. In addition to 
promoting regional and global security, enhanced partner capacity 
reduces the risk of future military interventions and reduces stress on 
U.S. Armed Forces.
    Question. Secretary Gates has called for an expansion of the 
Government's resources devoted to instruments of nonmilitary ``soft 
power''--civilian expertise in reconstruction, development, and 
governance.
    Do you agree with Secretary Gates that there is a need to expand 
the Government's resources devoted to the ability of civilian 
departments and agencies to engage, assist, and communicate with 
partner nations?
    Answer. Yes. The President-elect and Secretary Gates have both made 
clear their strong desire to see more robust non-military instruments 
of national power. If confirmed, I will certainly make it my priority 
to assist in this effort.
    Question. In your view, what should be the role of DOD, vis-a-vis 
the civilian departments and agencies of the Government, in the 
exercise of instruments of soft power?
    Answer. Generally, the Department's role should be to support, not 
lead, in the exercise of ``soft power.'' Where DOD plays a vital role 
is in helping to promote--through the full gamut of planning, 
exchanges, exercises, operations, and bilateral defense relationships--
the conditions that enable these instruments to be applied with maximum 
beneficial effect.
                          stability operations
    Question. The U.S. experience in Iraq has underscored the 
importance of planning and training to prepare for the conduct and 
support of stability operations in post-conflict situations.
    In your view, what are the appropriate roles and responsibilities 
between DOD and other departments and agencies of the Federal 
Government in the planning and conduct of stability operations?
    Answer. In stabilizing post-conflict environments, success depends 
upon the integrated efforts of both civilian and military organizations 
in all phases of an operation, from planning through execution. 
Ideally, civilian agencies should lead in areas such as building 
accountable institutions of government, restoring public infrastructure 
and in reviving economic activity. Military forces, in turn, are best 
suited to help provide a safe and secure environment and to assist in 
building accountable Armed Forces.
    Question. In developing the capabilities necessary for stability 
operations, what adjustments, if any, should be made to prepare U.S. 
Armed Forces to conduct stability operations without detracting from 
its ability to perform combat missions?
    Answer. The most important lesson is that 21st century conflict is 
``full spectrum.'' That is, the military cannot be prepared only for 
combat. They must plan and train with their civilian counterparts and 
be prepared to operate effectively in all phases of conflict. That 
said, the military should also be prepared to undertake critical 
nonmilitary tasks when the civilian agencies cannot operate 
effectively, either due to the security environment or, more likely, 
due to lack of capacity. Indeed, the need for greater capabilities and 
capacity in civilian agencies has been a recurring lesson for the 
entire government. Finally, we need to obtain better situational 
awareness of the underlying drivers--political, cultural, and 
economic--of stability and conflict so as to ensure that our actions 
will meet our objectives and not trigger unintended consequences.
                        special operation forces
    Question. Do you believe that the force size, structure, and budget 
of the Special Operations Command is sufficient, given the current 
roles and missions of Special Operation Forces (SOF)? If not, why not, 
and what changes would you recommend, if confirmed?
    Answer. DOD SOF have been significantly strengthened in recent 
years, which I believe is an entirely appropriate response to the 
demands of the current national security environment. I have not had a 
chance to review in detail any possible organizational issues 
associated with force structure or resources required for SOF. However, 
the next QDR will consider SOF capabilities.
                                 russia
    Question. What are the areas of engagement with Russia that are 
most beneficial from a DOD perspective? How would you recommend 
carrying out such engagement?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to assess areas 
where greater military-to-military and other exchanges with Russia 
might be beneficial.
    Question. Is it in the U.S. interest to extend the duration of the 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), or, alternatively, to 
negotiate a new treaty that will offer similar benefits to both parties 
and further reduce their nuclear forces?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to review to 
determine the best path forward with respect to START, the Moscow 
Treaty, and any successor agreements.
               dod's cooperative threat reduction program
    Question. In your view, what are the nonproliferation and threat 
reduction areas in which DOD's Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) 
program should focus in the next 4 years?
    Answer. I anticipate that the President-elect will require the 
State Department, Department of Energy, and DOD to much more closely 
coordinate nuclear risk reduction efforts. The congressional initiative 
to expand the geographic reach of the Nunn-Lugar CTR program beyond the 
former Soviet Union is an important step toward reducing WMD threats 
and building global partnerships. If confirmed, I will work closely 
with Congress, other U.S. government agencies, and global partners to 
strengthen our efforts to prevent WMD proliferation and terrorism.
                       tactical fighter programs
    Question. Perhaps the largest modernization effort that we will 
face over the next several years is the set of programs to modernize 
our tactical aviation forces with fifth generation tactical aircraft 
equipped with stealth technology, to include the F-22 and the Joint 
Strike Fighter (JSF).
    Based on current and projected threats, what are your views on the 
requirements for and timing of these programs?
    Answer. The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world 
and, when combined with the F-35 JSF, will provide the Nation with the 
most capable and lethal mix of fifth generation aircraft available for 
the foreseeable future. The tremendous capability of the F-22 is a 
critical element in the Department's overall tactical aircraft force 
structure requirements, as it replaces our legacy F-15 fleet. The F-35 
will provide the foundation for the Department's tactical air force 
structure. It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force 
and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well 
as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners 
participating in the F-35 program. A critical question is the 
appropriate mix between the F-22 and the F-35. If confirmed, I would 
expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget 
reviews that the Department will conduct over the next few months.
    Question. Even if all of the current aircraft modernization 
programs execute as planned, the average age of the tactical, 
strategic, and tanker fleet will increase. Aging aircraft require ever-
increasing maintenance, but even with these increasing maintenance 
costs, readiness levels continue to decline.
    Can both the maintenance of the legacy force and the modernization 
efforts be affordable at anywhere near the current budget levels?
    Answer. Clearly, the operational tempo and the increased employment 
of the Nation's aircraft to execute the global war on terrorism are 
extracting a toll on the existing equipment and the personnel who 
maintain that equipment. If confirmed, I would expect the QDR and the 
associated processes to formulate the fiscal year 2011 defense program 
and budget to examine the question of how best to balance the force 
structure and modernization programs needed to meet the demands of the 
strategy within available resources.
    Question. Some critics believe that there is still too much service 
parochial duplication in procuring new systems.
    Do you agree with these critics? If so, what would you recommend to 
ensure more jointness in procurement?
    Answer. There are individual cases that can be identified to 
support both sides of the debate. The Department's largest acquisition 
program, the JSF, is certainly an example of how the Services have been 
able to work together to procure common systems when the mission needs, 
operating environments, and operational tactics are sufficiently 
similar to allow common solutions. However, our Nation has evolved to a 
defense structure with separate services because of the broad nature of 
our defense posture, which operates across the globe in the air, land, 
maritime, and space domains. In an organization as large and complex as 
the U.S. DOD, there is a need for specialization among organizational 
sub-elements, which in our system are structured around the traditional 
military departments. This has been an effective structure, but it does 
inevitably create ``seams'' among the sub-elements. In turn, there are 
inevitably issues that cut across those seams. These are not 
necessarily a result of parochialism, but they do require an 
overarching corporate process to address those seam issues. In my 
experience, this is one of the critical functions of the Office of the 
Secretary of the Defense and the Joint Staff. If confirmed as Deputy 
Secretary, I would regard promoting joint solutions, where appropriate, 
to be one of my key functions, working in close cooperation with the 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
                            unmanned systems
    Question. Congress has established a goal that by 2015, one-third 
of the aircraft in the operational deep strike force aircraft fleet and 
one-third of operational ground combat vehicles will be unmanned.
    Do you support this goal?
    Answer. I support the goal of increasing operational capability 
through the expanded use of unmanned systems. I believe that 
substantial progress has been made in this area in recent years and 
that more will be needed in the coming years. If confirmed, I expect 
this would be a focus area for the program and budget reviews that will 
be conducted this year, as well as the QDR. At this time, I do not have 
a view on the exact portion of capability that should be obtained 
through unmanned systems, though I expect more insight on this question 
would be obtained during those reviews.
    Question. What is your assessment of DOD's ability to achieve this 
goal?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review DOD's progress towards 
achieving this goal during the QDR and other program and budget reviews 
that must be conducted later this year.
    Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to 
achieve this goal?
    Answer. I believe this issue should be an area of focus during the 
QDR and the other program and budget reviews that must be conducted 
later this year.
            joint improvised explosive device defeat office
    Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a directive 
granting full authority and responsibility to the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Office to lead the Department's efforts in 
fighting the improvised explosive device (IED) threat.
    What are your views regarding the Department's process for 
addressing the combatant commander's requirements for the fielding of 
IED countermeasures?
    Answer. I agree with Secretary Gates--this is a vitally important 
mission that requires a level of effort beyond the business-as-usual 
approach. I understand IEDs have been the most frequent cause of 
casualties to our Armed Forces in Iraq that consequently has demanded a 
cross-functional organization with a strong mandate from the senior 
leadership to streamline acquisition, budgetary, testing, and other 
processes.
    Question. What else can and should be done to get this critical 
capability to the warfighters?
    Answer. The current approach appears to be sound, but if confirmed, 
I will continually evaluate its effectiveness, seek the advice of 
senior operational commanders, and remain open to options that would 
improve our responsiveness and effectiveness in this crucial area.
               readiness impact of contingency operations
    Question. Over the past several years, military units have been 
increasingly deployed to contingency operations around the world. 
Participation in these operations disrupt operating budgets, cause lost 
training opportunities, and accelerate wear and tear on equipment. 
Additionally, increased tempo of operations impacts quality of life and 
could jeopardize retention of high-quality people.
    What ideas do you have with regard to how to reduce the impact of 
these operations on both near- and long-term readiness and 
modernization programs?
    Answer. I agree with both Secretary Gates and President-elect Obama 
that restoring a semblance of balance to the operational tempo of our 
military forces, particularly the Army and Marine Corps, is very 
important to ensure the future health of the All-Volunteer Force. If 
confirmed, I look forward to balancing the necessity of contingency 
deployments with readiness concerns, and working closely with the 
committee on this important subject.
                         information assurance
    Question. Protection of military networks, information, and 
communications is critical to DOD operations. The Department's 
Inspector General has noted that the Department does not yet have a 
comprehensive enterprise-wide inventory of information systems which 
makes reliable evaluation of the security of information systems 
impossible.
    What is your assessment of the security of the Department's 
information systems?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. What Department-wide policies or guidance do you believe 
are necessary to address information and cyber security challenges for 
current and future systems?
    Answer. I recognize that cyber infrastructure is a critical asset 
to the Department. If confirmed, I will familiarize myself with ongoing 
efforts to secure DOD's information systems and address cyber 
challenges in the development of new capabilities.
                          test and evaluation
    Question. What is your assessment of the appropriate balance 
between the desire to reduce acquisition cycle times and the need to 
perform adequate testing?
    Answer. I support rigorous independent testing and evaluation to 
provide accurate and objective information on the capabilities and 
limitations of defense systems to both acquisition executives and the 
warfighters. When systems are urgently needed in the field, the 
imperative for accurate and objective test and evaluation (T&E) 
assessments is just as important but should be addressed through 
efforts to expedite the T&E process, as has been accomplished 
successfully for such urgent efforts as the MRAP vehicle program.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe we 
should procure weapon systems and equipment that has not been 
demonstrated through T&E to be operationally effective, suitable, and 
survivable?
    Answer. In extremely rare circumstances, it might be necessary to 
field a system prior to operational testing in order to address an 
urgent gap in a critical capability. But even in such cases, 
operational evaluation should still be conducted at the earliest 
opportunity to assess the system's capabilities and limitations and 
identify any deficiencies that might need to be corrected.
    Question. Congress established the position of Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation to serve as an independent voice on 
matters relating to operational testing of weapons systems. As 
established, the Director has a unique and direct relationship with 
Congress which allows him to preserve his independence.
    Do you support the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation's 
ability to speak freely and independently with Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
             funding for science and technology investments
    Question. In the past, the QDR and the Department's leaders have 
endorsed the statutory goal of investing 3 percent of the Department's 
budget into science and technology programs.
    Do you support that investment goal?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to place a high priority on 
maintaining a robust science and technology program for the Department. 
Basic science and technology research ensures the Department remains on 
the cutting edge of combat capability and is responsive to the 
warfighter.
    Question. How will you assess whether the science and technology 
investment portfolio is adequate to meet the current and future needs 
of the Department?
    Answer. Determining the suitability of the Department's science and 
technology program is a complex challenge. The Department should take a 
holistic approach, assessing the opportunities and threats across all 
the Services, to determine where to best focus investment and energy.
                          technology strategy
    Question. You were a member of the National Academy's panel that 
produced the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' recommending 
doubling investments in defense basic research over 7 years.
    What is your assessment of the Department's ability to develop a 
responsive research strategy capable of quick reaction but which is 
also designed to include sustained investments in the development of a 
set of capabilities based on threat predictions and identification of 
related technology gaps?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. How should the Department proceed to implement the 
National Academy's recommendations regarding basic research 
investments?
    Answer. While not a participant in ``Rising Above a Gathering 
Storm,'' I support its foundational principles of developing knowledge-
based resources through education and research to maintain our 
country's competitive edge.
                       ballistic missile defense
    Question. Do you agree that any ballistic missile defense systems 
that we deploy operationally must be operationally effective, suitable, 
survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible 
threat?
    Answer. The effectiveness of missile defense systems must be viewed 
not as a stand alone capability, but as part of an overarching strategy 
to counter the proliferation and deter the use of ballistic missiles. 
The criteria to demonstrate the operational effectiveness, suitability, 
and survivability should be collaboratively determined early in the 
development of missile defense systems by the operational test 
community and Missile Defense Agency, and independently evaluated by 
the Director of for Operational Test and Evaluation. Based on 
independently validated cost estimates, DOD must compare the cost and 
effectiveness of missile defense systems. We then must determine the 
priority of funding and timeframe to develop missile defense systems.
    Question. Do you agree that U.S. missile defense efforts should be 
prioritized on providing effective defenses against existing ballistic 
missile threats, especially the many hundreds of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles that are currently within range of our 
forward-based forces, allies, and other friendly nations?
    Answer. Our development and deployment of missile defenses is only 
one component of a strategy to counter the proliferation and deter use 
of ballistic missiles of all ranges. This development and deployment 
should be proportional to the types and ranges of ballistic missiles 
threats existing today, but should also deter today's pursuit by many 
countries to acquire greater inventories, ranges, and accuracies of 
ballistic missiles.
    Question. Do you agree that ballistic missile defense testing needs 
to be operationally realistic, and should include Operational Test and 
Evaluation, in order to assess operational capabilities and limitations 
of ballistic missile defense systems, prior to making decisions to 
deploy such systems?
    Answer. The criteria to demonstrate the operational effectiveness, 
suitability, and survivability should be collaboratively determined 
early in the development of missile defense systems by the operational 
test community and Missile Defense Agency, and independently validated 
by the Director of for Operational Test and Evaluation. DOD must 
clearly understand and consider the capabilities and limitations of 
ballistic missile defense systems prior to any deployment decisions.
    Question. If the United States and Russia could agree on a 
cooperative approach on missile defense issues, do you believe it would 
be in the security interest of the United States to pursue such an 
effort?
    Answer. A critical step to counter the proliferation of ballistic 
missile technologies and inventories is to demonstrate the ability of 
the international community to observe all ballistic missile testing 
and exercises around the world. Cooperative efforts to combine today's 
considerable U.S. and Russian ballistic missile surveillance assets, 
and link them to international organizations such as NATO, would 
demonstrate the U.S. and Russia's resolve to stop proliferation. 
Additionally, it would be an important confidence building step for 
further cooperative development of missile defense capabilities in the 
interest of the security of both the United States and Russia.
    chemical weapons elimination and the chemical weapons convention
    Question. Do you agree that the United States should make every 
effort to meet its treaty obligations, including its obligations under 
the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. Would you take steps, if confirmed, to raise the priority 
of the Department's efforts to eliminate the U.S. chemical weapons 
stockpile as close to the CWC deadline as possible?
    Answer. The United States has a long history and tradition of 
meeting and strictly complying with international treaties. I 
understand that we will have destroyed 90 percent of our stockpile by 
the treaty mandated date of 2012, and will even have started to 
eliminate the facilities that performed the actual destruction. Because 
of a decision to use an alternative destruction technology rather than 
the incineration method currently in use at each facility today, two 
new destruction facilities must be built to destroy that last 10 
percent of the stockpile. If confirmed, I will review the progress of 
facility construction and eventual chemical weapons elimination at 
those two remaining facilities to ensure that we complete destruction 
of our total stockpile as rapidly and safely as possible.
               nuclear weapons and stockpile stewardship
    Question. As the stockpile continues to age, what do you view as 
the greatest challenges with respect to assuring the safety, 
reliability, and security of the stockpile?
    Answer. The safety, reliability, and security of our nuclear 
weapons needs to be a top priority of DOD. The greatest challenge is 
not technical, but rather the restoration of a proactive, zero-defect 
culture in the stewardship of nuclear weapons in the operational force. 
Secretary Gates has focused a great deal of attention on this issue, 
and, if confirmed, I would intend to support his efforts to address the 
problems.
    Question. Would you support substantial reductions in the U.S. 
nuclear stockpile?
    Answer. The President-elect has indicated that he believes the 
United States should lead an international effort to deemphasize the 
role of nuclear weapons. Toward that end, he intends to open 
discussions with Russia and with other nuclear powers with an aim 
toward reducing global nuclear weapons stockpiles. Such negotiations 
would require close coordination with other Departments and, if 
confirmed, I would intend to perform whatever role the Secretary 
designates for me in that effort.
                        active-duty end strength
    Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the existing Active-
Duty Army and Marine Corps end strength to support current missions 
including combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Answer. If confirmed, I know that this is a question that will 
require my immediate attention. It must, among other things, consider 
both the potential contributions of our Guard and Reserve Forces, and 
the adequacy of a ``rotation base'' sufficient to assure that we meet 
the needs of our volunteers and their families.
    Question. Do you believe the planned increases in end strength for 
the Army and the Marine Corps are affordable and necessary?
    Answer. The President-elect supports the expansion of our ground 
forces, and I understand that the Department has made significant 
progress toward those goals. If confirmed, I will review these plans, 
as well as the associated housing, training, and equipment programs to 
support our ground forces.
                     treatment of wounded warriors
    Question. In November 2008, the acting Comptroller General 
identified care for service members as one of the most urgent issues 
facing Congress and the new administration.
    If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that injured service 
members receive the quality health care that they need for as long as 
they need it, including diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain 
injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health 
conditions?
    Answer. Providing needed care and support for servicemembers, 
veterans, and their families is a continuing and urgent priority for 
Congress and the Department. If confirmed, I will make research on 
prevention and treatment of traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic 
stress disorder, and other mental health conditions a priority.
    Question. The Wounded, Ill, and Injured Senior Oversight Committee 
(SOC), co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, has improved the cooperation between the 
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, the two Federal agencies 
charged with the care of our military personnel and veterans, and their 
families. Because of reports that the SOC would discontinue operations 
and to ensure that senior leadership of the new administration would 
remain focused on this issue, Congress required the Secretaries of 
Defense and Veterans Affairs to continue the operation of the SOC 
through December 31, 2009.
    What is your view of the value of the SOC?
    Answer. As I understand it, the SOC has engaged the senior 
leadership of both departments in finding joint solutions to support 
the wounded warrior. This is a unique and valuable forum for addressing 
the major issues confronting us.
    Question. If confirmed, will you continue the operation of the SOC, 
and what role do you expect to play?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the work of the committee and 
our current and future challenges in coordination with the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. As envisioned by Congress, the SOC will continue 
to address those challenges through this year, and I anticipate that I 
would continue to co-chair it with the Deputy Secretary of VA.
                        disability severance pay
    Question. Section 1646 of the Wounded Warrior Act, included in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, enhanced 
severance pay and removed a requirement that severance pay be deducted 
from VA disability compensation for service members discharged for 
disabilities rated less than 30 percent incurred in line of duty in a 
combat zone or incurred during the performance of duty in combat-
related operation as designated by the Secretary of Defense. In 
adopting this provision, Congress relied on an existing definition of a 
combat-related disability (see 10 U.S.C. 1413a(e)). Rather than using 
the definition intended by Congress, the DOD adopted a more limited 
definition of combat related operations, requiring that the disability 
be incurred during participation in armed conflict.
    If confirmed, will you reconsider the Department's definition of 
combat-related operations for purposes of awarding enhanced severance 
pay and deduction of severance pay from VA disability compensation?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the rationale behind this 
decision to ensure that all wounded warriors are treated fairly.
                             family support
    Question. Throughout the global war on terrorism, military members 
and their families in both the Active and Reserve components have made 
tremendous sacrifices in support of operational deployments. Senior 
military leaders, however, have warned of growing concerns among 
military families as a result of the stress of frequent deployments and 
the long separations that go with them.
    What do you consider to be the most important family readiness 
issue for servicemembers and their families, and, if confirmed, what 
role would you play to ensure that family readiness needs are addressed 
and adequately resourced?
    Answer. I will have to look into this if confirmed, but I believe 
it may come down to building resiliency so that families are better 
prepared to meet the challenges of frequent moves and deployments--
including psychological, social, financial, and educational.
    Question. If confirmed, what would your priorities be for improving 
and sustaining quality of life for military members and their families?
    Answer. Maintaining robust quality of life programs for our 
military servicemembers is one of the highest priorities of the 
President-elect. If confirmed, I would make this one of the focus areas 
for the expedited review of the fiscal year 2010 budget request, as 
well as the QDR and the formulation of the fiscal year 2011 defense 
program. Areas of emphasis would be medical care and child care 
facilities and other programs that assist our servicemembers in 
sustaining the burden of deployments.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support for Reserve 
component families and Active Duty families who do not reside near a 
military installation?
    Answer. I am familiar with a general pattern of much-needed 
improvement here recently, through the implementation of partnerships 
with State and community based services. But I know we have much to do, 
and look forward to being involved in this, if confirmed.
              sustaining the military health care benefit
    Question. In your view, what elements of the military health care 
system require reform and what steps would you take, if confirmed, to 
accomplish reform?
    Answer. Health care costs continue to grow nationally and DOD is 
not exempt. If confirmed, I will work closely with our health care 
leadership in DOD to examine every opportunity to ensure military 
beneficiaries are provided the highest quality care possible in the 
most cost effective manner.
    Question. In light of the continuing growth of health care costs 
both in the military and civilian sectors, if confirmed, how would you 
address the issue of cost control?
    Answer. I am told that governmental estimates indicate these costs 
could rise to nearly 12 percent of the DOD budget in just a few years, 
and that the congressionally-directed task force on the future of 
military health care provided useful insights. If confirmed, I will 
look at all these alternatives to ensure that DOD provides quality care 
in an affordable manner.
    Question. What is your understanding of the requirements of 10 
U.S.C. section 1102(d) concerning the disclosure of medical quality 
assurance information?
    Answer. Section 1102 protects information about a specific provider 
or patient. However, I am told that these data can be released in an 
aggregate statistical manner to inform both military and non-military 
medical providers in advancing the resolution of systemic health care 
problems.
    Question. If confirmed, do you agree to provide information 
requested by the committee in order to exercise its legislative and 
oversight responsibilities concerning medical quality assurance?
    Answer. Yes.
                 national capital region medical issues
    Question. The BRAC 220 decision to consolidate the Walter Reed Army 
Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda is one 
of the most significant realignments in the history of military 
medicine. The outgoing Deputy Secretary of Defense established a joint 
task force (JTF) charged with review of design, transition, staffing 
and operation of the new, consolidated medical center, integration of 
clinical services and medical education programs, and enhanced support 
for wounded warriors and their families.
    If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the highest 
quality care is maintained for military beneficiaries and wounded 
warriors before, during, and after the transition to the new medical 
facility?
    Answer. Care for our wounded warriors is Secretary Gates' top 
concern, next to the war. I understand that DOD has set up a JTF to 
make sure high quality service is not terminated at one facility until 
a successor facility is fully ready. If confirmed, I look forward to 
evaluating measures to achieving that end.
    Question. How would you ensure that the new facilities and medical 
capabilities are achieved in the most effective and timely manner 
possible?
    Answer. Care for our wounded warriors is the Secretary's number one 
concern next to the war itself. Wounded warriors deserve the most 
current capabilities and facilities we can provide. I note that there 
is a robust effort now in place to improve and expand medical care in 
the NCR overseen by the JTF National Capital Region Medical (CAPMED). 
If confirmed, I will oversee and support the JTF CAPMED's efforts to 
ensure this effort achieves success.
                   national security personnel system
    Question. Section 1106 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008 restored the collective bargaining rights of 
civilian employees included in the National Security Personnel System 
(NSPS) established by the DOD pursuant to section 9902 of title 5, 
U.S.C. Under section 1106, the Department retains the authority to 
establish a new performance management system (including pay for 
performance) and streamlined practices for hiring and promotion of 
civilian employees.
    What is your view of the NSPS, as currently constituted?
    Answer. I am generally familiar with the purpose and goals of NSPS, 
as well as the concerns expressed by Members of Congress and employee 
representatives. However, I have not reviewed the details of the 
system. If confirmed, I will conduct a thorough review of the program, 
in coordination with leadership from the Office of Personnel Management 
and other stakeholders, so I may gain a full understanding of the 
system.
    Question. If confirmed, how will you evaluate its success or 
failure to meet its goals?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with and seek the views of the 
appropriate stakeholders both within and outside the Department to gain 
a full understanding of NSPS and the extent to which it is meeting 
program goals and congressional intent. I am well aware of the 
important role civilian employees play in supporting the Department's 
critical mission, and I understand NSPS will be a priority issue for 
the Department.
    Question. Do you support the pay-for-performance approach adopted 
for civilian employees in the NSPS?
    Answer. I have not had a chance to thoroughly examine the details 
of the NSPS pay-for-performance. If confirmed, I will review the entire 
system, including this component. I am mindful of the importance of 
good performance management in achieving organizational results, as 
well as the need for fairness and transparency in any civilian 
personnel system.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department needs streamlined 
authority for hiring and promotion of civilian employees to meet its 
human capital needs?
    Answer. Although I have not yet fully examined NSPS streamlined 
hiring and promotion authorities, I am mindful of the challenges faced 
by the Department and the Federal Government to attract and retain a 
high quality civilian workforce, particularly in light of the fact that 
a large portion of the Federal workforce is eligible to retire or 
nearing retirement eligibility. Given the important role of the DOD 
civilian workforce in supporting national security, our ability to 
compete for talent will become increasingly important. If confirmed, 
this will receive my early attention.
    Question. In your view, is it viable in the long run for the DOD to 
maintain two separate systems (NSPS and the General Schedule) for its 
civilian employees?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will conduct a full review of NSPS, 
including the status of the Department's implementation plan. The issue 
of maintaining two systems will certainly be a part of that review.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS 
authorizing legislation?
    Answer. I am not aware of any immediate need for legislative 
changes at this time. However, if confirmed, I will fully examine the 
program and confer with congressional stakeholders in assessing the 
need for any statutory changes.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the NSPS 
regulations?
    Answer. I understand the regulations jointly issued by the 
Department and the Office of Personnel Management provide much of the 
detail concerning NSPS. However, I have not had a chance to fully 
review those regulations or the NSPS program. If confirmed, I will make 
that an early priority.
                         human capital planning
    Question. Section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006, as amended by section 1102 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and section 851 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 
requires the Secretary of Defense to develop and annually update a 
strategic human capital plan that specifically identifies gaps in the 
Department's civilian workforce and strategies for addressing those 
gaps. DOD has not yet produced a strategic human capital plan that 
meets the requirements of these provisions.
    Would you agree that a strategic human capital plan that identifies 
gaps in the workforce and strategies for addressing those gaps is a key 
step toward ensuring that the Department has the skills and 
capabilities needed to meet future challenges?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the requirements 
of sections 1122, 1102, and 851, regarding the requirement for a 
strategic human capital plan?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to become familiar with this 
area. If confirmed, I will solicit views of others, including 
Secretaries of the Military Departments, and Under Secretary of Defense 
for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)). I will ensure that we keep the 
committee abreast of our progress.
    Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that DOD fully complies 
with these requirements?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work to support any objectives in this 
area.
                          all-volunteer force
    Question. The All-Volunteer Force came into existence over 35 years 
ago and, since its inception, volunteer soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines have helped to win the Cold War, defeat aggression during the 
Persian Gulf War, keep peace in the former Yugoslavia, combat terrorism 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and defend freedom around the world.
    Are you committed to the All-Volunteer Force?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Under what conditions, if any, would you support 
reinitiation of the draft?
    Answer. The Nation should certainly preserve that option, but 
whether and when to use it would be a momentous decision.
    Question. What factors do you consider most significant to the 
success of the All-Volunteer Force?
    Answer. The focus should be on supporting military servicemembers 
and their families. In addition to maintaining strong compensation 
programs, efforts such as assuring quality education for children and a 
meaningful career for the military spouse are high on the agenda of 
today's generation of military servicemembers.
    Question. What changes in pay, compensation, and benefits, if any, 
are needed in your view to sustain recruiting and retention?
    Answer. I will have to look into this more, if confirmed, but to 
achieve success we must treat people fairly in terms of compensation, 
benefits, and quality of life.
                          recruiting standards
    Question. Recruiting highly qualified individuals for military 
service and retaining highly trained and motivated personnel for 
careers present unique challenges, particularly while the Nation is at 
war. Criticism has been aimed at the Department for allowing relaxed 
enlistment standards in the Army with respect to factors such as age, 
intelligence, weight, and physical fitness standards, citizenship 
status, tattoos, and past criminal misconduct.
    What is your assessment of the adequacy of current standards 
regarding qualifications for enlistment in the Armed Forces?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. In your view, does the Army have adequate procedures in 
place to ensure recruitment of only fully qualified individuals?
    Answer. I am not fully familiar with the details of the current 
service standards and procedures, but if confirmed, I would work 
closely with the USD(P&R) to review recruiting standards for all the 
Services.
    Question. What is your understanding of the status, cost (to date), 
and feasibility of implementation of the Defense Integrated Military 
Human Resources System (DIMHRS)?
    Answer. See below.
    Question. Do you believe that it is preferable to have a 
consolidated approach to human capital management systems for all four 
military Services, or to allow each of the Services to develop its own 
systems?
    Answer. I am not fully familiar with the details of DIMHRS and 
efforts to consolidate the Services' human capital management systems 
but, if confirmed, I plan to examine them closely.
                       detainee treatment policy
    Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides that no individual in the custody or 
under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless 
of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, 
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
    In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United 
States? Why or why not?
    Answer. In my view, this prohibition is in the best interest of the 
United States. I also believe that the Department's leadership should 
always be mindful of multiple considerations when developing standards 
for detainee treatment, including the risk that the manner in which we 
treat our own detainees may have a direct impact on the manner in which 
U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines are treated, should they be 
captured in future conflicts.
    Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all 
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and 
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with 
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment 
specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations, FM 2-
22.3, issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, the DOD 
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you believe that the United States has the legal 
authority to continue holding alleged members and supporters of al 
Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy combatants?
    Answer. Yes. As a general matter, the United States is authorized 
to detain those individuals determined to be enemy combatants. I cannot 
comment on the circumstances of the detention of specific individuals, 
which, in many cases, is the subject of pending litigation.
    Question. Do you believe that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals 
convened by DOD to provide Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO), detainees an 
opportunity to contest designation as enemy combatants provide 
detainees with appropriate legal standards and processes?
    Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect that I and others will examine 
this issue carefully.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
reviewing the status of GTMO detainees and determining whether the 
United States should continue to hold such detainees?
    Answer. At present the Deputy Secretary of Defense is delegated the 
responsibility to determine whether a GTMO detainee should be released 
or transferred, upon the recommendation of an Administrative Review 
Board. I anticipate that the new administration will review the current 
process and may make changes to it.
    Question. Do you support closing the detention facility for enemy 
combatants at GTMO?
    Answer. Yes. As both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have 
stated, the detention facility at GTMO has become a liability for the 
United States.
    Question. In order to mitigate the risk associated with the release 
of GTMO detainees, do you believe DOD should establish some form of 
rehabilitation training for enemy combatants held at GTMO?
    Answer. I understand that the efforts in Iraq to rehabilitate and 
reconcile detainees have been fairly successful. If confirmed, I would 
help explore whether such a program could be tailored appropriately and 
successfully implemented for the population at GTMO.
    Question. What other ways could the United States use to encourage 
or entice our allies or other nations to accept detainees from GTMO? 
Would monetary support or sharing of technology for monitoring 
detainees be helpful inducements?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the State 
Department to seek new ways to encourage our allies and friends to 
assist us in transferring those detainees from GTMO who can be safely 
returned to their home countries or resettled in a third country when 
that is not possible.
    Question. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 authorized the trial 
of ``alien unlawful enemy combatants'' by military commission and 
established the procedures for such trials.
    In your view, does the Military Commissions Act provide appropriate 
legal standards and processes for the trial of alien unlawful enemy 
combatants?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to carefully confer with the 
Secretary and the OGC as to whether the Military Commissions Act 
strikes the right balance between protecting U.S. national security 
interests and providing appropriate legal standards and processes for a 
fair and adequate hearing.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it 
would be appropriate to use coerced testimony in the criminal trial of 
a detainee?
    Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate looking carefully with the OGC 
at whether use of coerced testimony is ever appropriate in the criminal 
trial of a detainee.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
determining whether GTMO detainees should be tried for war crimes, and 
if so, in what forum?
    Answer. As I understand the current structure under the Military 
Commissions Act, the Convening Authority makes the decision on which 
cases are referred to a military commission. If confirmed, I anticipate 
reviewing with the OGC the current process to determine whether to 
recommend any changes to it.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
reviewing the Military Commissions Act and developing administration 
recommendations for any changes that may be needed to that Act?
    Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate reviewing the Military 
Commissions Act with the OGC to determine whether to recommend any 
legislative proposals to change it.
    Question. In the past 2 years, significant changes have been made 
in Iraq in the way detention operations have been conducted in a 
counterinsurgency environment, including through the establishment of 
reintegration centers at theater internment facilities.
    What do you consider to be the main lessons learned from the 
changes to detention operations in Iraq?
    Answer. As we begin to transition detention operations and 
facilities to full Iraqi control, it is vital that we do our best to 
ensure that the increased quality of our facilities and our approach to 
detainee operations is maintained, as this line of operation is a 
critical component of successful counterinsurgency doctrine and 
practice.
    Question. What should be done to incorporate those lessons learned 
into DOD doctrine, procedures, and training for personnel involved in 
detention and interrogation operations?
    Answer. I believe that a lot of these lessons are being captured 
today, and are reflected in new doctrine and directives.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of Defense?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of 
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by 
a duly constituted committee, or to consult with the committee 
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing 
such documents?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                          defense laboratories
    1. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, in your view, how does the quality of 
the Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories compare to the quality of 
the national laboratories and to industry and academic laboratories?
    Mr. Lynn. I view a healthy science and technology (S&T) program, 
which includes high-performing DOD laboratories, as important to the 
overall national security. We should view DOD laboratories as providing 
a dedicated set of capabilities for the Armed Forces; but the 
Department should work with other agency and university laboratories 
where it is the Nation's and Department's best interest. This includes 
the Department of Energy national laboratories, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration research centers, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, as well as universities and industry. The mix 
of the strengths of all laboratories is important to DOD.

    2. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, what steps do you plan to take in terms 
of infrastructure improvement, management practices, and personnel 
authorities to empower laboratory directors to revitalize their 
institutions and perform their designated technology development 
missions?
    Mr. Lynn. The ability of the DOD laboratories to support the 
Department's missions through research and technology development is 
important for our national security. The Department must attract and 
retain a workforce that is competitive, with hiring mechanisms that 
provide flexibility to recruit the best, and a workforce environment 
that will retain and reward them. To this end, if confirmed, I will be 
evaluating the effectiveness of the existing personnel demonstration 
programs conducted at many of DOD's laboratories, the S&T Reinvention 
Laboratories, to identify which authorities have proven to be effective 
in addressing workforce recruitment, retention, technical 
qualifications and imbalances; improving laboratory quality and 
effectiveness; and assessing whether there are authorities or 
management approaches that DOD may choose to implement across its 
entire S&T workforce. If confirmed, I will also review other relevant 
authorities available to the Department to assess their effectiveness 
and identify new opportunities that may be available for the Department 
to pursue.

                        small business research
    3. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, do you feel the Department does an 
adequate job of accessing the innovation potential of our Nation's 
small advanced technology businesses?
    Mr. Lynn. I believe that the Department is doing a good job of 
accessing the innovation potential of small advanced technology 
businesses. I am told that DOD invests a significant part of its annual 
Research and Development (R&D) budget to access the innovation 
potential of our Nation's small advanced technology businesses, both as 
prime and subcontractors.
    Small businesses make a significant contribution towards our 
Nation's economic strength. The statistics on American small business 
show that they represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, employ 
about half of all private sector employees, have generated 60-80 
percent of all new jobs over the last decade, and produce more than 
half of the nonfarm private Gross Domestic Product. In the technology 
sector, small businesses produce 13 times more patents per employee 
than large firms and hire 40 percent of all high tech (scientists, 
engineers, computer scientist) workers. (Source: Small Business 
Administration Frequently Asked Questions Sept. 2008.)
    Small businesses are important to our Nation's military strength. 
Small businesses offer such attributes as flexibility, agility, 
responsiveness, and lower operating costs. Small businesses are also 
one of the best sources of technological innovation, which the 
Department uses to develop solutions to meet the needs of the 
warfighter.
    I understand that the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 
program is the Department's premier program focused on accessing small 
business innovation for the benefit of the warfighter. This program 
sets aside 2.5 percent of the Department's extramural R&D budgets in 
excess of $100 million for the program. In fiscal year 2007, the SBIR 
program awarded 2,849 contracts with a budget of $1.2 billion. Over 60 
percent of SBIR projects historically continue to receive funding from 
other sources as the innovative products migrate into defense and 
commercial applications. These statistics, as well as other tools for 
small businesses including sample proposals are available on the SBIR/
Small Business Technology Transfer Web site.

    4. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, what steps should the Department take to 
better involve small business in DOD research and acquisition efforts?
    Mr. Lynn. The Department has a good record of working with small 
businesses. In addition to contracting directly with small businesses, 
the Department encourages its prime contractors to offer small, 
innovative firms maximum possible opportunity to compete for government 
contracts.
    I understand that the Department is proactive in its efforts to 
involve small businesses in research and acquisition. Each military 
department and defense agency has an Office of Small Business Programs 
that advocates on behalf of small businesses and undertakes to ensure 
all statutory and regulatory requirements relating to small business 
contracting are met. These offices work with the acquisition community 
and industry to provide maximum practicable opportunities to small 
businesses. The Department's small business workforce sponsors and 
participates in numerous outreach and training activities to make small 
businesses aware of DOD research and acquisition contracting 
opportunities.
    If confirmed, it will be necessary for me to make an assessment of 
the current situation before making any recommendations for improving 
small business participation in the Department's research and 
acquisition efforts. This assessment would need to consider such 
matters as the long term, strategic goals to be achieved, through 
better involvement of small businesses, for both the warfighter and the 
taxpayer.

                manufacturing and industrial base issues
    5. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, how would you assess the health of our 
Nation's defense and technology industrial bases in terms of their 
ability to meet DOD near- and far-term needs?
    Mr. Lynn. Generally, my viewpoint is that our Nation's defense and 
technology industrial bases, while perhaps not as robust as they were 
before the world-wide wave of industrial consolidation that began in 
the mid-1990s, remain today and for the foreseeable future the most 
innovative, reliable, and cost-effective in the world. I believe this 
primarily because our defense and technology industrial bases continue 
to consistently develop, produce, and support militarily-superior 
defense systems that are the envy of the world. If confirmed, I would 
work to better sustain and leverage those bases by ensuring that DOD 
decisions and funding support the cost-effective creation and 
preservation of industrial and technological capabilities essential to 
defense; and increasing the Department's use of the highly-competitive 
commercial marketplace by encouraging use of dual-use technologies, 
processes, and materiel. Finally, I think that industrial globalization 
is a reality that the Department must address. Given the 
interconnectivity of supply chains, the Department's challenge is to 
leverage the benefits of the global commercial industrial base, while 
also recognizing and minimizing the risks in doing so.

    6. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, what steps should the Department take to 
strengthen the Nation's capacity to design, test, and manufacture 
weapons systems and other defense technologies?
    Mr. Lynn. In my opinion, the Department must better leverage its 
buying power via an acquisition system that effectively balances 
realistic requirements, stable/sufficient funding, and sufficient time 
to strengthen the Nation's capacity to design, test, and manufacture 
the world's most capable weapon systems and defense technologies. If 
confirmed, I would support the Department's current strategy to rely on 
market forces to the maximum extent possible to create, shape, and 
sustain the industrial and technological capabilities needed to provide 
for the Nation's defense. However, I think it is also important to 
recognize that the Department (through its budget, acquisition, and 
logistics processes) can create market forces capable of harnessing the 
innovation potential in the industrial/technological base. In addition, 
when it becomes necessary to intervene in the marketplace, the 
Department has tools available--for instance, the Defense Production 
Act Title III Program and the Manufacturing Technology Program--which 
help to focus industry attention on critical technology development, 
accelerate technology insertion into manufacturing processes, create or 
expand critical production facilities, and direct production capacity 
towards meeting the most urgent warfighter needs. Finally, I believe 
that the acquisition initiatives recently posed by Secretary Gates hold 
great promise in strengthening our Nation's defense industrial 
capabilities--i.e., freezing requirements earlier for proposed systems, 
improving production contracts, employing prototypes to learn more 
about competing proposals, planning better, and balancing rapid and 
lengthy acquisition timelines.

         importance of information sharing to national security
    7. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, the September 11 attacks illustrated a 
fundamental failure by our Government to share information effectively 
in order to detect and prevent the attack by ``connecting the dots.'' 
The 9/11 Commission identified 10 lost ``operational opportunities'' to 
derail the attacks. Each involved a failure to share information 
between agencies. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, major 
efforts have been made to improve information-sharing. Through 
legislation and Executive orders these efforts were designed to effect 
a ``virtual reorganization of Government'' with communities of interest 
working on common problems across agency boundaries and between 
Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector. While we 
have established the necessary legal structures, I am concerned that 
implementation is lacking. What is your view on the importance of 
information-sharing to our national security and what steps will you 
take to improve the Government's ability to share information in a 
trusted environment?
    Mr. Lynn. Information-sharing is an important part of a whole-of-
government approach to combating terrorism and providing for national 
security. The right information must be shared at the right time not 
only with Federal, State, and local governments but also with 
international friends and allies. I will work to ensure the Department 
is committed to the trusted sharing of information with these key 
partners.

    8. Senator Reed. Mr. Lynn, in the wake of September 11, Congress 
and President Bush put enhanced information-sharing forward as a major 
goal by passing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 and the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act of 
2007. The information-sharing environment established by this 
legislation is designed to enable our Government to use information in 
new and more powerful ways. While improved information-sharing enhances 
our national security, it also presents the risk that the Government 
will use these powerful new authorities to acquire vast amounts of 
data. This has the potential to infringe on privacy and civil 
liberties. As the 9/11 Commission said, this increase in governmental 
power ``calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances.'' What 
steps will you take to ensure that, as information-sharing is enhanced, 
new and more powerful protections are developed to safeguard privacy 
and civil liberties and how will you help make sure that the American 
public trusts that the Government will respect their privacy?
    Mr. Lynn. The Nation's security should not require the abandonment 
of our values, privacy, or civil liberties. As Deputy Secretary of 
Defense, I will work to ensure that all matters within the full range 
of my authority are consistent with the Constitution and the law.
                                 ______
                                 
             Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
                    china's military transformation
    9. Senator Akaka. Mr. Lynn, our military has experienced strains 
after nearly 7 years of warfare. It is imperative that we support our 
forward-deployed forces engaged in current operations but we must not 
overlook other important developments in the international system. For 
example, China's continued investment in their military transformation 
has the potential to alter the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific 
region. In March 2007, Beijing announced a 19.47 percent increase in 
its military budget from 2006 to approximately $45.99 billion. In light 
of China's continued military modernization efforts, do you believe 
that U.S. forces in the Pacific Command are fully prepared to address 
any possible threats related to China's modernization, particularly 
with regards to Pacific Command's forward basing requirements?
    Mr. Lynn. Forward basing of U.S. forces and alliance capabilities 
are important during peacetime and crisis. As such DOD has undertaken a 
series of force realignments in Korea, Japan, and Guam, including the 
forward-basing of the George Washington to Japan. These posture 
realignments will position our forces in the Pacific to be more fully 
prepared to address any military contingency in the Asia-Pacific 
region, including those that may involve China. Basing, posture, and 
future capabilities are important issues that DOD should address 
further in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
   survivor benefit plan/dependency and indemnity compensation offset
    10. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, for 8 years I have worked to 
eliminate the unjust offset between the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation (DIC). Under current law, if the surviving spouse of a 
servicemember is eligible for SBP, that annuity is offset by the amount 
of DIC received. I would like to work with DOD to devise a plan to 
eliminate the offset over time; it is the least we can do for the 
widows, widowers, and orphans of our servicemembers. What is the proper 
balance of discretionary and mandatory spending that will not only 
ensure our national defense, but will also take care of our 
servicemembers, veterans, and their families?
    Mr. Lynn. While I have not yet had an opportunity to be briefed on 
this subject, it's important to be fair to our veterans' and their 
surviving family members. If confirmed, I will look into this area to 
ensure our veterans and their families are treated fairly.

    11. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, what would a plan look like that 
would eliminate the SBP-DIC offset over 4 years and over 10 years?
    Mr. Lynn. As noted in the answer to the prior question, I will need 
to explore this subject more fully with the goal of ensuring our 
veterans and their families are treated fairly.

                base realignment and closure commission
    12. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, in November 2005, the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) of 2005 went into effect. 
Full funding of BRAC 2005 is imperative because the Services must build 
infrastructure to support the mandated force movements. Two BRAC 2005 
conclusions that affect Florida are the establishment of Initial 
Aircraft Training for the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter and 
the beddown of the 7th Special Forces Group at Eglin Air Force Base. 
The BRAC 2005 law expires in 2011. Explain how DOD will support the 
Services' funding requests necessary to implement the BRAC 2005 law 
before expiration of the BRAC 2005 mandate.
    Mr. Lynn. While I am not yet familiar with the budget details of 
the Services, it is my understanding the Department has tasked the 
applicable components to fully fund all BRAC 2005 actions to meet the 
September 15, 2011 deadline.

     navy decision to establish a second aircraft carrier homeport
    13. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, in 2006, the Navy began an 
environmental impact statement to determine the environmental impact of 
homeporting additional surface ships at Naval Station Mayport, FL. 
Since 2005, congressional and military leadership have reaffirmed the 
importance of dispersing the Atlantic Fleet in two ports. In February 
2005, then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, stated that it was 
his view that, ``over-centralization of the [carrier] port structure is 
not a good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier-
capable homeports on each coast.'' He went on to say, ``. . . it is my 
belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of 
those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.''
    Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, as the former Secretary 
of the Navy, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the 
Navy needed to disperse its Atlantic coast carriers: ``My judgment is 
that [dispersion] is still the situation . . . a nuclear carrier should 
be in Florida to replace the [U.S.S. John F.] Kennedy to get some 
dispersion.''
    The current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead, 
recommended to Secretary of the Navy Winter that Naval Station Mayport 
should be made capable of homeporting a nuclear aircraft carrier 
homeport to reduce the risk to our Atlantic Fleet carriers should 
Norfolk become incapacitated. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, Admiral Mullen, agrees with Admiral Roughead's 
recommendation.
    On January 14, the Navy made its decision to make Naval Station 
Mayport a carrier homeport and plans to request the necessary funding 
for its implementation in its fiscal year 2010 budget request. 
Understanding the fiscal challenges facing our country and the 
constrained defense budget, how will you approach this funding priority 
among the many priorities facing the military?
    Mr. Lynn. I have not yet had the opportunity to explore the details 
of this move. However, if confirmed, I will examine this decision and 
its impact on the fiscal year 2010 POM to ensure the Department's 
strategy and funding match.

    14. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, the principle of strategic 
dispersal is decades old. What is your understanding of the principle 
of strategic dispersal and what are your thoughts of Secretary of the 
Navy Donald Winter's implementation of this principle with respect to 
Naval Station Mayport?
    Mr. Lynn. Strategic dispersal is a protective measure that allows 
forces to be less vulnerable to a single critical attack. However, in 
many cases dispersal also increases costs by reducing economies of 
scale. If confirmed, I will seek to strike a balance of developing an 
effective basing strategy that the Department can afford.

                sexual assaults in iraq and afghanistan
    15. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Lynn, untold numbers of sexual 
assaults have been committed in Iraq and Afghanistan by executive 
branch contractors and employees. In 2007, I sent letters regarding 
sexual assault to the Secretaries of Defense and State and the Attorney 
General. On December 13, 2007, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Gates, 
requesting that he launch an investigation by the Defense Department's 
Inspector General (DOD/IG) into rape and sexual assault cases in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Following my letters, the DOD/IG stated that the Army 
Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigated 41 sexual assaults in 
Iraq in 2005, 45 sexual assaults in 2006, and 38 sexual assaults in 
2007. These numbers are limited to only 3 years worth of investigations 
by the Army in Iraq. They do not include investigations for both 
theaters of operations nor all the Services operating in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Consequently, there could be many additional 
investigations and assaults that have not been investigated. Also, 
because the DOD/IG would not provide information on the status of its 
investigations, it remains unclear how many of these cases have been 
prosecuted and/or processed within the military or criminal justice 
systems. If confirmed, how will you work with your counterparts at the 
Departments of State, Justice, and other executive branch departments 
with regard to contractor crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Mr. Lynn. Sexual assault is a crime and an affront to our values. 
The Department recognizes even one sexual assault is too many and in 
2004 established the DOD Sexual Assault and Prevention Office to 
provide policy and procedures to address the issues encountered by 
victims of sexual assault worldwide. If confirmed, I will continue to 
support the Office of the General Counsel in their efforts to 
coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure the criminals 
perpetrating these acts are prosecuted.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
                      troop levels in afghanistan
    16. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, as the U.S. military continues to draw 
down our forces in Iraq, how does the new administration propose to 
balance the needs of maintaining security in Iraq with its pledge to 
increase our troop levels in Afghanistan by as many 30,000 
servicemembers?
    Mr. Lynn. The Department must continue to listen to the assessments 
of our military commanders in the field, United States Central Command, 
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop and provide the President the 
right options. Getting troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan right is a 
critically important issue that, if confirmed, I will follow closely.

    17. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, how do these requirements square with 
the readiness levels and operational tempo we have demanded of our 
troops?
    Mr. Lynn. Our force's current operational tempo and associated 
readiness levels present a continuing challenge for the Department. 
Rotation timelines, increased allied contributions, and a strong 
interagency plan must all be considered to properly meet current and 
future taskings. Current plans to increase the Army and Marine Corps 
would also help reduce these pressures.

                   resources for iraq and afghanistan
    18. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, according to the recently signed Status 
of Forces Agreement with Iraq, American combat troops will begin 
leaving Iraq very soon. How do you plan to address the significant need 
for equipment recapitalization and reset while also weaning the 
Department off of supplemental budget requests?
    Mr. Lynn. As the Department addresses the fiscal year 2010 budget, 
recapitalization and reset are part of a wide span of important 
requirements that must be balanced. This process will present many 
tough choices for DOD leadership as they respond to the economic 
environment.

    19. Senator Bayh. Mr. Lynn, what risks does DOD face by continuing 
to rely so heavily on the supplemental process?
    Mr. Lynn. Supplemental appropriations are an important tool for the 
government to respond to contingency requirements. But the core defense 
budget needs should proceed through the normal authorization and 
appropriations process to ensure proper balance and appropriate 
oversight.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                      troop levels in afghanistan
    20. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, General McKiernan has spoken of 
increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan by something on the order of four 
combat brigades. Do you support this request?
    Mr. Lynn. Secretary Gates has highlighted the current troop 
shortfalls in basic security and training in the face of an 
increasingly active Taliban. At current levels, our forces are 
challenged to provide a foundation of security while at the same time 
supporting our broader efforts to train Afghan security forces. The 
Department needs to examine General McKiernan's request in that 
context.

    21. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, would increasing the number of troops 
in Afghanistan require us to draw down in Iraq faster than we otherwise 
might?
    Mr. Lynn. If confirmed, I will assist Secretary Gates in his review 
of possible options to provide to the President.

    22. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, how large do you believe the Afghan 
National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP) should 
ultimately be?
    Mr. Lynn. Both the Government of Afghanistan and the international 
community have agreed an increase in Afghan security forces is required 
for the Afghans to assume primary responsibility for their own 
security. This planned expansion would bring the ANA to 134,000 and the 
ANP to 82,000. It is not yet clear whether these levels will be 
sufficient over the long run. The ultimate number will require 
continued assessment and evaluation to determine.

                      nato support in afghanistan
    23. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the Afghanistan mission is an 
important test of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) out-
of-area capability. Yet, NATO commanders continue to have difficulty 
persuading allies to contribute forces to International Security 
Assistant Force or to provide NATO forces the appropriate equipment for 
their tasks. Secretary Gates testified last year that he is worried 
about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in which you 
have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's security, 
and others who are not. How do you assess the contributions of NATO 
allies to the war in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Lynn. NATO and other non-NATO partner nation contributions, 
both military and civilian, are an important component of the 
international mission in Afghanistan. While NATO contributions have 
increased over time, their growing involvement will continue to play a 
pivotal role in the stabilization and security of Afghanistan.

    24. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, what steps would you recommend to 
persuade NATO nations to increase their efforts in concert with our 
own?
    Mr. Lynn. NATO and other international contributions are an 
important component of the international mission in Afghanistan. If 
confirmed, I will examine future strategy options in part for their 
proposed steps to increase partner contributions.

                             guantanamo bay
    25. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, President-elect Obama has said he 
wants to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay 
(GTMO). If confirmed, how would you go about executing the President-
elect's policy? How would you approach this challenge?
    Mr. Lynn. As both President Obama and Secretary Gates have stated, 
the detention facility at GTMO has become a liability for the United 
States. If confirmed, I would work closely with the State Department to 
seek new ways to encourage our allies and friends to assist us in 
transferring those detainees from GTMO who can be safely returned to 
their home countries or resettled in a third country when that is not 
possible.

                        active-duty end strength
    26. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the President-elect and the Secretary 
of Defense have endorsed significant increases in the Active-Duty 
strengths of the Army and Marine Corps and these Services have been 
working hard to accelerate this growth. Please discuss your concerns 
about the rising cost of personnel and how you anticipate this will 
affect the ability of the Services to recapitalize its equipment.
    Mr. Lynn. All of our servicemembers, Active and Reserve, continue 
to perform extraordinarily in light of the demands we have placed upon 
them. However, as the President has stated, we do believe increases in 
our ground forces are necessary. Moreover, we cannot fail to have the 
right numbers and kinds of uniformed personnel to win our wars, and to 
deter potential adversaries. While our force, Active and Reserve, must 
be large enough to satisfy deployment needs, there must be a base that 
recognizes the personal needs of our volunteers and their families. At 
the same time, our volunteers must have the weapons, equipment and 
support that will enable mission success. Striking the right balance 
between personnel, recapitalization, and operational and support costs 
is a challenging imperative that will be central to the fiscal year 
2010 budget and the QDR. We look forward to working with Congress.

    chief of the national guard bureau and the joint chiefs of staff
    27. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, do you think the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau should be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? 
Why or why not?
    Mr. Lynn. In recognition of its increased role in recent years, the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau was raised to a four-star position 
in December 2008. If confirmed, I will evaluate this very recent 
adjustment over time before recommending further changes in the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff structure.

                retirees and the cost of dod health care
    28. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, for the last 3 years, the 
administration has tried--without success--to gain approval for 
increases in the annual premiums for DOD-provided health care paid for 
by military retirees under the age of 65. What are your views about the 
need for change in this regard?
    Mr. Lynn. The amount of funding budgeted for healthcare must be in 
balance with all of the other essential requirements that must be 
funded in the DOD budget. DOD established the Task Force on the Future 
of Military Healthcare in accordance with the provisions of the NDAA 
for Fiscal Year 2007. The Task Force reviewed several aspects of 
military healthcare including ``the beneficiary and government cost 
sharing structure'' and provided recommendations to promote the 
provision of quality, cost-effective healthcare for DOD beneficiaries. 
I will utilize the Task Force's recommendations as a reference when 
evaluating the benefit and government cost-sharing options for 
implementation to ensure that DOD continues to provide quality care in 
a manner that also provides the best value for our servicemembers and 
our Nation.

                    funding for wounded warrior care
    29. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, in your answers to pre-hearing policy 
questions you indicated that you will supervise the development of the 
Department's 2010 budget submission. I urge you to pay particular 
attention to funding of wounded warrior care and research. Congress has 
provided significant increases in funding for traumatic brain injury 
(TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) research and treatment, 
as well as programs critical to supporting family needs, through 
supplemental appropriations. These conditions are enduring requirements 
in support of warfare, and far too important to rely on supplemental 
appropriations. Will we see the Department's full funding requirements 
for TBI and PTSD in the budget which you develop and submit to Congress 
in March or April of this year?
    Mr. Lynn. I certainly agree that funding for wounded warrior care 
and research, such as that which was provided through prior 
supplemental appropriations, is an important priority for DOD. If 
confirmed, I will personally review the fiscal year 2010 budget to 
ensure that wounded warrior care is funded appropriately.

                             ``soft power''
    30. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, Secretary Gates has called on 
Congress to provide more funding for the State Department's Foreign 
Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Just a few 
days ago, Admiral Mullen expressed the same views commenting that our 
national security and foreign policy requires ``a whole-of-government 
approach to solving modern problems'' and ``we need to reallocate roles 
and resources in a way that places our military as an equal among many 
in government--as an enabler, a true partner.'' Admiral Mullen went on 
to say that ``as an equal partner in government, I want to be able to 
transfer resources to my other partners when they need them.'' What 
thoughts do you have on these remarks calling for more resources for 
civilian agencies responsible for ``soft power,'' including the 
Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Agriculture?
    Mr. Lynn. A successful whole-of-government approach requires 
greater investment in our non-military instruments of power. Our 
civilian institutions need to have the will and capacity to support 
more integrated approaches for national strategies to be effective.

    31. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, should Congress provide greater 
flexibility for the military to transfer funding during a crisis?
    Mr. Lynn. More flexible spending authorities would allow the 
Department to be more responsive and adaptable during a crisis.

                    cyber security and cyber threats
    32. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the United States heavily depends on 
our cyber-infrastructure--possibly more than any other nation. What do 
you think the greatest threat to the United States is in terms of cyber 
security and cyber threats?
    Mr. Lynn. Our ability to conduct business, communicate, and operate 
through cyberspace is one of our Nation's greatest strengths. Indeed, 
the United States does depend upon cyberspace and its associated 
information technology infrastructure. DOD relies upon global data and 
telecommunication networks, much of which is owned and operated by the 
commercial sector, to conduct full spectrum land, sea, air, and space 
operations. Adversaries could potentially acquire a capability to deny 
or disrupt the Department's access to those networks, or impact 
operations by diminishing our confidence in the reliability of those 
networks. Bad actors in cyberspace can range from insider threats to 
malicious hackers, criminal organizations to nation-states. Although 
nation-states can invest greater resources and acquire more 
sophisticated capabilities than non-state actors, all are a cause for 
concern. As Estonia experienced in 2007, it only takes a small but 
committed group of malicious hackers to bring a technologically 
sophisticated government to a standstill. Threats to cyber-
infrastructure are not solely through cyberspace, we must maintain 
awareness of physical vulnerabilities to key communications nodes, 
electrical power sources, satellite or ground relay links, and 
underground or undersea cables. The range of potential adversaries is 
such that there is no ``greatest'' threat, only the enduring need to 
remain vigilant, and continually improve security, reliability, and 
resiliency of our critical information networks.

    33. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, how is DOD organized to address cyber 
threats?
    Mr. Lynn. Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (CDRUSSTRATCOM) has the 
DOD lead for cyberspace operations per the 2008 Unified Command Plan. 
CDRUSSTRATCOM has designated Commander, Joint Functional Component 
Command--Network Warfare (JFCC-NW), as the lead for the planning, 
integration, and, as directed, execution of the full spectrum of 
military cyberspace operations. The Director of the National Security 
Agency is dual-hatted as Commander, JFCC-NW. Joint Task Force--Global 
Network Operations (JTF-GNO) is under the operational control of JFCC-
NW. The Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency is dual-
hatted as Commander, JTF-GNO. CDRUSSTRATCOM has designated JTF-GNO as 
the lead for directing the operation and defense of the Department's 
Global Information Grid. In addition, the Department is a major 
partner, as well as a key enabler of the Comprehensive National 
Cybersecurity Initiative, working closely with interagency partners to 
provide support to efforts aimed at securing U.S. Government networks 
and the national cyber infrastructure.

    34. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, is the current structure adequate to 
address this threat?
    Mr. Lynn. I consider your question to be of utmost importance to 
DOD and to the Nation. As a nominee for the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense, I will refrain from answering this question because I do not 
have the proper insights into this complex question. I can tell you 
however, that if confirmed, I will address this critical issue to 
determine if DOD is optimally structured and organized to conduct a 
wide range of cyber missions now and into the future.

                      defense business board view
    35. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the Defense Business Board (DBB), an 
internal management oversight board established by Secretary Gates, 
recently warned that the Defense Department's budget is 
``unsustainable'' and that the Department can only meet its priorities 
if it makes hard budget decisions on its largest and costliest 
acquisition programs. ``Business as usual [in terms of the Department's 
budget decisions] is no longer an option,'' warned the Board. Do you 
agree with the DBB's warning?
    Mr. Lynn. Yes, business as usual is no longer an option. President 
Obama and Secretary Gates have underscored that change is needed and 
vowed to make acquisition reform a top priority.

    36. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, what principles will guide your 
thinking on possible cuts to large acquisition programs?
    Mr. Lynn. Acquisition programs must be able to deliver the required 
capability on schedule and at or under cost. The capabilities they 
provide must not be duplicative of other acquisitions, and these 
capabilities must be integral components of the overall portfolio of 
capabilities that the Department needs to accomplish its mission. We 
will review programs to ensure that they have the required 
technological and production maturity to enable successful delivery of 
the required capability to the warfighter according to schedule, and at 
cost. Programs lacking this maturity may be candidates for termination 
or restructure, depending on their potential contributions to our 
mission accomplishment. Cuts to large acquisition programs will also be 
evaluated against the capabilities they provide to ensure 
accomplishment of the Department's mission to defend our Nation, its 
interests, and our allies. We will review acquisitions to determine 
which best address requirements of near-term engagements and current 
known threats, and fund the highest priority acquisition programs that 
address these areas. At the same time, we will also ensure that we do 
not neglect the need for increased capabilities to meet increased or 
new threats in the future. As standard practice, we will align our 
acquisitions to stay within our funding topline and always strive to 
get the best value for our resources.

                            f-22a decisions
    37. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, early this year, this administration 
will be required to make what amounts to a go/no-go decision on the F-
22A Raptor program, an increasingly expensive program that has made no 
contribution to the global war on terror and that may impinge on the 
timing and cost of when the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may first be 
operationally capable. Do you have any preliminary thoughts on whether 
the F-22A program should be continued or should be wound down as 
originally planned?
    Mr. Lynn. The F-22A Raptor is the most advanced tactical fighter in 
the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will 
provide the Nation with the most capable and lethal mix of 5th 
generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future. The 
tremendous capability of the F-22A is a critical element in the 
Department's overall tactical aircraft force structure requirements. 
The Department is reviewing whether to procure more F-22A aircraft 
beyond its current Program of Record quantity of 183 and will make a 
recommendation to the administration in time to meet the requirements 
stipulated in section 134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009.

    38. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, what principles will guide the 
Department's thinking on that matter?
    Mr. Lynn. The Department is currently reviewing whether to procure 
more F-22A aircraft beyond its current Program of Record quantity of 
183. Some of the factors that will go into the Department's 
recommendation to the administration are: compliance in meeting the 
requirements of the current National Military Strategy; affordability 
of additional F-22A aircraft within the Department's resource 
constrained environment; and whether continued production or 
termination is in the national interest of the United States.

               reforms for procurement of weapons systems
    39. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, over the last few years, this 
committee has developed several legislative initiatives intended to 
reform the process by which the Department buys its largest and most 
expensive weapons systems. The preponderance of those initiatives have 
addressed acquisition policy and the requirements system. Are there any 
aspects of acquisition policy, the requirements-determination system, 
or the resource allocation process that you believe require additional 
reform?
    Mr. Lynn. One issue the Department faces in regard to buying weapon 
systems is creating program stability. There are critical linkages 
among the requirements generation, acquisition management, and 
programming and budgeting systems. To achieve effective outcomes, all 
three systems must be aligned so that once a corporate commitment is 
made to developing a material solution that achieves a needed 
capability the development process is not destabilized by changes in 
requirements, immature technology, or budget adjustments. To stabilize 
programs, DOD must perform the necessary analysis, technology 
development, and cost estimating so sufficient knowledge is available 
to allow informed decisions to move into development. Over the years, 
DOD has implemented several reforms to improve program stability. For 
example, DOD has created Configuration Steering Boards to manage 
requirements changes and directed competitive prototyping to mature 
technology. The Department will continue to emphasize the need to 
perform adequate upfront planning prior to development. More work needs 
to be done on funding stability. Congress has helped by emphasizing 
certifications that focus on assessing need, priority, and funding. 
Now, DOD must find a way to eliminate perturbations in high priority 
programs that are well-managed.

    40. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the Department recently instituted 
several reforms to the Defense Department Instructions on how the 
Defense Acquisition System (DAS) operates. Those initiatives seek to 
start major acquisition programs off responsibly by increasing emphasis 
on systems engineering and greater upfront planning and management of 
risk, as well as utilization of competitive prototyping in a newly-
named Technology Development Phase (before Milestone B). Are there any 
aspects of those newly instituted instructions (or the newly structured 
DAS) with which you have difficulty or intend to modify or repeal?
    Mr. Lynn. I believe the general direction of the new policies is 
sound. The Department should stay committed to achieving improved 
acquisition outcomes by reducing risk, and improving process 
discipline. If confirmed, I plan to closely monitor the execution of 
these policies and review whether any modifications are appropriate.

    41. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, among the reforms that this committee 
and the Department have instituted include those that enable the 
Department to remove more effectively non-essential requirements; have 
the Department move towards employing fixed-type contracts while better 
incentivizing contractor performance; and require the Department to 
exercise better oversight of service contracts. Are there any aspects 
of those initiatives in particular with which you have difficulty or 
intend to modify or repeal?
    Mr. Lynn. I believe these can be effective initiatives. If 
confirmed, I will monitor these policies to ensure the Department is 
providing the right level of oversight to maximize our acquisition 
outcomes.

    42. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, the current estimate for the costs to 
relocate the marines from Okinawa to Guam is at least $10 billion, with 
the Government of Japan directly contributing $2.8 billion. The 
remainder will be funded by DOD through military construction or loans 
paid back through future housing allowances. With all the other 
modernization, recapitalization, and reset requirements facing the 
Department in the next 4 years, in your opinion, can we afford this 
move?
    Mr. Lynn. Secretary Gates has spoken to the strategic importance of 
this relocation initiative in terms of our regional deterrent posture 
and our key alliance relationship with Japan. These are long-term 
investments in our enduring regional interests. The Department will 
ensure fiscal discipline is exercised throughout the duration of the 
effort, both with respect to U.S. appropriated funds and with respect 
to the $6.09 billion of funding our Japanese ally is providing.

    43. Senator McCain. Mr. Lynn, there has also been discussion about 
the significant investment necessary to upgrade port, road, and utility 
infrastructure on Guam to support the stationing of marines and their 
families. Do you believe DOD should assume this financial obligation as 
well?
    Mr. Lynn. The Department recognizes the necessary investment 
associated with port, roads, and utility infrastructure on Guam 
resulting from the Marine relocation. It is critical to thoroughly 
evaluate the broad Federal impact of this significant investment and 
partner with other Federal entities, such as the Guam Federal 
Interagency Task Force, to determine the financial obligation that the 
United States should assume for infrastructure on Guam. The Department 
is addressing Guam's needs that are directly related to maintaining an 
enduring presence in support of the military mission.
    Guam's infrastructure, namely the commercial port and the island's 
road network, require upgrades that will directly assist our ability to 
carry out the program and also benefit Guam. The Department, through 
the Defense Access Road program, is preparing to address qualifying 
improvements to roadways, intersections, and bridges that are critical 
to executing the construction program for DOD.
    The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was designated the lead Federal 
agency for the Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program in Public 
Law 110-417, section 3512. As the lead Federal agency, the MARAD will 
manage the expenditure of Federal, non-Federal, and private funds made 
available for the project and provides oversight and project management 
through a prime contractor. The DOD is working closely with MARAD to 
help facilitate their initiative to correct the issues at the port.
    DOD is also working to facilitate the necessary utilities solutions 
that will: meet the DOD mission; provide the widest benefit to the 
people of Guam; be technically and financially supportable by all 
participating parties; and be acceptable to the environmental 
regulators. DOD is working in collaboration with GovGuam officials to 
understand their needs and to determine the feasibility of utilities 
solutions that are mutually beneficial to DOD, the civilian community 
and the regulatory agencies. Additionally, we are working with the 
Government of Japan to ensure that their equities are met in 
conjunction with the DOD's needs and the equities of the Government of 
Guam and the Consolidated Commission on Utilities. Concurrently, we are 
working with the environmental regulators to ensure that the solution 
set meets the requirements set by the regulatory standards.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
                nuclear weapons surety and the new triad
    44. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, on August 30, 2007, a B-52 bomber 
mistakenly loaded with six nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force 
Base, ND, to Barksdale Air Force Base, LA. Following the Defense 
Science Board's Permanent Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Surety and the 
two part Secretary of Defense's Task Force on DOD Nuclear Weapons 
Management, there are numerous recommendations and issues which need to 
be addressed over the next administration. How will you implement the 
panels' recommendations and how else will you provide our deterrence 
with the oversight and leadership it deserves?
    Mr. Lynn. I take this issue very seriously. Senior leader oversight 
and governance is vital to the success of our nuclear weapons 
enterprise and strategic deterrence. If confirmed, I will work with 
Secretary Gates to continue his efforts to strengthen deterrence and to 
sustain our high standards for safeguarding and storing nuclear 
weapons. I am committed to working with the Secretary to assess panel 
recommendations and to prepare an action plan for those 
recommendations.

    45. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, the 2008 National Defense Strategy 
references the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review's New Triad in saying ``the 
New Triad remains a cornerstone of strategic deterrence''; however, 
there is no central plan for the ``New Triad''. With increasing 
military requirements, draw-downs in nuclear warhead numbers, and 
limited follow-on programs to replace an aging deterrent, how do you 
see the future of our Strategic Triad?
    Mr. Lynn. Congress has directed DOD to conduct a Nuclear Posture 
Review in 2009. This effort will provide an opportunity to review these 
critical questions and develop a consensus on the way forward. I expect 
senior officials in OSD Policy will guide these efforts, in 
coordination with other senior officials in DOD, as well as those in 
the Departments of Energy and State. If confirmed, I would expect to 
take an active role in this review, and to consult with members of this 
committee on its results and implications once completed.

                               preemption
    46. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, both the 2008 National Defense 
Strategy and the 2006 National Security Strategy reference the act of 
preemption. Where do you see the line drawn between preemption and 
aggression? How will you ensure the legislature is correctly informed 
of military action with enough time for substantive thought and debate?
    Mr. Lynn. It is impossible to foresee the nature of all the future 
threats against the United States and its allies. While the United 
States does not seek conflict with others, the Nation has a 
responsibility to its people to provide for their defense. In each 
case, the elements in the decision to use force will likely be unique. 
Close consultation with Congress will be important any time the United 
States is faced with an imminent threat.

            strategic dispersal of the nuclear carrier fleet
    47. Senator Martinez. Mr. Lynn, carriers have been homeported in 
two east coast bases since the arrival of the U.S.S. Tarawa (CVS-40) in 
Ribault Bay in 1952. Admiral Mullen as Chief of Naval Operations on the 
record before the Senate Armed Services Committee stated that he was 
``very supportive of strategic dispersal of our carriers'' as well as 
his predecessor Admiral Vern Clark stated in February 2005 that ``It is 
[his] belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all 
of those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.'' Gordon England 
as Secretary of the Navy stated before the committee that his 
``judgment is that dispersion is still the situation. A nuclear carrier 
should be in Florida to replace the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy to get some 
dispersion.'' Even more recently Secretary Donald Winter with the 
concurrence of the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary 
Roughead, signed the Record of Decision to upgrade Mayport to being 
nuclear ready, continuing the Navy's 47 year history of east coast 
strategic dispersal. Please state for the record, that, if confirmed as 
Deputy Secretary of Defense, your intentions will be to continue to 
strategically disperse the Nation's nuclear aircraft carriers along the 
east coast. If you disagree with the previous three Chiefs of Naval 
Operations, specifically outline why you would go against the uniformed 
members' recommendations.
    Mr. Lynn. Although I am aware of this issue, I have not yet been 
briefed on it. I expect to examine this issue and consult with the 
Navy, the Joint Staff, and members of this committee.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                              shipbuilding
    48. Senator Collins. Mr. Lynn, in your answers to the advance 
policy questions, you stated that you want to work with the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as 
well as the Service Assistant Secretaries for Acquisition, in 
developing a better acquisition process, that balances the need to meet 
requirements in a timely manner and delivering major weapons systems as 
cost effectively as is possible. In one of your answers you stated that 
one of your themes would be greater stability. A stable industrial base 
and predictable levels of funding are critical to achieving cost 
projections. As has been evident in the shipbuilding industry, the lack 
of a stable, fully-funded shipbuilding plan has put a tremendous burden 
on our Nation's shipbuilders. While I applaud Secretary Winter and 
Admiral Roughead for continuing to state that the Navy's goal is a 313-
ship fleet, I was very concerned with their decision last summer to 
change, without any consultation with Congress, the Navy's shipbuilding 
plan. Our shipyards make strategic decisions based upon long-term plans 
and, such sudden changes have significant impacts, one of which is 
cost. If confirmed, what will you do to help stabilize our country's 
industrial base for shipbuilding and other major weapons acquisition 
programs?
    Mr. Lynn. Since I have not been briefed on the specifics on the 
major acquisition programs, I will not be able to speak about the 
details of a specific program; however, let me explain what will be my 
principles that will allow a stable, cost-effective acquisition process 
if I am confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Defense. First, I think 
there is agreement from both our industrial partners and the leaders in 
the Navy, DOD, and government in general that the shipbuilding industry 
needs a stable, reliable shipbuilding plan from which to make sound 
business decisions. Given the long lead times for both skilled manpower 
and material, shipbuilding is not a business that responds well to 
multiple, quick changes in policy. For several years now, the Navy has 
had a long-term shipbuilding plan on the table, and now, it must be 
executed. To accomplish that, the Navy must buy only exactly what it 
needs--the capabilities put into each ship must provide the absolute 
best return on investment. We can't afford all the newest technologies 
on every platform, so the early decisions on requirements and design of 
a new system are crucial to maintaining an affordable shipbuilding or 
major weapon acquisition program. Design and requirement changes, once 
the design has begun maturing, cost an enormous amount in both time and 
money--these changes should be minimized to only cases where the system 
will not function without the change. I understand the Secretary of the 
Navy announced last summer several changes in the acquisition process 
to ensure that more senior leadership oversight is injected early into 
a program's life cycle. This increased senior level involvement in the 
first stages of a program should prove crucial to improving the 
definition of requirements and ensuring they remain stable throughout 
the design and production phases of the program. Much of the cost 
growth of acquisition programs can be tied to unrealistic build times 
and cost estimates based on overly optimistic projections or immature 
technologies. We must use realistic figures for our estimates of both 
cost and build times to ensure our initial plans project the most 
realistic cost possible. Finally, having a plan is the first step; 
fully funding that plan is the second. If the plan is only paper and 
doesn't translate into real contracts, our shipbuilding partners will 
not be able to do the long-term strategic planning that will give the 
Navy the cost savings that can be realized from successful long-term 
planning.

                       armed forces end strength
    49. Senator Collins. Mr. Lynn, it has now been over 7 years since 
the initial call-up and mobilization of National Guard and Reserve 
Forces in support of the global war on terrorism. In the Afghan Study 
Report of 2007, it stated that ``Afghanistan stands at a crossroads,'' 
and that the progress achieved over the previous 6 years was threatened 
by resurgent Taliban violence. The report recommended that the ``light 
footprint'' in Afghanistan be replaced by the ``right footprint'' of 
U.S. and Allied force levels. Given the strain on the Active-Duty 
Forces and the over usage of the National Guard and Reserves, do you 
think the current end strength numbers for the Armed Forces, especially 
the Army and Marine Corps, are sufficient to meet today's current needs 
and threats while reducing the strain on our Active, Reserve, and 
National Guard troops?
    Mr. Lynn. All of our servicemembers (Active and Reserve) continue 
to perform extraordinarily in light of the demands we have placed upon 
them. I believe the increases in our ground forces (Army and Marines) 
are necessary, and will strengthen the ability of the Department to 
continue to support the global war on terror. We cannot fail to have 
the right numbers and kinds of uniformed personnel to win our wars, and 
to deter potential adversaries. Additionally, our force, Active and 
Reserve, must be large enough to not only satisfy deployed demands, but 
also have a rotation base that recognizes the personal needs of our 
volunteers and their families. At the same time, our volunteers must 
have the weapons, equipment, and support that will enable mission 
success. Striking the right balance between personnel, 
recapitalization, and operational and support costs will be a 
challenging imperative and I look forward to working with Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
Questions Submitted by Honorable Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator from the 
                             State of Iowa
                          financial management
    50. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, as the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller), you were the Department's Chief Financial Officer (CFO). 
That position was established by the CFO Act of 1990. Section 902 of 
the CFO Act states: ``The CFO shall develop and maintain an integrated 
agency accounting and financial management system, including financial 
reporting and internal controls.'' This requirement existed for at 
least 5 years before you became the DOD CFO. While you were CFO, did 
DOD operate a fully integrated accounting and financial management 
system that produced accurate and complete information? If not, why?
    Mr. Lynn. The DOD financial and business management systems were 
designed and created before the CFO Act of 1990 to meet the prior 
requirements to track obligation and expenditure of congressional 
appropriations accurately. The CFO Act required the Department to shift 
from its long-time focus on an obligation-based system designed to 
support budgetary actions to a broader, more commercial style, accrual-
based system. To accomplish this transformation, several things needed 
to be done. First, the Department created the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service (DFAS) to consolidate financial operations, which 
was accomplished in 1991 before my tenure as Under Secretary. Second, 
the Department had too numerous and incompatible finance and accounting 
systems. From a peak of over 600 finance and accounting systems, I led 
an effort to reduce that number by over two-thirds. This consolidation 
effort also strove to eliminate outdated financial management systems 
and replace them with systems that provided more accurate, more timely, 
and more meaningful data to decisionmakers. The third and most 
difficult step in developing an integrated accounting and financial 
management system has been to integrate data from outside the financial 
systems. More than 80 percent of the data on the Defense Department's 
financial statement comes from outside the financial systems 
themselves. It comes from the logistics systems, the personnel systems, 
the acquisition systems, the medical systems, and so on. On this 
effort, we made progress while I was Under Secretary but much more 
needs to be done. If confirmed, I will take this task on as a high 
priority.

    51. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, under section 3515 of the CFO Act, 
all agencies, including DOD, are supposed to prepare and submit 
financial statements that are then subjected to audit by the Inspectors 
General. While you were the CFO, did DOD ever prepare a financial 
statement in which all DOD components earned a clean audit opinion from 
the DOD IG? If not, why?
    Mr. Lynn. In the 1997, the DOD had 23 reporting entities, only 1 of 
which, the Military Retirement Fund, had achieved a clean audit. Over 
the next 4 years, the Department under my leadership as Under Secretary 
earned a clean opinion on three other entities: most importantly, the 
DFAS in 2000, followed by the Defense Commissary Agency, and the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency in 2001. We were unable to obtain clean 
opinions on the other reporting entities. The primary reason for not 
earning clean opinions on the remaining entities was the difficulty of 
capturing data from nonfinancial systems and integrating that data into 
the financial systems in an auditable manner. It is my understanding 
that the Department still faces the challenge of integrating financial 
and nonfinancial systems to support the auditability of the DOD 
financial statements.

    52. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, as CFO, what specific steps did you 
take to correct this problem?
    Mr. Lynn. Under my leadership, the DOD instituted several important 
efforts to achieve a clean audit opinion. The primary effort was 
described in the Biennial Financial Management Improvement Plan (FMIP) 
which was submitted to Congress in 1998. That plan merged previous 
initiatives with new ones into a single comprehensive effort to achieve 
both financial management improvement and auditability. To directly 
address auditability, the FMIP included an effort in collaboration with 
the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, and 
the Office of the Inspector General to address 10 major issues 
identified by the audit community: 1) internal controls and accounting 
systems related to general property plant and equipment; 2) inventory; 
3) environmental liabilities; 4) military retirement health benefits 
liability; 5) material lines within the Statement of Budgetary 
Resources; 6) unsupported adjustments to financial data; 7) financial 
management systems not integrated; 8) systems not maintaining adequate 
audit trails; 9) systems not valuing and depreciating properly, plant 
and equipment; and 10) systems not using the Standard General Ledger at 
the transaction level. Due to this effort, substantial progress was 
made on most of these issues and several were resolved, including 
valuation of the military retirement health benefits liability, the 
reduction of unsupported adjustments to financial data, and the 
identification of environmental liabilities.

    53. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, 18 years after the CFO Act was 
signed into law, DOD is still unable to produce a comprehensive 
financial statement that has been certified as a clean audit. It may be 
years before that goal is met. If DOD's books cannot be audited, then 
the defense finance and accounting system is disjointed and broken. 
Financial transactions are not recorded in the books of account in a 
timely manner and sometimes not at all. Without accurate and complete 
financial information, which is fed into a central management system, 
DOD managers do not know how the money is being spent or what anything 
costs. That also leaves DOD financial resources vulnerable to fraud, 
waste, and abuse, and even outright theft. The last time I looked at 
this problem billions--and maybe hundreds of billions--of tax dollars 
could not be properly linked to supporting documentation. As Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, what will you do to address this problem? Please 
give me a realistic timeline for fixing this problem.
    Mr. Lynn. The Department needs stronger management information 
systems. I can assure you that, if confirmed, I will be committed to 
improving financial information and business intelligence needed for 
sound decisionmaking. I have not yet completed my review of all the 
information needed to provide a specific timeline; however, I will 
continue to examine this issue, including consideration of this and 
other committees' views as well as the resources needed for the audit, 
before forming my assessment of how close DOD is to a clean audit.

                     potential conflict of interest
    54. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, as a Senior Vice President of 
Government Operations at the Raytheon Company, you were a registered 
lobbyist until July 2008. Correct? How long were you a registered 
lobbyist?
    Mr. Lynn. Yes. From July 2002 to March 2008.

    55. Senator Grassley. Mr. Lynn, in his ``Blueprint for Change,'' 
President-elect Obama promises to ``Shine Light on Washington 
Lobbying.'' He promises to ``Enforce Executive Branch Ethics'' and 
``Close the Revolving Door.'' He promises: ``no political appointees in 
an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulation 
or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer 
for 2 years.'' Raytheon is one of the big defense contractors. As 
Deputy Secretary, Raytheon issues will surely come across your desk. If 
you have to recuse yourself from important decisions, you would limit 
your effectiveness as Deputy Secretary of Defense. How will you avoid 
this problem for 2 years?
    Mr. Lynn. I have received a waiver of the ``Entering Government'' 
restrictions under the procedures of the Executive order implementing 
the ethics pledge requirements. The waiver, however, does not affect my 
obligations under current ethics laws and regulations. Until I have 
divested my Raytheon stock, which will be within 90 days of 
appointment, I will take no action on any particular matter that has a 
direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of Raytheon. 
Thereafter, for a period of 1 year after my resignation from Raytheon, 
I also will not participate personally and substantially in any 
particular matter involving Raytheon, unless I am first authorized to 
do so under 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.502(d). If confirmed, I pledge to abide 
by the foregoing provisions. I would add that I have not been exempted 
from the other Executive order pledge requirements, including the ones 
that restrict appointees leaving government from communicating with 
their former executive agency for 2 years and bar them from lobbying 
covered executive branch officials for the remainder of the 
administration.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of William J. Lynn III follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  Janaury 20, 2009.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    William J. Lynn III, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, vice Gordon England, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of William J. Lynn III, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
               Biographical Sketch of William J. Lynn III
    William Lynn served as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
from 1997 to 2001. In that position, he was the chief financial officer 
for the Department of Defense and the principal advisor to the 
Secretary of Defense for all budgetary and fiscal matters. From 1993 to 
1997, Mr. Lynn was the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation in 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he oversaw the Defense 
Department's strategic planning process.
    During his tenure at the Defense Department, Mr. Lynn was awarded 
three Department of Defense medals for Distinguished Public Service, 
the Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award from the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and awards from the Army, Navy and Air Force. He 
also received the 2000 Distinguished Federal Leadership Award from the 
Association of Government Accountants for his efforts to improve 
defense accounting practices.
    Mr. Lynn currently serves as senior vice president of Government 
Operations and Strategy at Raytheon Company. In that position, he leads 
the company's strategic planning and oversees the government relations 
activity. Before entering the Department of Defense in 1993, he served 
for 6 years on the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy as liaison to the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. He has also been a Senior Fellow at 
the National Defense University, on the professional staff at the 
Institute for Defense Analyses and served as the executive director of 
the Defense Organization Project at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies.
    A graduate of Dartmouth College, Mr. Lynn has a law degree from 
Cornell Law School and a Master's in Public Affairs from the Woodrow 
Wilson School at Princeton University.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by William J. 
Lynn III in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

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

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

    3. Date of nomination:
    Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    January 1, 1954; Key West, FL.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Catherine J. Lynn, 2.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    1972-1976 - Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH - B.A. - 06/1976.
    1977-1980 - Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY - Juris Doctor - 06/
1980.
    1980-1982 - Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School - 
Princeton, NJ - Masters Degree, Public Affairs - 06/1982.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    08/2002-Present - Raytheon Company, Senior Vice President, 
Government Operations & Strategy, Arlington, VA.
    01/2001-07/2002 - DFI International, Executive Vice President, 
Washington, DC.
    11/1997-01/2001 - Department of Defense, Under Secretary of 
Defense, Washington, DC.
    06/1993-11/1997 - Department of Defense, Director PA&E, Washington, 
DC.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Office of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Legislative Counsel, 
Washington, DC - 1983-1987.
    Office of the Defense Adviser, Graduate Student Intern, Belgium, 
Brussels - 06/1981-12/1981.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    Raytheon Company, Corporate Officer.
    Center for New American Security, Board of Directors.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Bar Association - District of Columbia.
    Wychemere Harbor Beach Club - Harwich Port, MA.
    TPC Avenel - Potomac, MD.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    2008 - Obama for America - $2,300.
    2008 - Jeff Merkley for Oregon (general election) - $2,300.
    2008 - Reed Committee - $500.
    2008 - John Kerry for Senate - $1,000.
    2007 - Jeff Merkley for Oregon (primary) - $2,300.
    2007 - Hillary Clinton for President (general election) - $2,300 
(returned in 2008).
    2007 - Hillary Clinton for President (primary) - $2,300.
    2006 - Friends of Jane Harman - $500.
    2006 - Forward Together PAC - $1,000.
    2005 - Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate - $500.
    2004 - The Markey Committee - $500.
    2004-2008 - Annual contributions of $5,000 to Raytheon Company PAC.

    14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award - Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Department of Navy Distinguished Service Award.
    Department of Air Force Distinguished Service Award.
    Department of Army Distinguished Service Award.
    2000 Distinguished Federal Leadership Award - Assoc. of Government 
Accountants.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    ``Guns That Die of Embarrassment,'' book review in The New York 
Times Book Review (December 21, 1986).
    ``U.S. Defense Policy.'' Yale Law & Policy Review (Fall/Winter 
1986).
    ``The Case for JCS Reform,'' International Security (Winter 1985-
1986).
    Toward a More Effective Defense, Ballinger (1985).
    ``Reform Needed so JCS Can Act as One,'' Atlanta Journal and 
Constitution (March 24, 1985).
    ``The Wars Within: The Joint Military Structure and Its Critics,'' 
Reorganizing America's Defenses: Leadership in War and Peace, edited by 
Art, Davis, and Huntington Pergamon Press (1985).
    ``U.S.-Soviet Crisis Management and Confidence-Building Measures,'' 
in Preventing Nuclear War, edited by Barry Blechman, Indiana University 
Press (1985).
    ``Service Rivalries Block True Security,'' The Los Angeles Times 
(April 13, 1983).

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

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                               William J. Lynn III.
    This 13th day of January, 2009.

    [The nomination of William J. Lynn III was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 11, 2009.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Robert F. Hale by Chairman 
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD) 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. I believe the Goldwater-Nichols Act is one of the most 
important and effective defense reforms enacted by Congress. I do not 
see any need for modifications. However, if confirmed, I will keep an 
open mind regarding changes.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. As noted, I do not see any need for modifications.
                             relationships
    Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between 
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and each of the following?
    The Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is the 
principal assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary 
of Defense on fiscal and budgetary matters. The Under Secretary 
(Comptroller) also performs such other duties as the Secretary or 
Deputy Secretary may prescribe.
    Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. Please see the answer above.
    Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. My relationship with all other senior officials of the 
Department will, for the most part, be based on the role described 
above. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other Under 
Secretaries to carry out the policies and guidance of the Secretary and 
Deputy Secretary.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. My relationship with the Assistant Secretaries of Defense 
and other senior officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
would be similar to that described above in relation to the other Under 
Secretaries of Defense.
    Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Answer. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal 
military advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and 
the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with 
the Chairman and Joint Staff on resource and financial management 
issues.
    Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
    Answer. The Secretaries of the military departments carry out the 
policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense in their 
respective military departments and formulate recommendations to the 
Secretary and to Congress relating to their military departments and 
DOD. If confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Secretaries of the 
military departments, and specifically, their Assistant Secretaries for 
Financial Management who I intend to meet with regularly. I will ensure 
that they are aware of the President's and the Secretary of Defense's 
policies and priorities and assist them in contributing to the 
successful development and implementation of effective DOD policies and 
programs.
    Question. The heads of the defense agencies.
    Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial 
Officer, I will, if confirmed, work closely with the heads of the 
defense agencies, and specifically, with our financial management 
counterparts in those agencies. I will ensure that they are aware of 
the President's and the Secretary of Defense's policies and priorities 
and assist them in contributing to the successful development and 
implementation of effective DOD policies and programs.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries for Financial Management of the 
Services.
    Answer. In the role of Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer for 
the Department, I will, if confirmed, work closely with the Assistant 
Secretaries of the Military Departments for Financial Management in the 
development and execution of the budgetary and fiscal policies and 
initiatives of the President and the Secretary of Defense.
    Question. The General Counsel of DOD.
    Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial 
Officer, I will, if confirmed, rely on the General Counsel, who is the 
Chief Legal Officer of DOD, on all legal matters, and will consult and 
coordinate with the General Counsel on all matters relating to 
programs, projects, and activities of DOD, as well as matters relating 
to financial management, accounting policy and systems, management 
control systems, and contract audit administration, that may have legal 
implications.
    Question. The Inspector General.
    Answer. As the Department's Comptroller and Chief Financial 
Officer, I will, if confirmed, consider it my responsibility to support 
the DOD Inspector General in carrying out his or her duties as set 
forth in the Inspector General Act.
    Question. The Director, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure a high level of coordination 
with the Director of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation in 
fulfilling his or her role of providing independent assessments for 
acquisition systems. I will also work with the Director of PA&E to 
ensure the success of the combined program/budget review.
    Question. The Deputy Chief Management Officer (CMO).
    Answer. I would, if confirmed, establish an appropriate 
relationship based on the responsibilities assigned to that official 
and do everything possible to improve management of the Department's 
complex operations and organization.
    Question. The Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    Answer. If I am confirmed, my relationship would include periodic 
interaction with the OMB leadership on the sound preparation and 
execution of DOD budgets and the advancement of both OMB and DOD 
management improvements.
    Question. The Comptroller General.
    Answer. If I am confirmed, my relationship would be to analyze and 
address recommendations of the Comptroller General and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) regarding DOD matters, and to solicit 
recommendations in areas I think could use additional perspectives.
                       duties of the comptroller
    Question. The duties of the Comptroller of the DOD are set forth in 
section 135 of title 10, U.S.C., and in DOD Directive 5118.3. Among the 
duties prescribed in statute are advising and assisting the Secretary 
of Defense in supervising and directing the preparation of budget 
estimates of DOD, establishing and supervising DOD accounting policies, 
and supervising the expenditure of DOD funds.
    Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect that 
Secretary Gates will prescribe for you?
    Answer. Provide high quality, timely advice to the Secretary of 
Defense and Deputy Secretary on issues related to financial management 
in the Department.
    Ensure that the men and women in the military Services have the 
resources they need to meet national security objectives.
    Ensure that funds are spent in accordance with laws and regulations 
and that the American taxpayers get the best possible value for their 
tax dollars.
    Account in an accurate manner for the funds spent by the 
Department.
    Question. What background and experience do you possess that you 
believe qualifies you to perform the duties of the Comptroller?
    Answer. I have more than 30 years of experience with defense and 
its financial management tasks including:

         Seven years as Air Force Comptroller overseeing many 
        of the types of tasks I would, if confirmed, oversee for the 
        Department as a whole.
         Twelve years at the Congressional Budget Office 
        heading the group dealing with national security issues.
         Work in support of professional development 
        initiatives to improve the training of defense financial 
        managers.
         Service as a member of the United States Navy, both on 
        Active Duty and in the Reserves.
         Completion of the Certified Defense Financial Manager 
        program, a test-based certification program set up to provide 
        objective verification of knowledge of the rules and processes 
        governing defense financial management.

    Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to 
take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?
    Answer. I believe I can continue to increase my expertise by 
learning more about current, specific issues regarding the DOD budget 
through study of source documents and discussions with subject matter 
experts.
    Question. Do you expect Secretary Gates to make any changes in the 
duties of the Comptroller as set out in DOD Directive 5118.3?
    Answer. I have not yet discussed this question with Secretary 
Gates.
                        chief financial officer
    Question. DOD Directive 5118.3 designates the Comptroller as the 
Chief Financial Officer of DOD. Does Secretary Gates intend to continue 
to designate you, if confirmed as the Comptroller, as the Chief 
Financial Officer of DOD?
    Answer. I have seen no indications that he would do otherwise, but 
will address this issue expeditiously if I am confirmed.
    Question. If so, what would be your major responsibilities as Chief 
Financial Officer?
    Answer. Oversee all financial management activities relating to the 
programs and operations of DOD; develop and maintain integrated agency 
accounting and financial management systems; direct, manage, and 
provide policy guidance and oversight of DOD's financial management 
personnel, activities, and operations; prepare audited financial 
statements; and monitor the financial execution of budgets.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the next Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial 
Officer?
    Answer. If confirmed, the foremost challenge is to prepare and 
manage defense budgets so that the Department obtains the resources 
necessary to accomplish national security objectives--especially the 
resources needed to meet wartime requirements and for our military 
forces to successfully conduct their operations. This includes:

         Ensuring that the pay, benefits, health care, and 
        quality of life support is commensurate with the sacrifices we 
        are asking our troops and their families to make.
         Making sure the troops have the training and equipment 
        needed to meet the challenges they will face.

    If confirmed, I must also improve the financial information 
available to DOD managers including achieving, where appropriate, 
auditable financial statements and improving financial systems. Better 
information will also help control defense spending in ways that assist 
in reducing long-term deficits.
    If confirmed, I need to support the components in their critical 
efforts to recruit, train, and retain a workforce that can meet defense 
financial management needs into the 21st century.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with other senior 
principals in DOD and the Comptroller staff, military departments, 
defense agencies, OMB, and Congress to develop policies to meet these 
challenges.
    I will also provide aggressive leadership and support for my staff 
in executing these policies.
              authorization for national defense programs
    Question. Do you believe that an authorization pursuant to section 
114 of title 10, U.S.C., is necessary before funds for operation and 
maintenance, procurement, research and development, and military 
construction may be made available for obligation by DOD?
    Answer. I understand that it has been the Department's practice to 
work with all the oversight committees to resolve these matters. If 
confirmed, I will respect the prerogatives of the Department's 
oversight committees and will work closely with the committees to 
achieve a consensus necessary to meet our defense needs.
              supplemental funding for military operations
    Question. Section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requires 
the President's budget to include funding for ongoing military 
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in the Department's annual budget 
requests, along with a detailed justification for that funding. It also 
requires the President's budget to include an estimate of the total 
funding to be required in that fiscal year for such operations. The 
Department fully complied with these requirements in the fiscal year 
2008 budget, but more than a year elapsed before Congress approved the 
bulk of the requested funding. The administration then failed to comply 
with these requirements in the fiscal year 2009 budget request.
    To what degree do you believe it is possible, in the near term, to 
include the full cost of these ongoing operations in the base budget 
request?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would hope to work with Congress and OMB to 
try to move away from supplementals. The feasibility of moving away 
from supplementals depends on the budget year.

         For fiscal year 2009, DOD needs a supplemental, 
        because the base budget has been enacted.
         For fiscal year 2010, with limited time available for 
        submission of a base budget request, and with continuing 
        uncertainty about changing war requirements, the President may 
        decide he will need to have a supplemental.
         In later budgets, we should be better able to minimize 
        dependence on supplementals.

    Regardless of the year, we should avoid including predictable costs 
in supplemental requests.
    Question. Do you believe the costs of ongoing military operations 
can be fully incorporated into a unified budget request such that the 
use of supplementals could be discontinued? If so, what criteria would 
need to be met to achieve that objective?
    Answer. Full elimination of supplementals would require substantial 
reduction in the uncertainties associated with wartime operations. 
However, the negative aspects of supplementals can be minimized by 
ensuring DOD scrutiny of supplemental requests similar to that afforded 
the base budget (a policy endorsed by the President-elect) and by 
providing Congress with early information regarding supplemental 
requests.
    Question. In recent years the Department has had to prepare a base 
budget and two separate supplemental funding requests each year.
    Do you believe the Comptroller organization has the personnel and 
other resources needed to adequately manage this increased workload?
    Answer. I am concerned about the adequacy of resources in the 
Comptroller organization to manage the increased workload associated 
with wartime operations.
    If confirmed, I will carefully review the staffing and organization 
and recommend any changes that I believe are required.
                       program and budget review
    Question. The Department has operated under a planning, 
programming, and budget system for decades. The programming and 
budgeting functions have sometimes been combined in a single reporting 
chain and at other times, as is currently the case, been run by 
distinct offices (Program Analysis and Evaluation and the Comptroller, 
respectively) that report separately to the Secretary of Defense. The 
program and budget review processes have also been revised in recent 
years and have been made more concurrent than was previously the case.
    What are your views on the proper relationship between the program 
and budget processes and the offices responsible for those functions?
    Answer. I believe there must be regular and effective coordination 
between the Comptroller and Program Analysis and Evaluation 
organizations. If confirmed, I will keep an open mind about possible 
changes regarding the proper relationship between the program and 
budget processes and the offices responsible for those functions. I 
will also, if confirmed, consider whether to recommend changes in the 
concurrency of the program and budget processes.
                     management of defense spending
    Question. GAO recently released its list of ``urgent issues'' for 
the next administration and Congress. Among those issues was defense 
spending. According to the GAO: ``The Department's current approach to 
planning and budgeting is based on overly optimistic planning 
assumptions and lacks a strategic, risk-based framework for determining 
priorities and making investment decisions. As a result, it continues 
to experience a mismatch between programs and budgets, and it does not 
fully consider long-term resource implications and the opportunity cost 
of selecting one alternative over another.''
    What are your views on the concerns raised by GAO?
    Answer. The Department's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and 
Execution (PPBE) process provides DOD with a sound process with which 
to develop a strategic plan and build a 6-year program and budget to 
achieve that plan. Within the PPBE process there is ample opportunity 
to debate and determine priorities and make resource decisions that 
take into account relative risks. The key is how that process is 
managed. If confirmed, my goal will be to assist in ensuring that the 
PPBE process does in fact achieve its designed purpose and to recommend 
changes where they are appropriate.
    Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take, as the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), with respect to those aspects of 
the management of the Department that are within the purview of the 
Comptroller that may be relevant to the concerns raised by GAO?
    Answer. As I noted above, I will review the current implementation 
of the PPBE process and recommend improvements where appropriate.
                                earmarks
    Question. On January 29, 2008, President Bush signed Executive 
Order 13457, which states that agency decisions to commit, obligate, or 
expend funds may not be ``based on language in any report of a 
committee of Congress, joint explanatory statement of a committee of 
conference of Congress, statement of managers concerning a bill in 
Congress, or any other non-statutory statement or indication of views 
of Congress, or a House, committee, Member, officer, or staff 
thereof.'' Congress responded to this Executive order by including a 
provision in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009 that incorporated by reference the funding tables in 
the conference report on the bill. Similar provisions were included in 
several other bills.
    Do you see the need for any changes to Executive Order 13457? If 
so, what changes would you recommend?
    Answer. I would expect that all Executive orders from prior 
administrations will be reviewed by the new administration. I would 
want to see the results of that review before making any specific 
recommendations regarding changes.
    However, I believe that there should be a careful review of the 
effectiveness of defense spending including all spending, not just 
earmarks. Such a review would be consistent with policies likely to be 
promulgated by President Obama after his inauguration.
    Question. If confirmed, what would your duties be with respect to 
implementing this Executive order with respect to funding for DOD?
    Answer. I expect that the White House will provide direction on 
earmarks and, if confirmed, I will ensure that direction is followed.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you expect to take to 
ensure that DOD abides by congressional funding decisions and that 
funds available to the Department are expended only for the purposes 
for which they have been appropriated?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work with DOD components to ensure 
that the funds are spent for the purposes for which Congress 
appropriated the funds.
    Question. The committee has considered the possibility of including 
the funding tables in bill language, instead of report language, in 
future bills. Concern has been expressed that this approach could limit 
the flexibility of DOD to transfer funds to meet emerging high-priority 
needs.
    What is your view on the advisability of incorporating funding 
tables into the text of bills authorizing and appropriating funds for 
DOD?
    Answer. I am concerned that DOD must have enough flexibility to 
meet national security requirements by, among other things, 
accomplishing needed reprogramming. As for this specific question, I am 
not familiar enough with the legal implications of incorporating the 
tables into the bill. If confirmed, I would examine this issue, discuss 
it with the Department's lawyers, and then work closely with the 
committees and others before implementing a solution.
                        contracting for services
    Question. In recent years, DOD has become increasingly reliant on 
services provided by contractors. Over the past 8 years, for example, 
DOD's spending on contract services has more than doubled with the 
estimated number of contractor employees working for the Department 
increasing from an estimated 730,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an 
estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year 2007. As a result, the Department 
now spends more for the purchase of services than it does for products 
(including major weapon systems).
    Do you believe that the Department can or should continue to 
support this level of spending on contract services?
    Answer. It is my understanding that service contractors provide a 
valuable function to DOD.
    If confirmed, I would support efforts by the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and other leaders to 
review the level of contracting services required in keeping with 
President-elect Obama's pledge to have the Department improve its 
strategy for determining when contracting makes sense.
    Question. Do you believe that the current balance between Federal 
employees and contractor employees is in the best interests of DOD?
    Answer. DOD requires some mix of Federal employees and contractors 
to carry out its mission effectively.
    If confirmed, I would support efforts to help ensure the 
appropriate balance in that mix.
    Question. If confirmed, will you take a close look at the 
Department's expenditures for services and determine whether it would 
be appropriate to cap or limit growth in such expenditures for a period 
of time?
    Answer. Yes.
                         acquisition workforce
    Question. Over the last 15 years, DOD has dramatically reduced the 
size of its acquisition workforce, without undertaking any systematic 
planning or analysis to ensure that it would have the specific skills 
and competencies needed to meet current and future needs. Since 
September 11, 2001, moreover, the demands placed on that workforce have 
substantially increased. Do you believe that the DOD acquisition 
workforce is large enough and has the skills needed to perform the 
tasks assigned to it?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) organization on this issue.
    Question. Would you agree that the Department is losing more money 
through waste and inefficiency in its acquisition programs than it is 
likely to save through constraints on the size and qualifications of 
its acquisition workforce, and, if so, what recommendations do you have 
to address the problem?
    Answer. I understand the committee's concerns with this issue. 
However, I do not have sufficient recent information to answer this 
question effectively. Eliminating waste and inefficiency in acquisition 
needs to be a top priority for DOD leaders, and if confirmed, I would 
make that part of my agenda.
    Question. Section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 established an Acquisition Workforce Development Fund 
to help the DOD address shortcomings in its acquisition workforce. The 
fund would provide a minimum of $3 billion over 6 years for this 
purpose.
    Do you support the use of the DOD Acquisition Workforce Development 
Fund to ensure that DOD has the right number of employees with the 
right skills to run its acquisition programs in the most cost effective 
manner for the taxpayers?
    Answer. If confirmed, I certainly would support efforts to have the 
right number of professionals with the right skills for our acquisition 
work.
    I believe it is too early to know how effectively the fund is being 
used. But, if confirmed, I certainly will comply with the law regarding 
the fund and do everything I can to advance the cost-effective 
management of acquisition programs.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that 
the Acquisition Workforce Development Fund remains fully funded 
throughout the period of the Future Years Defense Program?
    Answer. I do not have in mind any specific steps, but if confirmed, 
I will examine this issue and, after consulting with this committee and 
others, make an appropriate recommendation.
                        chief management officer
    Question. The positions of CMO of DOD and Deputy CMO of DOD were 
established by section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2008. In accordance with section 904, the purpose of 
these new positions is to improve the overall efficiency and 
effectiveness of the business operations of DOD and to achieve an 
integrated management system for business support areas within DOD. Do 
you believe that a comprehensive, integrated, enterprise-wide 
architecture and transition plan is essential to the successful 
transformation of DOD's business systems?
    Answer. Yes. I believe an effective architecture is a necessary but 
not a sufficient condition for successful overhaul of DOD business 
systems.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department needs senior 
leadership from a CMO and a Deputy CMO to cut across stovepipes and 
ensure the implementation of a comprehensive, integrated, enterprise-
wide architecture for its business systems?
    Answer. Yes. Creation of an architecture and, more importantly the 
implementation of system changes, are major tasks that require 
substantial time and management expertise. I believe that a CMO and 
Deputy CMO can help provide the required time and expertise.
    Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play in working 
with the CMO and the Deputy CMO to improve the business operations of 
DOD?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the CMO and Deputy CMO in 
ensuring unified, standardized, and integrated business processes and 
systems.
    Question. What responsibilities, if any, that may have formerly 
been performed by the Comptroller do you believe have been, will be, or 
should be reassigned to the CMO or the Deputy CMO of DOD?
    Answer. I believe that I need more knowledge of the specific 
options, and the resources and expertise available from the CMO and 
Deputy CMO, before deciding what, if any, changes in responsibilities 
are appropriate. If confirmed, I will consider appropriate changes.
                 government performance and results act
    Question. If confirmed as Comptroller, what would your 
responsibilities be with respect to DOD implementation of the 
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to 
set specific performance goals and measure progress toward meeting 
them?
    Answer. I would collaborate with the other principals to ensure 
that the budget justification material includes realistic annual 
performance goals and corresponding performance measures and 
indicators.
    These executive-level goals and metrics should represent the 
leading performance trends that the Secretary must monitor to manage 
risk across the Department, and to maintain progress toward 
accomplishing the long-term outcomes of the defense strategy.
    Question. What additional steps can the Department take to fulfill 
the goal of the GPRA to link budget inputs to measurable performance 
outputs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the existing GPRA metrics and 
work with the other principals to improve them where warranted.
                     collection of contractor taxes
    Question. The Comptroller General has reported that approximately 
27,100 DOD contractors owe more than $3.0 billion in back taxes, and 
that DOD has not fulfilled its duty under the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act of 1996 to help recoup these back taxes.
    What steps will you take, if confirmed, to improve the Department's 
performance in this area?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would do what is necessary to help DOD 
fulfill its duty under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996--to 
include the collection of all monies owed to the Federal Government 
from any contractor with whom we are doing business. I look forward to 
working with other government agencies to improve the tax collection 
process.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department needs additional 
statutory authority to be effective in identifying and recovering back 
taxes from contractors?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will explore this issue with other 
agencies, specifically the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury, 
after which I can better address the need for additional legislation.
                      leasing major weapon systems
    Question. The Air Force's proposal, which was ultimately not 
implemented, to lease rather than purchase new tanker aircraft, 
highlighted serious concerns about the cost-effectiveness of leasing 
major capital assets as opposed to purchasing them and led the 
Department to create a ``Leasing Review Panel,'' co-chaired by the 
Comptroller, to review all major leasing agreements.
    What are your views on the merits of leasing versus buying major 
capital equipment?
    Answer. I do not have any predetermined views on leasing versus 
buying major capital equipment. I believe that each proposal would need 
to be evaluated on its own merit.
    Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that the lease of 
major capital equipment should be considered an annual operating 
expense for budget purposes?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department adheres to 
OMB guidance and pursues leasing only when it clearly benefits the 
taxpayer.
                  incremental funding vs. full funding
    Question. Do you believe DOD should continue to adhere to the 
longstanding practice of fully funding the purchases of major capital 
assets, including ships and aircraft, in the year the decision to 
purchase the asset is made, or do you believe incremental funding of 
such purchases is justified in some cases?
    Answer. As I understand it, it is OMB's policy that requires that 
programs be fully funded when they are procured.
    I fully support this requirement and, if confirmed, will work to 
ensure full funding because it ensures that all of the funding is there 
to support a usable end item.
    However, there may be limited instances where incremental funding 
is warranted and is in the best interest of the Department and the 
taxpayer. For example, I can understand why we may want to consider 
incremental funding of some major end items such as aircraft carriers 
and large building construction projects because they take so long to 
complete and are very expensive.
    Question. If you believe a change in policy is warranted, please 
explain how you believe such changes would benefit the Department and 
the taxpayer.
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess whether such a policy change is 
warranted.
                          base closure savings
    Question. The costs of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round 
have exceeded the initial estimates put forward by DOD and the 
independent commission by about 50 percent, an increase of 
approximately $10 billion. Those initial estimates were derived from 
the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model, which is not 
designed to produce ``budget quality'' data.
    Do you believe the Department should continue to use the COBRA 
model, in its current form, for any future base closure rounds that may 
be authorized, or do you believe the accuracy of the estimated cost of 
such actions should be improved?
    Answer. If confirmed, and before significant additional use is made 
of the COBRA model, I will discuss this issue further with the 
committee and make a recommendation.
    Question. Do you think the office of the Comptroller should play a 
greater role in developing these cost estimates?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess how great a role is appropriate 
as part of a review of the COBRA model.
                          financial management
    Question. What is your understanding of the efforts and progress 
that have been made in DOD since 1999 toward the goal of being able to 
produce a clean audit?
    Answer. I believe DOD is making substantial progress toward a clean 
audit. There is, however, a substantial amount of work still to do, 
including efforts to address some of the most difficult problems. If 
confirmed, I will pursue appropriate actions to ensure continued 
progress toward meeting clean audit goals.
    Question. Do you believe the Department's Financial Improvement and 
Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan will lead to achieving a clean audit 
opinion for DOD, or are changes in that plan necessary in order to 
achieve that goal?
    Answer. I do not have detailed knowledge of the FIAR plan, but if 
confirmed, I will study this issue further after consulting with the 
FIAR committee and others.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department can achieve a clean 
audit opinion through better accounting and auditing, or is the 
systematic improvement of the Department's business systems and 
processes a perquisite?
    Answer. Both business systems and improved processes are required.
    Question. When do you believe the Department can achieve a clean 
audit?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review all the 
information needed to provide a specific timeline. However, if 
confirmed, I will examine this issue more fully, including 
consideration of this committee's views as well as the resources needed 
for the audit, and provide an answer.
    Question. If confirmed, what role do you expect to play, and how do 
you expect to work with the CMO and Deputy CMO, in the effort to 
achieve a clean audit opinion?
    Answer. Better business practices and fully integrated business 
systems are a must to achieve and sustain a clean audit opinion.
    If confirmed, I will work with the CMO and Deputy CMO and make use 
of their skills to ensure better business practices and fully 
integrated business systems are in place to support the Department's 
audit opinion goals.
              cost overrruns on major acquisition programs
    Question. Last year, the GAO reported that DOD's Major Defense 
Acquisition Programs had experienced an estimated total (lifecycle) 
acquisition cost growth of $295 billion in constant fiscal year 2008 
dollars.
    Do you believe the Department can build and manage an affordable 
program with cost increases of this magnitude?
    Answer. I believe DOD must do everything possible to minimize 
acquisition cost growth, which can help ensure that we are able to 
provide our fighting forces the technology and capabilities needed to 
ensure their combat dominance.
    Question. If you believe these cost increases are a concern, what 
role, if any, do you see for the Comptroller in improving the accuracy 
of the cost estimates for major weapons programs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Program Analysis and 
Evaluation leaders, my staff, and others to scrutinize cost estimates--
because they are essential components of our budget and management 
responsibilities.
    Question. The poor performance of major defense acquisition 
programs has been attributed in part to instability in funding and 
requirements.
    What steps would you plan to take, if confirmed, to increase the 
funding and requirements stability of major defense acquisition 
programs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would make stability a pivotal priority 
during DOD deliberations on funding and requirements. We must look at 
all programs and especially those that are early in their program 
lives, and try to ensure that enough funds are available to avoid 
slowdowns due to lack of funding.
    Question. Would you agree that early communication between the 
acquisition, requirements, and budget communities is critical to 
establishing acquisition programs on a sound footing?
    Answer. Yes, early and detailed communication is critical.
    Question. What steps would you plan to take, if confirmed, to 
improve such communication?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work to ensure such communications 
are an integral part of DOD processes on acquisition, requirements, and 
especially on budgets.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller)?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of 
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by 
a duly constituted committee, or to consult with the committee 
regarding the basis of any good faith delay or denial in providing such 
documents?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
             Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
                      supplemental budget requests
    1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Hale, section 1008 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 required the President's budget 
to include funding for ongoing military operations that are 
traditionally included in supplementals. In your response to the 
advance policy questions, you stated: ``the negative aspects of 
supplementals can be minimized by ensuring Department of Defense (DOD) 
scrutiny of supplemental requests similar to that afforded the base 
budget (a policy endorsed by the President-elect) and by providing 
Congress with early information regarding supplemental requests.'' If 
confirmed, what steps are you going to take to include traditional 
supplemental requirements in the DOD planning, programming, budgeting, 
and execution process for the fiscal year 2011 budget?
    Mr. Hale. DOD needs to move away from supplementals, using them 
only for truly unexpected costs. Working with others in DOD and with 
the Office of Management and Budget, I expect to work to achieve this 
goal. I hope to make progress in the fiscal year 2010 budget and 
achieve the goal by the fiscal year 2011 budget.

                        chief management officer
    2. Senator Akaka. Mr. Hale, in May 2007, the Secretary of Defense 
designated the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the Chief Management 
Officer (CMO) of DOD. The CMO position was developed to address 
management challenges that have plagued DOD for years. The CMO was 
charged with establishing performance goals and measures for improving 
and evaluating overall economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and to 
monitor and measure the progress of the Department. What is your 
understanding of the relationship between the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller) and the CMO?
    Mr. Hale. My relationship with the Deputy Secretary of Defense in 
his capacity as CMO will be to do my utmost to ensure that the 
Department's business systems and processes are unified, standardized, 
and integrated. I will also take an active role in supporting the CMO 
in defining, establishing, and reporting business operations 
performance metrics that provide leading indicators of effective DOD 
operations.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
   survivor benefit plan/dependency and indemnity compensation offset
    3. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, for 8 years I have worked to 
eliminate the unjust offset between the DOD Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs Dependency and Indemnity 
Compensation (DIC). Under current law, if the surviving spouse of a 
servicemember is eligible for SBP, that annuity is offset by the amount 
of DIC received. I would like to work with DOD to devise a plan to 
eliminate the offset over time; it is the least we can do for the 
widows, widowers, and orphans of our servicemembers. What is the proper 
balance of discretionary and mandatory spending that will not only 
ensure our national defense, but will also take care of our 
servicemembers, veterans, and their families?
    Mr. Hale. The offset to SBP for simultaneous DIC entitlement is 
fair, reasonable, and equitable. Allowing one to receive both 
annuities, without offset, would create an inequity by giving dual 
lifetime annuities to certain survivors while survivors of other 
deceased former military members would continue to receive only one or 
the other.
    If current levels of the annuity for survivors of members who die 
from service-connected causes are deemed insufficient, the level of DIC 
should simply be recalibrated, ensuring there are no winners and 
losers--simply that all similarly situated families benefit from an 
appropriate annuity level defined by Congress.

    4. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, what would a plan look like that 
would eliminate the SBP-DIC offset over 4 years and over 10 years?
    Mr. Hale. As noted in the answer to the prior question, I do not 
favor eliminating the SBP-DIC offset and suggest that if current 
annuity levels for survivors of former military members who die of 
service-connected causes are deemed inadequate, the level of DIC should 
be reevaluated.

                base realignment and closure commission
    5. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, in November 2005, the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) of 2005 went into effect. 
Full funding of BRAC 2005 is imperative because the Services must build 
infrastructure to support the mandated force movements. Two BRAC 2005 
conclusions that affect Florida are the establishment of Initial 
Aircraft Training for the F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter and 
the beddown of the 7th Special Forces Group at Eglin Air Force Base. 
The BRAC 2005 law expires in 2011. Explain how DOD will support the 
Services' funding requests necessary to implement the BRAC 2005 law 
before expiration of the BRAC 2005 mandate.
    Mr. Hale. It is my understanding that the Department has directed 
the DOD components with BRAC realignments and/or closures to fully fund 
those actions to ensure implementation of each BRAC recommendation by 
the statutory deadline of September 15, 2011. As such, it is my 
understanding that all costs to implement BRAC are included in 
departmental budget requests (including supplemental requests) and in 
the Future Year Defense Program.

     navy decision to establish a second aircraft carrier homeport
    6. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, in 2006, the Navy began an 
environmental impact statement to determine the environmental impact of 
homeporting additional surface ships at Naval Station Mayport, FL. 
Since 2005, congressional and military leadership have reaffirmed the 
importance of dispersing the Atlantic Fleet in two ports. In February 
2005, then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, stated that it was 
his view that, ``over-centralization of the [carrier] port structure is 
not a good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier-
capable homeports on each coast.'' He went on to say, ``. . . it is my 
belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of 
those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.''
    Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, as the former Secretary 
of the Navy, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the 
Navy needed to disperse its Atlantic coast carriers: ``My judgment is 
that [dispersion] is still the situation . . . a nuclear carrier should 
be in Florida to replace the [U.S.S. John F.] Kennedy to get some 
dispersion.''
    The current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead, 
recommended to Secretary of the Navy Winter that Naval Station Mayport 
should be made capable of homeporting a nuclear aircraft carrier 
homeport to reduce the risk to our Atlantic Fleet carriers should 
Norfolk become incapacitated. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, Admiral Mullen, agrees with Admiral Roughead's 
recommendation.
    On January 14, the Navy made its decision to make Naval Station 
Mayport a carrier homeport and plans to request the necessary funding 
for its implementation in its fiscal year 2010 budget request. 
Understanding the fiscal challenges facing our country and the 
constrained defense budget, how will you approach this funding priority 
among the many priorities facing the military?
    Mr. Hale. If confirmed, I will review the implications of this 
decision with the Navy, and the impact, if any, on the fiscal year 2010 
and future budget requests. At such time, I would be willing to provide 
Congress an update on specifics once the review is completed.

    7. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Hale, the principle of strategic 
dispersal is decades old. What is your understanding of the principle 
of strategic dispersal and what are your thoughts of Secretary of the 
Navy Donald Winter's implementation of this principle with respect to 
Naval Station Mayport?
    Mr. Hale. You raise a good question that would require more study 
on my part, if confirmed. I am not yet familiar with all the details 
and potential impacts with Secretary Winter's decision to implement 
strategic dispersal on the east coast, but I am committed to review the 
matter thoroughly and respond to your question in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
                              clean audit
    8. Senator Bayh. Mr. Hale, the DOD budget continues to grow by 
billions annually. How close to a clean audit do you believe DOD is 
today?
    Mr. Hale. I have not yet completed my review of all the information 
needed to provide a specific timeline. However, there are many 
difficult tasks still to be completed before DOD receives a clean or 
unqualified opinion. I expect that DOD will not achieve that goal any 
sooner than the date specified in the latest Financial Improvement and 
Audit Readiness report--which stated that major statements would be 
audit ready by 2017.

    9. Senator Bayh. Mr. Hale, what steps do you believe will be 
necessary to take in order to perform a clean audit?
    Mr. Hale. DOD is making progress towards an unqualified audit 
opinion. However, there are many difficult steps yet to be achieved. 
These include but are not limited to implementing integrated business 
systems, achieving an auditable funds balance with Treasury, and 
resolving valuation issues such as those associated with military 
equipment. The Department must also continue to improve its financial 
controls.

    10. Senator Bayh. Mr. Hale, what benefits or savings do you believe 
could be realized by such an audit?
    Mr. Hale. An unqualified audit opinion provides evidence that the 
financial systems of an entity provide reliable, accurate, and timely 
information for management decisionmaking. Informed decisionmaking 
leads to cost saving and/or cost avoidance. There is also a benefit to 
citizens and taxpayers in that an unqualified audit opinion validates 
their confidence in their government to manage, protect, and use their 
resources well by proving the Department's books are reliable and 
accurate.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                        active-duty end strength
    11. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the President-elect and the Secretary 
of Defense have endorsed significant increases in the Active-Duty 
strengths of the Army and Marine Corps and these Services have been 
working hard to accelerate this growth. Please discuss your concerns 
about the rising cost of personnel and how you anticipate this will 
affect the ability of the Services to recapitalize its equipment.
    Mr. Hale. I am concerned about the rising cost of personnel in our 
DOD budget. Of course, we must continue to compensate our military 
people adequately, and we must take good care of military families. At 
the same time, we must also address rising costs in order to have the 
resources to upgrade military equipment, systems, and facilities. For 
example, we must do more to control the escalating cost of health care 
for our military. These difficult trade-offs will need to be made--both 
by the executive branch and Congress--during program and budget 
reviews.

                retirees and the cost of dod health care
    12. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, for the last 3 years, the 
administration has tried--without success--to gain approval for 
increases in the annual premiums for DOD-provided health care paid for 
by military retirees under the age of 65. What are your views about the 
need for change in this regard?
    Mr. Hale. The proposed increases in TRICARE premiums included with 
the fiscal year 2009 DOD budget was based on recommendations of the 
Task Force on the Future of Military Healthcare, which DOD established 
as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007. I expect that--during upcoming program and budget reviews--the 
new administration will analyze options regarding the large and growing 
cost of TRICARE, and I look forward to helping with that analysis.

                      defense business board view
    13. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the Defense Business Board (DBB), an 
internal management oversight board established by Secretary Gates, 
recently warned that the DOD's budget is ``unsustainable'' and that the 
Department can only meet its priorities if it makes hard budget 
decisions on its largest and costliest acquisition programs. ``Business 
as usual [in terms of the Department's budget decisions] is no longer 
an option,'' warned the Board. Do you agree with the DBB's warning?
    Mr. Hale. Yes, business as usual is no longer an option. President 
Obama and Secretary Gates have underscored that change is needed and 
vowed to make acquisition reform a top priority.

    14. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, what principles will guide your 
thinking on possible cuts to large acquisition programs?
    Mr. Hale. Acquisition programs must be able to deliver the required 
capability on schedule and at or under cost. The capabilities they 
provide must not be duplicative of other acquisitions, and these 
capabilities must be integral components of the overall portfolio of 
capabilities that the Department needs to accomplish its mission. We 
will review programs to ensure that they have the required 
technological and production maturity to enable successful delivery of 
the required capability to the warfighter according to schedule, and at 
cost. Programs lacking this maturity may be candidates for termination 
or restructure, depending on their potential contributions to our 
mission accomplishment. Cuts to large acquisition programs will also be 
evaluated against the capabilities they provide to ensure 
accomplishment of the Department's mission to defend our Nation, its 
interests, and our allies. We will review acquisitions to determine 
which best address requirements of near-term engagements and current 
known threats, and fund the highest priority acquisition programs that 
address these areas. At the same time, we will also ensure that we do 
not neglect the need for increased capabilities to meet increased or 
new threats in the future. As standard practice, we will align our 
acquisitions to stay within our funding topline and always strive to 
get the best value for our resources.

               reforms for procurement of weapons systems
    15. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, over the last few years, this 
committee has developed several legislative initiatives intended to 
reform the process by which the Department buys its largest and most 
expensive weapons systems. The preponderance of those initiatives have 
addressed acquisition policy and the requirements system. Are there any 
aspects of acquisition policy, the requirements-determination system, 
or the resource allocation process that you believe require additional 
reform?
    Mr. Hale. Yes, we need reforms in the areas I listed in my answer 
to question 14 above.

    16. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the Department recently instituted 
several reforms to the DOD Instructions on how the Defense Acquisition 
System (DAS) operates. Those initiatives seek to start major 
acquisition programs off responsibly by increasing emphasis on systems 
engineering and greater upfront planning and management of risk, as 
well as utilization of competitive prototyping in a newly-named 
Technology Development Phase (before Milestone B). Are there any 
aspects of those newly instituted instructions (or the newly structured 
DAS) with which you have difficulty or intend to modify or repeal?
    Mr. Hale. I think the recent changes to defense acquisition policy 
reflect the Department's commitment to achieving improved acquisition 
outcomes by reducing risk, and improving process discipline. I believe 
the new policies are sound and I support them. If confirmed, I plan to 
closely monitor the execution of these policies and contribute to the 
success of these important initiatives.

    17. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, among the reforms that this committee 
and the Department have instituted include those that enable the 
Department to remove more effectively nonessential requirements; have 
the Department move towards employing fixed-type contracts while better 
incentivizing contractor performance; and require the Department to 
exercise better oversight of service contracts. Are there any aspects 
of those initiatives in particular with which you have difficulty or 
intend to modify or repeal?
    Mr. Hale. No, I believe these are effective initiatives and I will 
support them. Each of the policies mentioned is designed to improve the 
operation of our acquisition system and enhance oversight of our 
substantive investments in our major defense acquisition programs and 
contract services. If confirmed, I plan to monitor the effectiveness of 
these policies to ensure that the desired outcomes are being achieved.

                relocation of u.s. marines from okinawa
    18. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, the current estimate for the costs to 
relocate the marines from Okinawa to Guam is at least $10 billion, with 
the Government of Japan directly contributing $2.8 billion. The 
remainder will be funded by DOD through military construction or loans 
paid back through future housing allowances. With all the other 
modernization, recapitalization, and reset requirements facing the 
Department in the next 4 years, in your opinion, can we afford this 
move?
    Mr. Hale. The Department is committed to this relocation 
initiative, and I support it. This investment provides assurance of the 
U.S. commitment to security and strengthens deterrent capabilities in 
the Asia-Pacific region. The Japanese Government may commit up to $6 
billion in total funding for this initiative. During upcoming program 
and budget reviews, the Department will balance the fiscal commitment 
required to move forward with this initiative against other high-
priority initiatives.

    19. Senator McCain. Mr. Hale, there has also been discussion about 
the significant investment necessary to upgrade port, road, and utility 
infrastructure on Guam to support the stationing of marines and their 
families. Do you believe DOD should assume this financial obligation as 
well?
    Mr. Hale. The Department recognizes the necessary investment 
associated with port, roads, and utility infrastructure on Guam 
resulting from the Marine Corps relocation. It is critical to 
thoroughly evaluate the broad Federal impact of this significant 
investment and partner with other Federal entities, such as the Guam 
Federal Interagency Task Force, to determine the financial obligation 
that the United States should assume for infrastructure on Guam. The 
Department is addressing Guam's needs that are directly related to 
maintaining an enduring presence in support of the military mission.
    Guam's infrastructure, namely the commercial port and the island's 
road network, require upgrades that will directly assist our ability to 
carry out the program and also benefit Guam. The Department, through 
the Defense Access Road (DAR) program, is preparing to address 
qualifying improvements to roadways, intersections, and bridges that 
are critical to executing the construction program for DOD.
    The Maritime Administration (MARAD) was designated the lead Federal 
agency for the Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program in Public 
Law 110-417, section 3512. As the lead Federal agency, the MARAD will 
manage the expenditure of Federal, non-Federal, and private funds made 
available for the project and provide oversight and project management 
through a prime contractor. DOD is working closely with MARAD to help 
facilitate their initiative to correct the issues at the port.
    DOD is also working to facilitate the necessary utilities solutions 
that will: meet the DOD mission; provide the widest benefit to the 
people of Guam; be technically and financially supportable by all 
participating parties; and be acceptable to the environmental 
regulators. DOD is working in collaboration with the Government of Guam 
officials to understand their needs and to determine the feasibility of 
utilities solutions that are mutually beneficial to DOD, the civilian 
community, and the regulatory agencies. Additionally, we are working 
with the Government of Japan to ensure that their equities are met in 
conjunction with the DOD's needs and the equities of the Government of 
Guam and the Consolidated Commission on Utilities. Concurrently, we are 
working with the environmental regulators to ensure that the solution 
set meets the requirements set by the regulatory standards.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
                          acquisition strategy
    20. Senator Martinez. Mr. Hale, as you have read, the Secretary of 
Defense wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, ``When it comes to 
procurement, for the better part of 5 decades, the trend has gone 
toward lower numbers as technology gains have made each system more 
capable. In recent years, these platforms have grown ever more baroque, 
have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being 
fielded in ever-dwindling quantities. Given that resources are not 
unlimited, the dynamic of exchanging numbers for capability is perhaps 
reaching a point of diminishing returns. A given ship or aircraft, no 
matter how capable or well-equipped, can be in only one place at one 
time.'' How do you intend to ensure that simple, effective and cost 
efficient systems are not replaced by cutting edge, yet highly 
expensive platforms our Nation is not willing to procure en mass?
    Mr. Hale. I believe that DOD must make trade-offs between 
performance and cost, especially early in the life of new programs, in 
order to ensure reasonably priced yet adequately capable weapon 
systems. Stability during the acquisition process is another key to 
ensuring reasonable prices. Working along with other offices in charge 
of acquisition, I expect to be an advocate for these and other process 
improvements necessary to improve DOD's acquisition system.

    21. Senator Martinez. Mr. Hale, how will you bring sensibility to 
the procurement process so we maintain the capacity to address the 
Nation's needs?
    Mr. Hale. As I said in my answer above, I intend to lead my staff, 
and work with other DOD offices, to help carry out the acquisition 
goals enunciated by Secretary Gates.

    22. Senator Martinez. Mr. Hale, what additional acquisition process 
improvements will you bring to the Pentagon?
    Mr. Hale. Discipline is the key to creating affordable weapons 
programs, especially discipline in the early stages of a weapon 
system's life cycle. The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics) is responsible for DOD acquisition process. 
Once the new Under Secretary takes office I plan to be helpful in 
identifying improvements.
                                 ______
                                 
              Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                        upgrading aging systems
    23. Senator Collins. Mr. Hale, in your answers to the advance 
policy questions, you listed what you believe to be some of the major 
challenges confronting the next Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer. One of the biggest 
challenges for all the Services is the need to replace aging major 
equipment and weapons systems with newer and more technologically 
advanced systems in a cost effective manner. For example, DOD has spent 
countless hours and millions of dollars trying to develop the next 
generation aerial refueling tanker, and the Navy has a strong need to 
replace many of its aging warships. What is your fiscal plan to 
purchase these systems that DOD so desperately needs?
    Mr. Hale. Fiscal discipline will be a key to meeting the many 
budgetary challenges facing DOD. We must maintain an adequate force 
structure, but we also need to identify ways to hold down personnel 
costs (including health care costs) in order to free up resources 
needed to replace aging systems. We must buy a reasonable number of 
replacement systems, but we also need to make the hard trade-offs 
(including performance trade-offs) necessary to hold down the unit 
costs of the replacement systems. During upcoming program and budget 
reviews, I expect to be an advocate for the necessary fiscal 
discipline.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Robert F. Hale follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 20, 2009.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Robert F. Hale, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller), vice Tina Westby Jonas, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Robert F. Hale, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
                 Biographical Sketch of Robert F. Hale
    Robert F. Hale currently serves as the Executive Director of the 
American Society of Military Comptrollers (ASMC). In that capacity he 
runs an 18,000 member association that provides a wide range of 
professional development activities for defense financial managers.
    From 1994 to 2001 Mr. Hale was appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
(Financial Management and Comptroller). He was responsible for the Air 
Force budget and all aspects of Air Force financial management. During 
this period Mr. Hale oversaw submission of budgets that met Air Force 
needs in peace and war. He made numerous improvements in Air Force 
financial management and brought about substantial streamlining of 
processes. He also spearheaded creation of the first-ever certification 
program for defense financial managers.
    Mr. Hale served for 12 years as head of the defense unit of the 
Congressional Budget Office. His group provided defense analyses to 
Congress, and he frequently testified before congressional committees. 
He was a sought-after expert on the Federal budget, especially the 
defense budget, and spoke widely on budget topics.
    Before coming to ASMC, Mr. Hale directed a program group at LMI 
Government Consulting and, early in his career, he served on active 
duty as a Navy officer and worked for the Center for Naval Analyses.
    Robert Hale holds a BS with honors from Stanford University, as 
well as an MS from Stanford, and an MBA from George Washington 
University. He is also a Fellow in the National Academy of Public 
Administration and has served on the organization's task forces. Mr. 
Hale has served on the Defense Business Board and on the 
Congressionally-Mandated Task Force on the Future of Military Health 
Care. He is a former National President of the American Society of 
Military Comptrollers and is a Certified Defense Financial Manager with 
acquisition specialty.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Robert F. Hale 
in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Robert F. Hale.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).

    3. Date of nomination:
    Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    January 21, 1947; Sacramento, CA.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Scott D. Hale, 30; Michael J. Hale, 28.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    George Washington University, MBA, 1976 (attended 1972-1976).
    Stanford University, MS, 1969 (attended 1969).
    Stanford University, BS, 1968 (attended 1964-1968).
    Armijo High School, 1964 (attended 1960-1964).

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Executive Director, American Society of Military Comptrollers, July 
2005-present; 415 North Alfred Street, Alexandria, VA.

        Currently managing all aspects of a professional association 
        with 18,000 members. Created an ``easy-access'' program of 
        professional development, using internet and audio approaches 
        to meet new training needs. Significantly improved content of 
        Society's quarterly journal and its annual conference (a 
        premier training event for defense financial managers). 
        Successfully implemented major automation improvements at 
        Society headquarters. Improved organization's profitability 
        without raising member dues.

    Program Director and Consultant, LMI Government Consulting, May 
2001-July 2005; 2000 Corporate Ridge Road, McLean, VA.

        Served as program director for a group of about 20 
        professionals providing consulting services to Federal agencies 
        on acquisition topics. Inherited a group that was not 
        productive or profitable. Instituted major changes in business 
        processes that brought in new, high-quality business and 
        rendered the group profitable within a year. Also consulted for 
        Federal agencies on financial issues.

    Assistant Secretary (Financial Management and Comptroller), United 
States Air Force, March 1994-January 2001; 1130 Air Force Pentagon, 
Washington, DC.

        Nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, managed 
        all aspects of Air Force financial management. Oversaw creation 
        and defense of seven budgets and associated supplementals that 
        successfully met critical Air Force resource needs, both in 
        peacetime and during the Bosnian war. Worked successfully to 
        involve all key personnel in the budget process, especially 
        those in the Secretariat. Streamlined Air Force financial 
        business processes by overseeing implementation of three new 
        automated systems and shepherding implementation of four major 
        multi-service systems. Sharply reduced antideficiency act cases 
        and credit card delinquencies by devoting personal attention to 
        these problem areas. Accomplished first full audit of an Air 
        Force financial statement. Created a new office to improve 
        base-level financial services. Also spearheaded creation of a 
        new certification program for defense financial managers, which 
        has now become an important part of their training. Longest 
        serving Assistant Secretary in the history of the office.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Member, Defense Business Board, 2002-2007.
    Member, DOD Task Force on the Future of DOD Health Care, 2006-2007.
    Member, Task Force on Fiscal Futures, National Academy of Public 
Administration, 2008-present.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    RFH Consulting, single-person consulting firm doing limited work 
for private companies and DOD, 2001-present.
    Member, National Executive Committee, American Society of Military 
Comptrollers (nonprofit society devoted to professional development).

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Member, National Academy of Public Administration.
    Executive Director, American Society of Military Comptrollers.
    Member, Association of Government Accountants.
    Member, National Contract Management Association.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    None.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    10/23/08, Obama for America - $1,000.
    9/21/08, Obama for America - $1,000.
    9/22/08, Connolly for Congress - $250.
    7/28/08, Obama for America - $500.
    5/6/06, Democratic Senate Committtee - $500.
    9/17/06, Democratic Congressional Campaign - $500.
    9/29/06, Fairfield-Suisan CA, Save the Farms, $250.
    4/3/04, Kerry for President - $500.
    6/27/04, Kerry for President - $1,000.

    14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    DOD Exceptional Public Service Award.
    Air Force Distinguished Service Award.
    National Defense Medal.
    Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    ``Defense and Deficits,'' Armed Forces Comptroller Journal, Spring 
2004.
    ``The Graying of Federal Financial Management,'' Journal of 
Government Financial Management, Spring 2003.
    ``Promoting Efficiency in the Department of Defense: Keep Trying, 
But Be Realistic,'' Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 
January 2002.
    Authored numerous reports on defense financial management during 
service as a Federal employee with the Congressional Budget Office 
(1975-1994).

    16. Speeches: Provide the committee with two copies of any formal 
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have 
copies of and are on topics relevant to the position for which you have 
been nominated.
    No formal, written speeches.
    Many informal speeches, mainly to chapters of the American Society 
of Military Comptrollers.

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                    Robert F. Hale.
    This 13th day of January, 2009.

    [The nomination of Robert F. Hale was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2009.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Michele Flournoy by 
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the military departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. Goldwater-Nichols was landmark legislation that led to 
dramatic improvements in operational effectiveness, unity of effort, 
and civilian oversight. We now have a generation of military leaders 
for whom operating in a coordinated and joint, multi-service 
environment is the norm. Given these successes, I do not see the 
immediate need to change the provisions of this legislation.
    I have co-authored a number of studies that have advocated using 
the Goldwater-Nichols Act as a point of departure for enhancing 
interagency unity of effort and the capabilities of America's non-
military instruments of statecraft. If confirmed, I would hope to be in 
a position to help strengthen the U.S. Government's ability to craft 
effective whole of government approaches to the national security 
challenges we face.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. See my previous answer.
                             relationships
    Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) and each of the 
following:
    Question. The Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. The USD(P) serves as the principal staff assistant and 
advisor to the Secretary of Defense for all matters concerning the 
formulation of national security and defense policy and the integration 
and oversight of DOD policy and plans to achieve national security 
objectives. The USD(P) provides policy support to the Secretary in 
interagency fora (such as National Security Council and Homeland 
Security Council deliberations), engagement with international 
interlocutors, and in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and 
Execution (PPBE) processes inside the Department, including the 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and 
annual program and budget reviews.
    Question. The Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. The Under Secretary for Policy provides similar support to 
the Deputy Secretary as described above.
    Question. The other Under Secretaries of Defense, including the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
    Answer. The Under Secretary for Policy works closely with the other 
Under Secretaries of Defense to achieve the Secretary's objectives. 
This includes providing policy input, as appropriate, to each of them 
in their respective areas of responsibility. In addition, the USD(P) 
works closely with the Under Secretary of Intelligence and other 
intelligence officials to ensure that policy formulation and execution 
are well-informed and supported by intelligence.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. The USD(P) exercises authority, direction, and control over 
the Principal Deputy USD(P), and the Assistant Secretaries of Defense 
for International Security Affairs, Asian and Pacific Affairs, Global 
Security Affairs, Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and 
Interdependent Capabilities, and Homeland Defense and Americas' 
Security. This team works together to provide the Secretary with advice 
and recommendations on the full range of policy issues under 
consideration in the Department and provides policy oversight to ensure 
that the Secretary's guidance and decisions are implemented properly.
    Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.
    Answer. The USD(P) works closely with the secretaries of the 
military departments on a broad range of issues, including strategy 
development, force planning, and other areas in which the military 
departments are critical stakeholders.
    Question. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense (DOD).
    Answer. The USD(P) works closely with the General Counsel on all 
policy issues that involve a legal dimension. In practice, this means 
significant and regular coordination on a broad range of issues.
    Question. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff.
    Answer. As the principal military advisor to the Secretary of 
Defense, the President, and the National Security Council, the Chairman 
has a unique and critical military role. The USD(P) works closely with 
the Chairman and Vice Chairman to support the efforts of the Secretary 
and Deputy Security, and to ensure that their military advice is taken 
into account in an appropriate manner.
    Question. The Commanders of the Regional Combatant Commanders.
    Answer. The USD(P) also works closely with the regional combatant 
commanders to support the efforts of the Secretary and Deputy Security, 
particularly in the areas of regional strategy and policy, contingency 
planning, and policy oversight of operations.
          duties of the under secretary of defense for policy
    Question. Section 134 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the USD(P) 
shall assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing written policy 
guidance for the preparation and review of contingency plans, and in 
reviewing such plans. Additionally, subject to the authority, 
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary 
shall have responsibility for supervising and directing activities of 
DOD relating to export controls. Further, subject to the authority, 
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the USD(P) is 
responsible for overall direction and supervision for policy, program 
planning and execution, and allocation and use of resources for the 
activities of the DOD for combating terrorism.
    DOD Directive 5111.1 reiterates these duties and specifically notes 
that the USD(P) is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the 
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense for all 
matters on the formulation of national security and defense policy and 
the integration and oversight of DOD policy and plans to achieve 
national security objectives.
    What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the 
USD(P) under current regulations and practices?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will perform the duties set forth in title 
10 and the DOD Directive. The USD(P) serves as the principal staff 
assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense 
for all matters concerning the formulation of national security and 
defense policy and the integration and oversight of DOD policy and 
plans to achieve national security objectives. Specifically the USD(P) 
directly supports the Secretary of Defense in the interagency process, 
in dealings with foreign counterparts, in developing strategy and 
planning guidance for the rest of the PPBE process, in providing policy 
oversight of current operations, and in guiding the development and 
review of contingency plans. He or she is the Secretary's principal 
policy adviser on the use of the U.S. military instrument and its 
adaptation for future missions.
    Question. What is your understanding of the responsibilities of the 
USD(P) in combating terrorism, in particular as differentiated from 
those of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and 
Low Intensity Conflict (ASD(SOLIC))?
    Answer. The ASD(SOLIC) and Integrated Capabilities (IC) functions 
under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P) in combating 
terrorism. In practice, ASD(SOLIC)/IC is often asked to provide direct 
support to the Secretary on sensitive operational material.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what additional duties and 
functions do you expect that the Secretary of Defense would prescribe 
for you?
    Answer. I look forward to speaking with him further about how I 
could best support his efforts beyond those set forth in section 134(b) 
of title 10.
                             qualifications
    Question. What background and experience do you have that you 
believe qualifies you for this position?
    Answer. I have had the privilege of spending more than 20 years 
working on a broad range of national security and defense issues, both 
in and out of government. From my time in university and graduate 
school wrestling with issues surrounding the Cold War and the Soviet 
nuclear arsenal, to my 5\1/2\ years spent in the Pentagon taking a lead 
role in formulating defense strategy in the immediate post-Cold War 
context for three different Secretaries of Defense, to my more recent 
roles in the think-tank community exploring U.S. policies to address 
the complex challenges of the post-September 11 era, I believe I have 
the policy background and management experience that would serve the 
country well if confirmed as the next USD(P).
                          contingency planning
    Question. One of the purposes of Goldwater-Nichols was to increase 
military and civilian attention on the formulation of strategy and 
contingency planning. The USD(P) is specifically directed to assist the 
Secretary of Defense in preparing written policy guidance for the 
preparation and review of contingency plans and in reviewing such 
plans.
    What is your view of the civilian role, as compared to the military 
role, in the formulation of strategy and contingency planning?
    Answer. I believe that civilian leadership is critical in the 
formulation of strategy and planning. Civilian defense leadership is 
particularly vital in translating broad national security policies and 
principles into the strategic ends that ultimately drive military 
planning.
    More specifically, the USD(P) supports the development of the 
President's National Security Strategy, leads the development of the 
defense strategy, establishes realistic objectives and guidance to form 
the basis for contingency planning, and reviews DOD plans and programs 
to ensure they support strategic objectives. The Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff is a critical partner in the development of guidance 
for contingency planning and provides independent military advice to 
the Secretary of Defense and the President. In addition to the 
provision of written guidance, an important civilian role is to review 
contingency plans submitted for approval by the combatant commanders. 
The USD(P) is also responsible for facilitating interagency 
coordination on contingency planning efforts, as necessary.
    Question. In your opinion, does the civilian leadership currently 
have an appropriate level of oversight of strategy formulation and 
contingency planning?
    Answer. I believe that the United States is at a critical time in 
history--with multiple wars, enduring threats, and imminent challenges. 
From the need to redeploy forces in Iraq, strengthen commitments in 
Afghanistan, to the importance of combating terrorism and preparing for 
a future in which energy security and the rise of states like China and 
India will fundamentally alter the international environment, I believe 
that a strong civilian and military partnership on these issues is 
vital. If confirmed, I will examine this issue closely and seek to 
ensure that civilian leadership has the appropriate level of oversight 
on the full range of strategy, planning, and use-of-force issues.
    Question. What steps do you believe are necessary to ensure 
effective civilian control and oversight of strategy formulation and 
contingency planning?
    Answer. Given that we are at this critical point in history, I do 
feel that the strategy and planning capacity in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense should be strengthened. From my time inside and 
outside of government, I have come to believe that the U.S. Government 
needs to fortify its capacity for strategic thinking and strategic 
planning to ensure that it not only deals with the challenges of today 
but is also well-prepared for those of tomorrow.
    If confirmed, I would strive to provide the best advice possible to 
the Secretary of Defense in fulfilling his responsibility to provide 
written policy guidance and to review contingency plans. I would also 
work closely with the Joint Staff to develop further opportunities to 
collaborate on planning guidance and reviews.
                     major challenges and problems
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the USD(P)?
    Answer. If confirmed, my office will likely play an important role 
within the Department and the interagency process in developing policy 
for a number of key issues, including among others: responsibly ending 
the war in Iraq; ensuring that the United States develops and employs a 
more effective strategy in Afghanistan and the surrounding region; 
working to prevent nuclear and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 
proliferation; combating terrorism; adapting the U.S. military for 21st 
century challenges; and strengthening America's alliances with key 
partners and allies. Beyond ensuring that the Secretary of Defense 
receives the best possible policy input on these vital questions, 
another major challenge will be to strengthen the organizational 
capacity to support these efforts.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would participate in a number of policy 
reviews, including the upcoming QDR, which provides an opportunity to 
assess these challenges and develop policy, plans, and investments to 
address them.
                               priorities
    Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish 
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the USD(P)?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would give priority to the major challenges 
identified above and to strengthening the organizational capacity of 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense Policy to address them. I would 
also give priority to ensuring effective working relationships with 
both military and civilian counterparts through the Department and the 
interagency.
                                  iraq
    Question. The U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) requires 
that U.S. combat forces withdraw from cities and towns by June 2009 and 
that all U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq by the end of December 2011. 
Additionally, if Iraqi voters reject the SOFA in a referendum scheduled 
for July 2009, U.S. troops would be required to withdraw by July 2010.
    What, in your view, are the greatest challenges facing the 
Department in meeting these deadlines and what actions, if any, would 
you recommend to maximize the chances of meeting these requirements?
    Answer. The challenge in Iraq will be to continue the phased 
redeployment of U.S. forces while maintaining a secure environment to 
support elections, political reconciliation, and economic development. 
If confirmed, I would review DOD plans and work with colleagues across 
the Department to make any necessary recommendations to the Secretary 
of Defense.
    Question. What is your understanding and assessment of U.S. plans 
to support implementation of the SOFA requirements for repositioning 
and redeployment of U.S. forces, including contingency planning 
relating to the Iraqi referendum?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review detailed plans 
regarding the repositioning and redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. If 
confirmed, I would review such plans and make any necessary 
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.
    Question. To date, U.S. taxpayers have paid approximately $48 
billion for stabilization and reconstruction activities in Iraq while 
the Iraqi Government has accrued a budget surplus of tens of billions 
of dollars. On April 8, 2008, Ambassador Crocker told the committee 
``the era of U.S.-funded major infrastructure is over'' and said the 
United States is no longer ``involved in the physical reconstruction 
business.''
    What do you believe is the appropriate role for the United States 
in reconstruction activities in Iraq going forward?
    Answer. I support the President-elect's views on bringing in Iraq's 
neighbors to help with reconstruction efforts. I also believe American 
policy should continue to be supportive in working with and through our 
Iraqi partners and that the U.S. role in reconstruction should focus on 
capacity development and assisting our Iraqi partners in prioritizing, 
planning, and executing their reconstruction projects.
    Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi 
Government to assume the cost of training, equipping, and operations 
for its security forces?
    Answer. I believe that a critical part of our strategy depends on 
ensuring that the Iraqi Government assumes control of the entire range 
of tasks necessary to organize, train, and equip its security forces. 
From DOD's perspective, this includes helping our Iraqi partners to 
formulate a defense strategy and acquisition policy that is prudent and 
practical given finite resources.
    Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi 
Government to share the cost of combined operations with Multi-National 
Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) forces and stability programs throughout Iraq?
    Answer. I understand that the U.S. Government has not requested the 
Iraqis contribute to the costs of MNF-I operations. A key objective is 
for Iraq to develop and fully support its forces in order to assume 
responsibility for its own security and stability.
    Question. What are your views on the responsibility of the Iraqi 
Government to share the increased operating and facilities costs 
associated with repositioning or withdrawal of U.S. forces in 
accordance with the U.S.-Iraqi SOFA?
    Answer. My understanding is that under the U.S.-Iraqi Security 
Agreement, there is no Iraqi responsibility to pay costs associated 
with repositioning or withdrawal of U.S. forces. I believe the U.S. 
Government should encourage Iraq to focus on the development and 
support of its security forces.
                              afghanistan
    Question. What is your understanding and assessment of our 
strategic objectives in Afghanistan?
    Answer. Our strategic objective is a stable and secure Afghanistan 
in which al Qaeda and the network of insurgent groups, including the 
Taliban, are incapable of seriously threatening the Afghan state and 
resurrecting a safe haven for terrorism. We are a long way from 
achieving this objective. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 
the committee on this enormous challenge, which requires urgent and 
sustained attention.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to our current 
strategy in Afghanistan?
    Answer. Achieving our strategic objectives in Afghanistan will 
require a more integrated and comprehensive approach to security, 
economic development, and governance. All of the instruments of 
national power and persuasion must be harnessed in order to be 
successful. It is imperative that we improve coordination and 
cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbors and that we achieve 
greater unity of effort among our coalition partners, international 
institutions, and the Government of Afghanistan.
    Question. Do you believe that there is a need to develop a 
comprehensive civil-military plan for Afghanistan, akin to that used in 
Iraq?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. How do you assess the contributions of North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to the effort in Afghanistan, and how 
do you believe that the United States can persuade these allies to 
increase their efforts as the United States does so?
    Answer. Afghanistan would be less secure without the contributions 
and sacrifices of our NATO allies and other International Security 
Assistance Force (ISAF) partners. President-elect Obama and Secretary 
Gates have both called for greater contributions with fewer caveats 
from our NATO allies. By committing more of our own resources to the 
challenge, the United States will be better positioned to persuade our 
allies to do more.
    Question. General David McKiernan, USA, Commander of the NATO ISAF 
and Commander, U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, has identified a need for four 
additional combat brigades and support units in Afghanistan.
    Do you support General McKiernan's request for additional forces? 
If so, would you support drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq faster in 
order to meet General McKiernan's request?
    Answer. President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have both 
consistently stated that they believe the deteriorating security 
conditions in Afghanistan required additional U.S. and international 
forces. If confirmed, I look forward to talking with them and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others to determine how DOD 
can best support that request. Balancing the demand for forces between 
Iraq and Afghanistan while ensuring that the military is ready for 
other contingencies will be one of the Department's key challenges and, 
if confirmed, I look forward to working with those in the Department 
responsible for this as well as with this committee.
    Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the 
Department's plans for the continued rotational flow of combat brigades 
and other units necessary to support operations in Iraq through 2009 
and the availability of the additional combat brigades as requested by 
General McKiernan?
    Answer. Though I have not been briefed in detail, I understand that 
the Department is preparing plans for the requirements for Iraq and 
Afghanistan as currently understood. If confirmed, I will consult with 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior commanders to 
examine the plans in detail as the law requires my office to do.
    Question. How would the Department support combat brigade increases 
in Afghanistan without extending combat brigades or redeploying combat 
brigades without replacement in Iraq?
    Answer. Managing the build-up of forces in Afghanistan must be 
balanced with the demands in Iraq and the necessity to restore full 
spectrum readiness. We have asked a great deal of our service men and 
women, and I am acutely aware of the costs to them and to their 
families of extended and repeated deployments.
    Question. The goal for increasing the size of the Afghan National 
Army (ANA) has been revised from 68,000 to approximately 134,000 
soldiers.
    Would you support a surge of trainers from the United States and 
coalition partners into Afghanistan to accelerate the expansion of the 
ANA?
    Answer. Building an effective, broadly representative, and 
respected ANA will require additional resources. If confirmed, I will 
work with the Services, senior commanders, and our international 
partners to make sure that we have the right number of trainers, 
mentors, and advisors with sufficient resources to accomplish their 
mission.
    Question. What recommendations, if any, would you have for 
encouraging or enabling our coalition partners to provide more training 
team personnel to embed with ANA units?
    Answer. Developing the ability of the Afghan National Security 
Forces to assume the front-line responsibility of security inside 
Afghanistan should be the greatest incentive for coalition partners to 
provide training team personnel. We must stress to our allies the long-
term commitment of the United States to Afghanistan and the shared 
responsibility NATO has to develop Afghan forces so that they can 
eventually take the lead for security in Afghanistan.
    Question. One of the main threats to U.S. and coalition forces in 
Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by the Taliban and 
extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's border regions.
    What steps in your view need to be taken to eliminate the threat 
posed by Taliban and extremist militants hiding out across the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan border?
    Answer. Both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have cited 
the need to eliminate the terrorist sanctuary in the border regions of 
Pakistan, but there is no purely military solution. The United States 
must have an integrated strategy to promote development and prevent 
terrorism across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. If confirmed, 
I intend to work closely with my DOD and interagency colleagues to 
examine several potential components of such a strategy:

         Work with the Pakistani Government to strengthen the 
        capacity of the Pakistani military and police to conduct 
        counterterrorism and counterinsurgency missions;
         Encourage Pakistani political reforms in the Federally 
        Administered Tribal Areas to better link the border regions to 
        the central government with more democratic representation;
         Increase non-military economic assistance and support 
        for education and health care; and
         Improve the partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan, 
        and the coalition to secure the border, eliminate terrorist 
        camps, and reduce cross-border insurgent movement.

    Question. The ANA has shown itself to be effective, well-motivated, 
and respected by the Afghan people.
    Would you support giving the ANA the lead in stopping cross-border 
incursions, either by transferring the mission of patrolling the border 
to the ANA or by bringing the Afghan Border Patrol (ABP) under the ANA?
    Answer. Securing the border from cross-border incursions and 
illegal smuggling is an important component of a strategy for success 
in Afghanistan, but the specific command relationship between the ABP 
and ANA is an area that, if confirmed, I would need to examine in 
closer detail.
    Question. The cultivation of poppies and trafficking of opium has 
reached alarming proportions in Afghanistan. Some estimate that over 50 
percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with the 
illegal opium trade and that Afghanistan is at risk of failing as a 
nation state. Coalition strategies for countering the opium trade have 
not been effective to date.
    In your view, what strategy would be most effective in reducing 
opium production and trafficking in Afghanistan?
    Answer. Opium traffic distorts the Afghan economy, corrodes the 
judicial system, and increases the incentives for corruption and 
criminal violence. Countering the opium trade must include a multi-
pronged coalition and Afghan strategy, including judicial reform, 
better law enforcement and intelligence sharing, and rural economic 
development.
    Question. What should the role of the U.S. military forces be in 
the counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
    What is the appropriate role for coalition nations and the larger 
international community in effectively addressing the counterdrug 
challenge in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?
    Answer. The international community must play a greater role in 
helping the Afghan Government to strengthen Afghan institutions, 
including the judicial and law enforcement system, intelligence 
service, and Afghan National Security Forces, so that it can better 
take the lead in combating narcotics in Afghanistan.
    Question. What are the main challenges facing the U.S. and 
international community's reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan?
    Answer. The deterioration of the security situation is the most 
immediate challenge, but reconstruction and development in Afghanistan 
also face more fundamental challenges. As one of the poorest countries 
in the world that has suffered through more than a generation of war, 
Afghanistan's development challenges are daunting. Four out of five 
Afghans make their living from farming, yet widespread drought and a 
crumbling agricultural infrastructure have created an opening for 
illicit opium production to supplant the legal agricultural economy. 
While Afghanistan has made significant strides since 2001 in health 
care delivery, life expectancy is still below 45 years and more than 
half of Afghan children are growth-stunted from poor nutrition and 
disease. While progress has been made towards primary education in 
Afghanistan, fewer than half of adult males and only one in eight 
females can read, impeding the professionalization of the Afghan 
Government and security forces and limiting economic growth.
    Question. What would be your priorities for addressing those 
challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the 
interagency and international partners to help create a truly 
comprehensive civil-military strategy to build the necessary foundation 
for a stable and secure Afghanistan.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend for the 
strategy, organizational structure, or resourcing of Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan?
    Answer. Provincial Reconstruction Teams have been critical to the 
development work undertaken in Afghanistan over the past 6 years. If 
confirmed, I look forward to discussing the committee's concerns and 
ideas on the use of PRTs.
                                pakistan
    Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the efforts 
by the Pakistani Government to counter militant groups along the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan border and to fight terrorism in general?
    Answer. The Pakistani Government will, of course, be central to 
defeating the terrorist and cross-border insurgent groups that threaten 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the international community. Although the 
Pakistani Government has conducted a series of military operations 
against militants in the border region, the area remains a sanctuary 
for al Qaeda and Taliban-affiliated groups. If confirmed, I plan to 
focus significant time and energy to better understand the requirements 
to solve this particular challenge.
    Question. In your view, is the Pakistani Government doing enough to 
combat these threats? If not, what more should it be doing? What, in 
your view, should be the United States' approach vis-a-vis Pakistan?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review Pakistan's most 
recent efforts in detail. If confirmed, I look forward to reporting 
back to the committee on my assessment of ways in which the United 
States and Pakistan can work better together to combat these shared 
threats.
                                 india
    Question. The recent attacks in Mumbai raise questions about what 
more might be done to help India guard against and react to terrorist 
incidents and underscore the fragile nature of the relationship between 
India and neighboring Pakistan.
    What is your view of the current state of U.S.-India military-to-
military contacts?
    Answer. I understand that the U.S.-India military-to-military 
relationship is quite positive and getting stronger. If confirmed, 
these are areas that I hope we can work on together.
    Question. What do you believe the United States should do to assist 
the Indian Government in the prevention of and response to terrorist 
events?
    Answer. As the world's largest democracy, India is a critical 
strategic partner of the United States. Both India and the United 
States share an interest in preventing terrorism. If confirmed, I will 
work with the State Department to carefully consider all requests for 
counterterrorism assistance from India.
    Question. In your view, what impact has this rise in tensions 
between Pakistan and India had on the stability of the South Asia 
region, generally, and on the prospects for security in Afghanistan?
    Answer. India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are linked by history, 
culture, language, and trade, and regional stability cannot be achieved 
without the cooperation of all three. It is in America's national 
interest to play a constructive role in helping defuse the recent rise 
in tensions and to help derive from the tragic attacks in Mumbai an 
opportunity for further cooperation between three of America's crucial 
allies.
                             future of nato
    Question. What are the greatest challenges and opportunities that 
you foresee for NATO over the next 5 years?
    Answer. The United States has enormous stakes in a strong, mutually 
supportive NATO alliance, and both the President-elect and the 
Secretary of Defense have stressed their strong desire to rebuild and 
adapt transatlantic security relationships to meet 21st century 
security challenges. Over the next 5 years, top-tier NATO-related 
challenges include, first and foremost, achieving durable progress on 
Afghanistan, while also developing a common approach toward managing 
relations with Russia, improving the prospects for unity-of-action 
between NATO and the European Union (EU), and finding common ground 
across the alliance on emerging threats and opportunities.
    Question. Do you envision further enlargement of NATO, beyond 
Albania and Croatia, within the next 5 years?
    Answer. The President-elect has stated that NATO enlargement should 
continue so long as new candidates are democratic, peaceful, and 
willing to contribute to common security. Precisely which countries and 
within what applicable timeframe NATO would undertake further 
enlargement are important questions which the new administration will 
need to address in close consultation with Congress and our allies. It 
is important that each NATO aspirant should be judged on its individual 
merits and progress in implementing political, economic, and military 
reforms.
    Question. What more can the United States do to encourage NATO 
members to develop the capabilities and provide the resources necessary 
to carry out NATO missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere?
    Answer. While the President-elect and Secretary Gates have both 
stressed the need for the United States to invest more in its non-
military instruments of national power, many of our NATO allies are 
underperforming in terms of their own investments in defense 
capabilities, especially when it comes to deployable expeditionary 
forces. Forging a shared strategic view of the emerging threat 
environment and updating NATO's strategic concept will be critical to 
encouraging NATO allies to develop the military capabilities needed now 
and in the future.
                           nato-eu relations
    Question. A challenge facing the United States and NATO in the 
months and years ahead is the EU's implementation of its European 
Security and Defense Policy (ESDP), that is, an EU capability to 
conduct military operations in response to international crises in 
cases where ``NATO as a whole is not engaged.'' At the same time, NATO 
and EU are working alongside each other in addressing a number of 
common security challenges, including police training in Afghanistan 
and crisis management in Kosovo.
    Are you concerned that the EU could assume a competing role, rather 
than a complementary role, to the NATO alliance?
    Answer. Ideally, the NATO-EU relationship should be complementary. 
In the defense realm, NATO is going to be the preferred vehicle for 
negotiation whenever our European allies view the U.S. role as 
indispensable in responding to a shared security challenge. At the same 
time, the EU's great strength lies is its ability to project economic 
power and political influence in a way that helps to attenuate 
conflict. The Obama administration will need to look carefully at the 
relationship to ensure that competition is kept to a minimum. Moreover, 
because both NATO and the EU draw largely from a single pool of 
national capabilities, cooperation will be extremely important.
    Question. What steps do you believe that the United States and NATO 
must take to ensure that ESDP is implemented in a way that strengthens 
the alliance?
    Answer. Over the past several years, ESDP-related activities have 
grown in number and diversity, to include the EU's recently launched 
anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. Given these trends, 
high priority should be given to promoting good communications and a 
common operating picture between the United States, its allies and 
partners, and EU-sponsored operations.
    Question. What is your view of the future of NATO-EU relations in 
areas relating to security, defense, and crisis management?
    Answer. Both NATO and the EU have important roles to play in 
meeting future security, defense, and crisis management challenges. As 
noted above, from an alliance perspective, it will be important for DOD 
and U.S. interagency partners to take a clear-eyed view of the entire 
range of current EU-activities--from civilian policing, to military, 
border control or other missions--to identify both areas of duplication 
and where closer coordination may be required.
                           engagement policy
    Question. One of the central pillars of our national security 
strategy has been military engagement as a means of building 
relationships around the world. Military-to-military contacts, Joint 
Combined Exchange Training exercises, combatant commander exercises, 
humanitarian de-mining operations, and similar activities are used to 
achieve this goal.
    If confirmed, would you support continued engagement activities of 
the U.S. military? If yes, would you advocate for expanding U.S. 
military-to-military engagement? If not, why not?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will support continued U.S. military-to-
military engagement. I believe the current and emerging security 
environment will require robust engagement with the militaries of our 
partners and allies around the world, and building productive 
relationships with many states in which our past military-to-military 
engagements have been limited or absent entirely.
    Question. Do you believe that these activities contribute to U.S. 
national security?
    Answer. Yes. I believe military-to-military contacts contribute to 
U.S. national security in a variety of important ways. Such activities 
can build capacity among partner nations to participate in coalition 
operations to counterterrorism and other transnational threats, 
potentially relieving stress on U.S. forces. They can help harmonize 
nations' views of common security challenges. Military-to-military 
activities can also help sustain investments made by other U.S. 
assistance programs. Finally, when performed effectively, military-to-
military activities should show by example how military forces can act 
effectively while respecting human rights and civilian control. If 
confirmed, I intend to help ensure that our engagement activities 
remain at the forefront of our planning and strategy development 
processes.
                          stability operations
    Question. Experience in Iraq has underscored the importance of 
planning and training to prepare for the conduct and support of 
stability operations in post-conflict situations.
    In your view, what is the appropriate relationship between DOD and 
other departments of government in the planning and conduct of 
stability and support operations in a post-conflict environment?
    Answer. In stabilizing post-conflict environments, success depends 
upon the integrated efforts of both civilian and military organizations 
in all phases of an operation, from planning through execution. 
Ideally, civilian agencies should lead in areas such as fostering 
political reconciliation, building accountable institutions of 
government, restoring public infrastructure, and reviving economic 
activity. Military forces, in turn, are best suited to help provide a 
safe and secure environment and to assist in building accountable armed 
forces. The U.S. military has learned many hard lessons in this area 
over the past several years, and if confirmed, I will work closely with 
Secretary Gates, military leaders, and other U.S. Government agencies 
to ensure we have the capabilities we need to execute these challenging 
missions.
    Question. What lessons do you believe the Department has learned 
from the experience of planning and training for post-conflict 
operations in Iraq?
    Answer. One of the most important lessons is that 21st century 
conflict will occur along the entire spectrum of conflict. That is, the 
military cannot be prepared only for combat. They must plan and train 
with their civilian counterparts and be prepared to operate effectively 
in all phases of conflict. That said, the military should also be 
prepared to undertake critical non-military tasks when civilian 
agencies cannot operate effectively, either due to the security 
environment or due to lack of capacity. Indeed, the need for greater 
capabilities and capacity in civilian agencies has been a recurring 
lesson for the entire government. Finally, we need to obtain better 
situational awareness of the underlying drivers--political, cultural, 
and economic--instability and conflict so as to ensure that our actions 
will meet our objectives and not trigger unintended consequences.
                       building partner capacity
    Question. In the past few years, Congress has provided DOD a number 
of temporary authorities to provide security assistance to partner 
nations. These include the global train-and-equip authority (section 
1206) and the security and stabilization assistance authority (section 
1207).
    In your view, what are our strategic objectives in building the 
capacities of partner nations?
    Answer. One of the greatest threats to international security is 
the violence that is sparked when human security needs are not met by 
governments. This creates space for terrorists, insurgents, and other 
spoilers to operate and, as the September 11 attacks demonstrated, to 
threaten the United States and its allies. The goal, therefore, is to 
close this space through efforts that strengthen bilateral 
relationships; increase U.S. access and influence; promote militaries 
that respect human rights; civilian control of the military and the 
rule of law; and build capacity for common security objectives. In 
addition to promoting regional and global security, enhanced partner 
capacity reduces the risk of future military interventions and reduces 
stress on U.S. Armed Forces.
    Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the section 
1206 global train-and-equip authority? What is your assessment of the 
implementation of the global train-and-equip program?
    Answer. My understanding is that section 1206 is intended to 
provide a quicker, more targeted ability to build partner capacity in 
critical regions than the more traditional routes of security 
assistance. Under law, it has two discrete purposes: to build a 
partner's national military or maritime security forces' capacity 
either to (1) conduct counterterrorism operations or (2) conduct or 
support stability operations where U.S. forces are participating. I 
have not been involved in section 1206 implementation, but I understand 
that the program has enthusiastic support from embassies and combatant 
commands and reflects a close collaboration between State and DOD who 
work together in a ``dual key'' process to approve funding allocations. 
If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in fully assessing how well 
this authority is working and whether it meets congressional intent.
    Question. What is the relationship of the global train-and-equip 
authority to other security assistance authorities, such as 
counternarcotics assistance and foreign military financing? What should 
be done to ensure that the global train-and-equip authority does not 
duplicate the efforts of these other assistance programs?
    Answer. The Departments of State and Defense need to work together 
very closely to avoid duplication of effort among these important 
activities. The Global Train-and-Equip authority fills two specific 
legal requirements (to build capacity for counterterrorism and for 
stability operations where U.S. forces are a participant). Foreign 
Military Financing serves a broader set of diplomatic and foreign 
policy objectives such as improving bilateral relations, encouraging 
behavior in the U.S. interest, increasing access and influence, and 
building capacity particularly where host-nation and U.S. interests 
align.
    Counternarcotics authorities are focused on providing DOD the 
ability to support U.S. or other government efforts to counter the flow 
of narcotics globally. If confirmed, I will support any interagency 
assessment of potential overlaps and work to ensure DOD programs are 
focused on supporting U.S. and other agency efforts to counter the flow 
of narcotics.
    Question. What is your understanding of the purpose of the security 
and stabilization assistance authority (section 1207)? What is your 
assessment of how this authority has been utilized?
    Answer. Section 1207 was, as I understand it, designed to help the 
State Department's Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to 
become operational. It facilitates security, stabilization, and 
reconstruction missions--bringing civilian expertise to bear alongside 
or in lieu of U.S. military forces. If confirmed, I will monitor this 
effort closely.
    Question. Secretary Gates has called for an expansion of the 
Government's resources devoted to instruments of non-military soft 
power--civilian expertise in reconstruction, development, and 
governance.
    Do you agree with Secretary Gates that there is a need to expand 
the Government's resources devoted to the ability of civilian 
departments and agencies to engage, assist, and communicate with 
partner nations?
    Answer. Absolutely. The President-elect and Secretary Gates have 
both made clear their strong desire to see more robust non-military 
instruments of national power. Congress has the authority to expand 
significantly the Government's soft-power resources and U.S. civilian 
agency capacity. If confirmed, I will certainly make it my priority to 
assist in this effort.
    Question. In your view, what should be the role of the DOD, vis-a-
vis other civilian departments and agencies of the Government, in the 
exercise of instruments of soft power?
    Answer. Generally, the Department's role should be to support, not 
lead, in the exercise of soft power. But DOD plays a vital role in 
helping to promote--through the full gamut of planning effort, 
exchanges, exercises, operations, and bilateral defense relationships--
the conditions that enable these instruments to be applied with maximum 
beneficial effect.
    Question. Which department should have the lead in setting U.S. 
Government security assistance policy, the Department of State or DOD?
    Answer. The State Department should retain the overall lead in 
setting our foreign policy and foreign assistance priorities broadly, 
including security assistance. Still, DOD has critical roles to play in 
informing, developing, and implementing agreed programs in an effective 
and timely manner. Strong and close working relationships between DOD, 
the State Department, and other U.S. agencies are critical.
                                 russia
    Question. What is your assessment of the current U.S.-Russian 
security relationship?
    Answer. Russia's more aggressive external behavior--combined with 
its retreat from democracy and openness at home--is a source of deep 
concern. Of greatest concern, clearly, is a growing pattern of Russian 
pressures on, and, in some cases, aggressive action against the 
sovereign states located on its immediate borders, most notably 
Georgia. Russia's standing in the international community has declined 
as a result of its threatening behavior, and the U.S.-Russia security 
relationship has become much more difficult to manage as a result. That 
said, as Secretary Gates has noted, Russia's military capacity remains 
a shadow of its Soviet predecessor, and a combination of adverse 
economic and demographic trends are not likely to change that picture 
dramatically in the foreseeable future.
    Question. What do you believe are appropriate objectives for U.S.-
Russian security relations, and what do you believe are the areas of 
common interest between the United States and Russia in the security 
sphere?
    Answer. As the President-elect has stressed, it is in no one's 
interest to see our relations return to a Cold War posture. Our 
interests clearly overlap in areas such as non-proliferation, 
counterterrorism, Afghanistan, and counternarcotics. Ultimately, I 
believe we should work to create the conditions that make clear that 
stable, democratic neighbors on Russia's borders are in Russia's own 
interest. We need to look at ways of enhancing cooperation in areas 
such as preventing WMD terrorism, where coordinated action is critical.
    Question. In your view, what policy steps should DOD take to 
improve relations with Russia? For instance, would you support 
increased military-to-military relations and exchanges with Russia?
    Answer. Yes, when it is in our interest to do so, and in close 
coordination with the State Department. If confirmed, I will make it a 
priority to assess areas where greater military-to-military and other 
exchanges with Russia might be beneficial. It is certainly important 
for U.S. security interests that we work to keep our lines of 
communication open.
    Question. Would you support any joint development or other programs 
with Russia?
    Answer. I am not prepared at this stage to offer any specific 
recommendations on this issue. If confirmed, I will study the issue 
closely and consult with interested members of this committee.
                                  iran
    Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest 
to engage Iran in a direct dialogue to promote regional stability and 
security?
    Answer. I support the President-elect's view that the United States 
should be willing to engage with all nations, friend or foe, and with 
careful preparation, to pursue direct diplomacy. Furthermore, I fully 
support the President-elect's view that we should not take any options 
off the table, but that we should employ tough diplomacy, backed by 
real incentives and pressures, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear 
weapons and end their support of terrorist organizations such as 
Hezbollah.
    Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest 
to engage Iran in a direct dialogue regarding the narcotics problem in 
Afghanistan?
    Answer. This issue should be examined as part of a broader 
interagency policy review on Iran.
    Question. What more do you believe the United States and the 
international community could be doing to dissuade Iran from pursuing a 
nuclear weapons program? Specifically, what actions do you believe that 
DOD should undertake to support diplomatic efforts to dissuade Iran 
from pursuing a nuclear weapon?
    Answer. The United States has not yet brought to bear all the 
elements of statecraft to deal with this issue. The use of tough, 
direct, and principled diplomacy, working with our other international 
partners and allies, can increase the chances of making useful inroads. 
Setting the conditions in the region is critical. DOD should therefore 
continue developing the ongoing multilateral cooperation with the Gulf 
Cooperation Council countries and other allies in the region, in 
support of the State Department's diplomatic initiatives.
                                 syria
    Question. Do you believe it would be in the United States' interest 
to engage Syria in a direct dialogue regarding regional security and 
stability?
    Answer. The Department of State should take the lead on any 
diplomatic initiatives with Syria. I agree with the President-elect's 
view that Syria is best engaged in the context of an aggressive 
regional diplomatic approach on the question of Iraq. Syria has a great 
and growing interest in ensuring that the large population of Iraqi 
refugees within its borders eventually returns home. I would hope that 
this topic would be examined when the new administration comes into 
office.
                              saudi arabia
    Question. What is your assessment of the current state of U.S.-
Saudi bilateral relations and defense cooperation activities? What 
changes, if any, would you recommend in this relationship?
    Answer. Saudi Arabia is an important ally of the United States. The 
United States and Saudi Arabia have a close defense relationship and 
extensive security assistance programs. If confirmed, I look forward to 
assessing ongoing cooperation activities and identifying ways to 
sustain this important relationship.
    Question. What is the future of U.S.-Saudi security cooperation, 
including training programs such as the Saudi Arabian National Guard 
Modernization program? What other types of military or security 
cooperation do you envision advocating?
    Answer. I have not been briefed on the details of current or 
prospective security cooperation programs with the Kingdom. If 
confirmed, I will consider and evaluate the full range of possible 
initiatives to support this relationship.
                                 china
    Question. China is viewed by some in the United States as a 
potential threat and by others as a potential constructive 
international partner that should be welcomed and integrated into the 
international economic and political community.
    To what extent do you believe the policies and actions of the 
United States and other major regional and international actors will 
affect the direction in which China develops, and the extent to which 
it becomes a cooperative partner or a competitor of the United States?
    Answer. China's sustained rise over the past decade is due in no 
small measure to its progressive integration into the global economy. 
For this reason, I believe that the United States and other countries 
can have positive influence on the direction of China's development. 
Indeed, no country has done more to assist, facilitate, and encourage 
China's development and international integration than the United 
States. However, U.S. policy and actions, or those of any country or 
group of countries, cannot alone determine China's future. Ultimately, 
it is the Chinese who will determine China's future.
    Furthermore, as Secretary Gates noted in a recent speech, ``China 
is a competitor but not necessarily an adversary, and there is no 
reason for China to become an adversary.'' If confirmed, I would seek 
to encourage China to play a responsible and constructive role in the 
international community and to encourage Beijing to view this role as 
the best choice for their own strategic interests, as well as ours.
    Question. What do you see as the impact of the current global 
economic crisis on stability and security in China specifically, and in 
the region generally?
    Answer. It is too early to gauge the full impact of the global 
economic crisis upon China and stability in the Asia-Pacific region 
more broadly. But those who manage defense and security issues must be 
attentive to the security-economic interconnections and be prepared to 
work together with colleagues in economic and diplomatic fields, both 
to guard against negative outcomes and also to seek positive ways 
forward where they may exist.
    Question. What do you believe are China's political-military 
objectives regarding Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and globally?
    Answer. Broadly, the overriding objectives of China's leaders 
appear to be to ensure the continued rule of the Chinese Communist 
Party, continue China's economic development, maintain the country's 
domestic political stability, defend China's national sovereignty and 
territorial integrity, and secure China's status as a great power. 
Within this context, preventing any moves by Taipei toward de jure 
independence is a key part of Beijing's strategy. Within each dimension 
there lies a mix of important challenges and opportunities for the 
United States that will continue to deserve priority attention.
    Question. What is your view of the U.S. policy of selling military 
equipment to Taiwan, despite China's objections?
    Answer. U.S. policy on arms sales to Taiwan is based on the 1979 
Taiwan Relations Act, which provides that the United States will make 
available to Taiwan defense articles and services in such quantities as 
may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense 
capability. That policy has contributed to peace and stability in the 
region for nearly 30 years and is consistent with the longstanding U.S. 
calls for peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue in a manner 
acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. If 
confirmed, I would work closely with Congress and our interagency 
partners to ensure the continued effective implementation of this 
longstanding policy.
    Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to 
China's military modernization program?
    Answer. The pace and scale of Chinese modernization, coupled with 
the lack of transparency surrounding both capabilities and intentions, 
are a source of concern for the United States as well as for its allies 
and the region more broadly. An appropriate U.S. response would include 
efforts to fully comprehend the future direction of China's programs, 
active engagement to reduce the potential for miscalculations and to 
manage unwanted competition, and, finally, defense preparedness to 
ensure we retain our edge in areas that are critical to achieving 
specific operational objectives. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure 
that DOD places a high priority on this issue and would consult closely 
with committee members on appropriate U.S. responses.
    Question. In its 2008 Report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic 
and Security Review Commission concluded that China is asserting 
various excessive claims of sovereignty relating to maritime, air, and 
space, and also concluded that these claims have negative implications 
for the United States. Further, the Commission concluded that more must 
be done to ensure that China's rapid expansion of nuclear power does 
not result in the decline in safety or an increase in proliferation of 
nuclear weapons technology or expertise.
    How should the United States respond to excessive claims of 
sovereignty by China?
    Answer. I appreciate that China's claims of sovereignty are 
controversial and detract from regional stability. The United States 
has a longstanding policy on Freedom of Navigation and does not 
acquiesce to excessive maritime claims that restrict navigation and 
over-flight rights under customary international law, as reflected in 
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. If confirmed, I would work 
closely with the Department of State, and as appropriate with other 
countries that have a stake in this issue, on developing a common 
understanding of and collaborative approaches to these issues.
    Question. What is the role of DOD in helping to ensure that China 
does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or weapons 
technology in the region?
    Answer. DOD should continue to support interagency efforts to 
prevent the proliferation of WMD and delivery systems, along with 
related technologies and materials, including with respect to China.
    Question. Our current military-to-military relations with the 
Chinese have been described by defense officials as ``modest.''
    Do you believe that we should make any changes in the quality or 
quantity of our military relations with China? If so, what changes and 
why?
    Answer. More can be done to improve the U.S.-China military-to-
military relationship, both in terms of the quality and the quantity of 
exchanges between the Armed Forces of our countries. If confirmed, I 
would look closely at exchanges with the Chinese armed forces at all 
levels and across a range of issues, including the recently opened 
dialogue on nuclear policy and strategy, which I understand is a 
priority for Secretary Gates. If confirmed, I look to engage in a wide 
range of areas where we can encourage China to act responsibly both 
regionally and globally.
    Question. Is legislation needed to effect these changes?
    Answer. I do not know. If confirmed, I would carefully monitor 
developments in the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship and 
consult with Congress on these issues.
                              north korea
    Question. What is your assessment of the current security situation 
on the Korean peninsula and the diplomatic efforts to date to persuade 
North Korea to verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program?
    Answer. North Korea's conventional military, WMD and proliferation 
activities pose a significant threat to regional peace and security. 
Working with our allies and other key parties in the region on 
diplomatic solutions is an essential element in addressing the totality 
of the security problem on the Korean peninsula. Likewise, it is 
essential to maintain the capabilities to deter North Korea's military 
threat and proliferation activities. Our strong alliances with South 
Korea and Japan remain instrumental in this regard. These alliances 
help maintain the peace and stability that has allowed the wider East 
Asia region and U.S. interests there to prosper over the past several 
decades. If confirmed, I would work with my military and interagency 
colleagues to strengthen these alliance relationships and U.S. efforts 
to address the problems posed by North Korea. The United States must 
continue to provide strong leadership to ensure the full implementation 
of the recent agreement in North Korea. North Korea must dismantle its 
nuclear weapons program and confirm the full extent of its past 
plutonium production and uranium enrichment activities.
    Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United 
States and its allies by North Korea's ballistic missile and WMD 
capabilities and the export of those capabilities? In your view, how 
should DOD forces be sized, trained, and equipped to deal with this 
threat?
    Answer. North Korea missile and WMD programs pose a serious threat 
to the United States, the rest of Asia, and the world. Strong 
alliances, regional partnerships and forward military presence remain 
key means to deal with these threats. U.S. national capabilities are 
also an essential element in deterring the threat and defending our 
interests. Additionally, in the event of a DPRK collapse, the U.S. 
would need the capabilities to work closely with the Republic of Korea 
(ROK) to rapidly and safely secure nuclear weapons and materials. If 
confirmed, I would work closely with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, senior military commanders and members of this committee to 
ensure that the U.S. military has the capabilities needed to deal with 
the range of threats North Korea poses and that our contingency 
planning is adaptive and responsive.
    Question. In your view, what should be done to maintain or 
strengthen deterrence on the Korean peninsula?
    Answer. Maintaining a strong alliance between the United States and 
the ROK remains central to effective deterrence on the Peninsula. Our 
alliance with Japan is likewise a critical factor in security and 
stability in the wider Asia-Pacific region, including on the Peninsula. 
If confirmed, I would work hard to continue strengthening these 
alliances.
    Question. With recent speculation regarding the possible poor 
health of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, what do you believe the 
United States should be doing now to prepare for the possibility of a 
change in leadership in North Korea?
    Answer. The unexpected, with its attendant opportunities and 
challenges, can take different forms, including a sudden health crisis 
or change in leadership in North Korea. If confirmed, I look forward to 
consulting with this committee about the range of potential challenges 
we face and ensuring that we are capable of addressing these 
contingencies. I believe our focus should be ensuring we are ready to 
maintain stability in the region, defend the ROK, and prevent the 
proliferation of WMD or other dangerous technologies from the DPRK.
    Question. If confirmed, would you undertake a review of the status 
of the efforts to obtain from North Korea remains of U.S. service men 
missing from the Korean War and specifically address under what 
circumstances such efforts could resume?
    Answer. Yes.
                           republic of korea
    Question. Since the end of World War II, the alliance between the 
United States and the ROK has been a key pillar of security in the Asia 
Pacific region. This relationship has gone through periods of 
inevitable change.
    What is your understanding and assessment of the current U.S. 
security relationship with the ROK?
    Answer. Over a half-century old, the alliance remains strong and 
reflects the common values and aspirations of the Korean and American 
people. The alliance continues to ensure peace and stability on the 
Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia. As the regional security 
environment has evolved over time, the U.S. and the ROK have made great 
strides in transforming their collective deterrent and defense posture. 
In particular, the ROK has made major strides in developing its defense 
capabilities, commensurate with its economic development. Consequently, 
the Alliance remains relevant and capable both for deterring aggression 
on the peninsula and for addressing regional and global security 
issues. If confirmed, I would work to continue the positive development 
of this key U.S. security relationship and would hope to work with the 
committee to that end.
    Question. If confirmed, what measures, if any, would you take to 
improve the U.S.-ROK security relationship?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work with Congress, the Joint Staff, 
and others to complete the realignment of U.S. forces on the Korean 
peninsula and return facilities our forces no longer require. I would 
also work to ensure that our command and control relationships with 
Korea and our contingency plans remain appropriate to the situations we 
face. Additionally, I believe it is important to ensure the U.S. and 
Korean publics continue to understand the enduring mutual benefits 
derived from this alliance.
    Question. What is your view regarding the planned timing of the 
transfer of wartime operational command to the ROK?
    Answer. As Secretary Gates said following his meeting with the 
Korean Minister of Defense last October, the ROK military forces and 
U.S. forces are on track to complete the alliance agreement to 
transition wartime operational control in 2012. This effort will enable 
the ROK military to take the lead role in the defense of Korea. If 
confirmed, I will work with the Secretary, this committee, and others 
to ensure that the important transition in command relationships is 
carried out in a manner that strengthens deterrence and maintains a 
fully capable U.S.-ROK combined defense posture on the Korean 
Peninsula.
                          u.s. africa command
    Question. On October 1, 2008, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was 
authorized Unified Command status. The creation of AFRICOM has raised 
questions about the role of DOD in U.S. development efforts.
    What do you see as the role of AFRICOM in U.S. African policy and 
in economic development and humanitarian engagement?
    Answer. The Department of State and USAID lead U.S. foreign policy 
and development engagements abroad, to include Africa. President-elect 
Obama has argued that AFRICOM should promote a more united and 
coordinated engagement plan for Africa. Ideally, AFRICOM's supporting 
role should be to promote national security objectives by working with 
African states, regional organizations, and the African Union to 
enhance stability and security in the region. In particular, AFRICOM 
should work to forge closer U.S. military-to-military relations with 
states on the African continent. If confirmed, my intent would be to 
work closely with State, USAID, other agencies and Congress to ensure 
that AFRICOM's roles and missions support U.S. foreign policy and 
national security objectives and are transparent.
    Question. AFRICOM's leadership has promoted the concept of ``active 
security,'' with an increased emphasis on theater security cooperation, 
as a guiding principle of the command.
    Are DOD's current security assistance authorities and funding 
levels adequate to fulfill AFRICOM's mission? If yes, please explain. 
If not, why not?
    Answer. I am not in a position to render a definitive judgment on 
this important question. I will, if confirmed, study the matter and, if 
changes are needed, provide views to Secretary Gates and the members of 
this committee.
    Question. The Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) 
mission appears to have shifted from counterterrorism to civil and 
humanitarian affairs since its inception in 2002.
    What do you see as CJTF-HOA's primary mission?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the CJTF-HOA is designed to 
support the State Department's and DOD's security strategy in Africa to 
counterterrorism, in part through building partner capacity and 
promoting regional stability.
    Question. Do you believe it should continue as an enduring 
presence? If yes, what recommendations might you make regarding 
manpower, resources, and activities?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Joint Staff and 
AFRICOM to assess the question of CJTF-HOA's duration and to ensure 
that U.S. security interests in the region are supported by an 
appropriate, right-sized and properly resourced posture to promote 
long-term stability in the region.
                                 darfur
    Question. More than 4 years after then-Secretary of State Powell's 
declaration that genocide was taking place in Darfur, the death toll 
has climbed still higher, the camps for displaced persons have grown 
more crowded, and humanitarian access to help people in need has 
diminished in many areas. The United Nations has pledged to send 26,000 
peacekeepers to Darfur, but has sent less than half that number and has 
not provided them with the helicopters, vehicles, and other tools to 
fulfill their mission.
    What do you believe is the appropriate role of the United States 
and, in particular, DOD, in assisting with the deployment and mobility 
of this peacekeeping mission, given that its creation was largely a 
U.S. initiative and today is largely funded by a variety of U.S. 
assistance programs?
    Answer. I agree with the President-elect's statements about the 
need to bring pressure to bear on Sudanese authorities in Khartoum to 
halt the genocide in Darfur. The U.N. has two major peacekeeping 
missions in Sudan that seek to create a secure environment conducive to 
a political settlement of the cultural, ethnic, and religious 
differences that divide Sudan's periphery from the center. I understand 
that the Departments of State and Defense have supported the deployment 
of African contingents to the U.N. Darfur mission by providing 
personnel, training, equipment, logistical expertise, deployment 
assistance, and, when required, airlift. If confirmed, I will look 
closely at what additional support DOD could reasonably provide in this 
area if so directed by the President-elect.
                      united nations peacekeeping
    Question. DOD has provided logistics, communications, and 
headquarters staff to a variety of U.N. peacekeeping missions over the 
past several years.
    In your view, what support, if any, should DOD provide to U.N. 
peacekeeping missions?
    Answer. From Haiti to Liberia, Lebanon and other venues, the United 
States has important stakes in the success of U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. In addition to logistics, communications, and headquarters 
staff-related assistance, the issue of DOD help for U.N. field missions 
should be studied closely and in close consultation with other U.N. 
member states.
    Question. The United States sponsored along with its partners in 
the G-8 an initiative to train 75,000 peacekeepers by 2010. This 
program, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), is run 
by the Department of State. DOD has provided varying degrees of support 
since the program's inception.
    In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in this program 
and, more generally, in the training of peacekeepers?
    Answer. DOD plays an important role in bringing its expertise to 
bear in the training and equipping of peacekeeping units. DOD 
collaboration with State is important to successfully identifying and 
vetting viable partners, analyzing indigenous capacities, developing 
sustainable train-the-trainer programs, and promoting self-sufficiency 
in this critical area so that more nations can more effectively 
contribute to the increasing demand for skilled peacekeepers around the 
world.
    Question. As the GPOI program approaches its scheduled end date 
(i.e. 2010), would you support or oppose an extension of the program 
and its mandate? Please explain.
    Answer. President-elect Obama has stated his support for continued 
funding for GPOI. In general, I believe the United States has a strong 
interest in effective training that expands the pool of available 
peacekeepers worldwide, including those with whom we may need to 
operate jointly. If confirmed, my intent would be to work closely with 
State Department colleagues as well as Members of Congress to ensure 
GPOI supports the President-elect's objectives in this area.
                                somalia
    Question. In your view, what should be the U.S. policy towards 
Somalia and what do you believe to be the appropriate role of DOD in 
support of that policy?
    Answer. Somalia's political turmoil and violence pose the continued 
specter of humanitarian suffering as well as offering a sanctuary to 
violent extremists and, more recently, a haven for pirates. Instability 
in Somalia is a threat to the region and potentially to the United 
States and our allies. If confirmed, I will work with the interagency 
to develop a coordinated U.S. national security policy toward Africa 
that addresses the U.S. strategic interests in the Horn of Africa, and 
to determine how DOD can and should best support this policy.
                          combating terrorism
    Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the 
Department's comprehensive strategy for combating terrorism, both at 
home and abroad?
    Answer. As I understand it, the Department's strategy for combating 
terrorism has three primary elements: protecting the homeland, 
disrupting and attacking terrorist networks, and countering ideological 
support for terrorism. The strategy includes indirect approaches aimed 
at building the capacity of partner governments and their security 
forces as well as direct approaches to defeat terrorist networks. 
Consistent with existing law, the Department's role within the United 
States is limited to providing support to civil authorities.
    I believe the United States needs a more comprehensive strategy for 
combating terrorism--an integrated whole-of-government effort that 
brings all elements of national power to bear effectively against this 
threat and fully engages allies and international organizations. If 
confirmed, I will work with the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
the combatant commanders, and my interagency colleagues to undertake a 
review and assessment of our strategy to ensure it meets the goals of 
the President-elect and the Secretary of Defense.
    Question. How can the Department best structure itself to ensure 
that all forms of terrorism are effectively confronted?
    Answer. I am not in a position to recommend changes in structure 
for this specific problem-set at this time. If confirmed, I look 
forward to evaluating the Department's structure vis-a-vis a whole-of-
government strategy as discussed above and will do my utmost to ensure 
that we are organized properly to combat all forms of terrorism.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the Defense 
Intelligence Community to ensure optimal support to combating terrorism 
and other homeland security efforts?
    Answer. Timely and accurate intelligence is a vital part of U.S. 
efforts against terrorism. If confirmed, I will continue the close 
relationship Policy has with the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Intelligence and the Intelligence Community to ensure intelligence and 
operations are mutually supportive.
    Question. Are there steps the Department should take to better 
coordinate its efforts to combat terrorism with those of other Federal 
agencies?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to collaborating with 
members of the National Security Council, National Counterterrorism 
Center, and others in a whole-of-government approach to combating 
terrorism.
    Question. The Department and Intelligence Community have determined 
that some terrorist organizations are beginning to rely more heavily on 
producing and trafficking narcotics to fund their operations.
    Do you believe DOD should have the lead for the U.S. Government's 
efforts to combat the nexus between narcotics and terrorism? If not, 
who should have the lead?
    Answer. The nexus between narcotics and terrorism is a serious 
challenge. This requires an integrated interagency approach, of which 
DOD is an integral part. DOD brings important tools and global 
capabilities to interagency efforts to counter networks that support 
both terrorist and international criminal organizations. If confirmed, 
I will review the DOD role in combating this nexus and coordinate with 
the other elements of the U.S. Government to determine the best way 
ahead.
                              war on drugs
    Question. DOD serves as the single lead agency for the detection 
and monitoring of aerial and maritime foreign shipments of drugs 
flowing toward the United States.
    What is your assessment of the ongoing efforts of the United States 
to significantly reduce the amount of drugs illegally entering into our 
Nation?
    Answer. Drug trafficking--and the increasing link to terrorism in 
many places--is a formidable threat that challenges our Nation as well 
as our friends such as Mexico and Afghanistan. Drug traffickers can 
acquire the latest technology and corrupt governments around the world 
facilitate the trade. Although we have made significant progress in 
coordinating efforts across multiple agencies to counter this threat, 
there is more to be done. If confirmed, I will work with my interagency 
colleagues to assess the U.S. Government's efforts to date and craft a 
strategic way forward.
    Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in U.S. 
counterdrug efforts?
    Answer. The Department's global focus, organization, capabilities, 
and its ability to act as an honest broker complement law enforcement 
goals and make it an effective actor in counterdrug efforts. DOD brings 
important tools and global capabilities to interagency efforts to 
counter both terrorist and international criminal networks.
    Question. The international community has detected a new narcotics 
trafficking route from Columbia to Europe via West Africa.
    In your view, what should be the role of the United States in 
countering the flow of narcotics to nations other than the United 
States?
    Answer. Clearly the transnational flow of narcotics is a global 
issue and cannot be addressed separately by individual nations around 
the world. The United States should work with allies and international 
organizations to counter the trans-national flow of narcotics through 
coordinated and strategic civil-military efforts.
                                colombia
    Question. Success in suppressing violence in Colombia has been 
credited to U.S. assistance to support Plan Colombia and to the growth 
of the Colombian economy, which spread wealth to a larger portion of 
the population. Over the past 2 years, there has been a debate about 
the most effective balance of U.S. assistance to continue to build on 
this success. Much of the U.S. assistance to Colombia over the past 5 
years would be characterized as hard-side security assistance (such as 
weapons, aircraft, and necessary training), but some argue hard-side 
assistance should now be decreased significantly and a more robust 
development plan should be implemented.
    In your view, what is the most appropriate strategy for U.S. 
engagement (including ``soft'' support) vis-a-vis Colombia?
    Answer. In principle, where a threat has been diminished, external 
support should be able to transition from a heavily military posture to 
a greater focus on promoting enduring stability through soft-power 
engagement. Congress has already begun a phased reduction of assistance 
reflecting their assessment that Colombian security forces are capable 
of pressing rebels and paramilitary groups to demobilize. If confirmed, 
I will work with my interagency colleagues--and the Colombians--to 
assess the progress of Plan Colombia and support a comprehensive 
civilian-military strategy for enduring stability.
                          space posture review
    Question. If confirmed, what role will you play in the Space 
Posture Review?
    Answer. The Space Posture Review is a joint review to be conducted 
by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence 
intended to clarify the national security space policy and strategy of 
the United States. In this regard, if I am confirmed, I will play a 
leading role in working with the Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence and others to conduct the review and respond to the 
congressional tasking.
                         nuclear posture review
    Question. If confirmed, what role will you play in the NPR?
    Answer. If confirmed as USD(P), I would oversee the NPR. I consider 
this basket of issues one of the most important long-term challenges we 
face--how to support the President-elect's ultimate goal of eliminating 
nuclear weapons worldwide while ensuring that America retains a robust 
nuclear deterrent that is sufficient to the threats we face. I would 
expect to engage other senior officials in DOD, as well as officials in 
the Departments of Energy and State, in this review and to consult 
fully with members of this committee.
                        nuclear weapons council
    Question. The USD(P) is a member of the Nuclear Weapons Council 
(NWC). What are the significant issues that the NWC should/will take up 
in the coming years?
    Answer. In my view, the most important immediate issue before the 
NWC is ensuring a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent that is safe, secure, 
and reliable. In the near term, this includes sustaining a viable 
nuclear stockpile and a weapons complex capable of supporting the 
stockpile, both of which are appropriately sized for the 21st century.
    Question. Do you believe that the NWC should have a role in 
addressing lapses in attention to nuclear matters, which have resulted 
in a number of serious problems, particularly in the Air Force?
    Answer. The NWC has oversight for a variety of matters, including 
nuclear safety, security, and control issues. I believe we must demand 
the highest standards of stewardship for nuclear weapons. If confirmed, 
I will give these important responsibilities the attention they deserve 
through my participation on the NWC as well as other related fora.
    Question. If confirmed, would you commit to active personal 
participation in NWC matters?
    Answer. Yes.
                  cooperative threat reduction program
    Question. Do you think the CTR program is well-coordinated among 
the U.S. Government agencies that engage in threat reduction efforts in 
Russia, e.g., DOD, the State Department, and the Department of Energy?
    Answer. The President-elect has expressed his concern about the 
need to break bureaucratic logjams that have slowed the progress of CTR 
and other threat reduction programs, and if confirmed, I will give this 
matter the urgent attention it deserves.
    Question. The CTR program was recently expanded to geographic areas 
outside the former Soviet Union.
    What, in your view, are the key proliferation concerns that CTR 
should address outside the former Soviet Union? Please explain.
    Answer. The congressional initiative to expand the geographic reach 
of the Nunn-Lugar CTR program beyond the former Soviet Union strikes me 
as an important step toward reducing WMD threats and building global 
partnerships. I am aware that recent bipartisan reports, including the 
report from the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism, have stressed the importance 
of reducing nuclear threats wherever possible and highlight 
bioterrorism as a key proliferation concern demanding greater 
attention. If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress, other U.S. 
Government agencies, and global partners to strengthen our efforts to 
prevent WMD proliferation and terrorism.
    Question. CTR has completed or will soon complete the bulk of the 
scheduled work with Russia.
    What, in your view, is the next step in the U.S.-Russia CTR 
program?
    Answer. I anticipate that our CTR programs in Russia will remain a 
high priority for the new administration. The Nunn-Lugar CTR program 
represents an important and very successful relationship between our 
two countries which has endured even as difficulties have grown in 
other aspects of our relations. If confirmed, I will explore expanding 
this relationship and the capabilities built through CTR for mutually 
beneficial purposes to reduce the risks of WMD proliferation and 
terrorism outside of Russia.
            united nations convention on the law of the sea
    Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
    What are your views on U.S. accession to UNCLOS?
    Answer. Like the President-elect and the current Secretary of 
Defense, I strongly support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea 
Convention. The United States should be at the forefront of promoting 
the rule of law, including in the world's oceans; by becoming a party 
to the Convention we send a clear signal to all nations that we are 
committed to advancing the rule of law at sea. Additionally under the 
Convention, we provide the firmest possible legal foundation for the 
navigational rights and freedoms needed to project power, reassure 
friends and deter adversaries, respond to crises, sustain combat forces 
in the field, and secure sea and air lines of communication that 
underpin international trade and our own economic prosperity.
    Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as 
the advantages and disadvantages to being a party to UNCLOS?
    Answer. Joining the Convention will give the United States a seat 
at the table when rights vital to our national interests are debated 
and interpreted, including the maritime mobility of our Armed Forces 
worldwide. The navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms 
codified in the Convention are essential for the global mobility of our 
Armed Forces and the sustainment of our combat forces overseas. America 
has more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world's 
oceans than any other country. More than 150 nations are parties to the 
Convention. By becoming a party, the United States will be better 
positioned to work with foreign air forces, navies, and coast guards to 
cooperatively address the full spectrum of 21st century security 
challenges.
    Question. In your view, is customary international law alone 
sufficient to safeguard U.S. navigational and overflight rights and 
freedoms worldwide?
    Answer. I am not a legal expert, but from what I have learned from 
those who are, customary international law alone is not sufficient to 
safeguard U.S. navigational and overflight rights and freedoms. U.S. 
assertions of rights under customary international law carry less 
weight with other states than do binding treaty obligations. By its 
very nature, customary international law is less certain than treaties, 
as it is subject to the influence of changing state practice. If the 
United States remains outside the Convention, it will not be best 
positioned to interpret, apply, and protect the rights and freedoms 
contained in the Convention.
             bilateral defense trade cooperation agreements
    Question. Defense trade cooperation agreements between the United 
States and the United Kingdom and between the United States and 
Australia are currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee.
    What are your views on the U.S.-UK and U.S.-Australia defense trade 
cooperation agreements?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these agreements 
in detail. I understand that several Senators raised a number of 
concerns and questions about the Treaties during the last Congress. If 
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Senate on any issues 
related to ratification.
    Question. In your view, are these agreements in the national 
security interest of the United States?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these agreements 
in detail. If confirmed, I will review them and be available to consult 
with Congress.
    Question. What do you consider to be the main advantages and 
disadvantages of these defense trade cooperation arrangements?
    Answer. See above.
                              arms control
    Question. What role do you see for arms control as a means of 
improving U.S. national security?
    Answer. Arms control has been an important element of U.S. national 
security policy since the Cold War, and it remains important today. 
Engaging other nations in a process that builds confidence, increases 
transparency, reduces arsenals, and enhances cooperation has been, and 
remains, important to our interests. Arms control negotiations can also 
further progress towards the long-term goal of eliminating nuclear 
weapons.
    Question. What are your views on the next bilateral steps to 
address nuclear weapons issues between the United States and Russia?
    Answer. High level engagement will be critical in addressing the 
wide variety of issues between the United States and the Russian 
Federation, including nuclear weapons issues. One key issue that both 
nations will need to address early in the new administration is the 
impending expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
    Question. What elements of START, if any, do you believe should be 
retained in any future agreement?
    Answer. The most important element to retain in any future 
agreement is the extension of essential monitoring and verification 
provisions contained in the current START.
    Question. In the absence of a START extension or successor treaty, 
what steps would you take to extend, expand, and to verify the Moscow 
Treaty?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would initiate a prompt and detailed review 
to determine the best path forward with respect to START, the Moscow 
Treaty, and any successor agreements.
    Question. What is your view of the role of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in U.S. national security, and how should 
it be strengthened or improved?
    Answer. The NPT is an important tool for constraining further 
nuclear proliferation. We should work to strengthen the Treaty by 
encouraging states to adhere to the NPT and to agree to IAEA safeguards 
inspections. I support the President-elect's view that we need to work 
with our allies, partners, and other nations to achieve a successful 
outcome in the 2010 NPT review conference. One way to strengthen the 
NPT regime would be to ensure that any violation automatically triggers 
sanctions. Others should be examined as well. I would also like to see 
the United States abide by our promises to reduce our nuclear 
stockpiles over time and to further increase the safety and security of 
our arsenal.
    Question. Do you support a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)?
    Answer. Yes, I support the President-elect's view that passing the 
CTBT is in America's national security interest.
                       ballistic missile defense
    Question. Do you agree that any ballistic missile defense systems 
that we deploy operationally must be operationally effective, suitable, 
survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible 
threat?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that missile 
defense programs are prioritized in a manner that ensures that further 
development and deployment is pragmatic, cost-effective, and 
appropriate to the threats of tomorrow. I understand that the United 
States currently has operationally deployed a range of sea-based and 
ground-based ballistic missile defense systems to protect our forward-
based forces, allies, and other friendly nations against short- and 
medium-range missile threats and to defend the U.S. homeland against 
longer-range threats.
    Question. Do you agree that U.S. missile defense efforts should be 
prioritized on providing effective defenses against existing ballistic 
missile threats, especially the many hundreds of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles that are currently within range of our 
forward-based forces, allies, and other friendly nations?
    Answer. I am aware of the threats posed by short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles. If confirmed, I will review our BMD programs and 
consult with Congress to ensure we have an appropriate mix of short-, 
medium-, and long-range ballistic missile defense capabilities that are 
responsive to existing and emerging threats to our homeland, deployed 
forces, allies, and other friendly nations.
    Question. Do you agree that ballistic missile defense testing needs 
to be operationally realistic, and should include operational test and 
evaluation, in order to assess operational capabilities and limitations 
of ballistic missile defense systems, prior to making decisions to 
deploy such systems?
    Answer. Yes. While missile defense testing is not a Policy 
responsibility, I agree that missile defense testing should be 
operationally realistic and should involve the Operational Test and 
Evaluation office as well as our warfighters.
    Question. If the United States and Russia could agree on a 
cooperative approach on missile defense issues, do you believe it would 
be in the security interest of the United States to pursue such an 
effort?
    Answer. Yes, although the final contours of such an approach would 
require close consultations between the administration and Congress. I 
believe that working with Russia in areas where we have common security 
concerns is in the interests of both of our countries. Efforts to 
cooperate with Russia on missile defense to address the risk of 
ballistic missile and WMD proliferation go back to the 1990s during the 
Clinton administration. I understand that in recent years, the United 
States has continued to explore missile defense cooperation with 
Russia. If confirmed, I will review the recent efforts, consult with 
colleagues and the State Department, and help recommend an appropriate 
course of action.
   chemical weapons elimination and the chemical weapons conventions
    Question. Do you agree that the United States should make every 
effort to meet its treaty obligations, including its obligations under 
the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
    Answer. Yes. As a signatory to the CWC, the United States is 
obligated to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile by April 29, 2012. 
The United States also has a congressional mandate to destroy its 
stockpile by April 29, 2012, but not later than December 31, 2017.
    Question. Do you agree that the Department should plan and budget 
for the most expeditious elimination of United States chemical weapons 
stockpile, consistent with safety and security requirements, in order 
to complete the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile as 
close to the CWC deadline as possible?
    Answer. Yes, but there are competing priorities to balance. 
Although I have not yet examined this issue in detail, I understand 
that in 2006, the United States informed the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that it would not meet this 
deadline, but would accelerate the destruction effort as much as 
practical. To date, the Department is on track to destroy 90 percent of 
the U.S. stockpile by the CWC deadline.
    Question. If confirmed, will you focus your personal attention on 
this matter?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will look for alternative ways to 
accelerate the destruction of the remaining 10 percent of the 
stockpile.
                   space management and organization
    Question. What role, if any, do you believe the USD(P) should play 
in the establishment of a national security space policy?
    Answer. I understand that the recent congressionally-directed 
Review and Assessment of the Organization and Management of Space in 
DOD has recommended the development of a National Space Strategy. If 
this initiative is adopted and I am confirmed, I will consult with 
Secretary Gates on the proper role that the USD(P) should play in the 
development and coordination of any such policy or strategy.
          national guard and reserve role in homeland defense
    Question. There is current debate about the role the National Guard 
and Reserve should play in defending the homeland.
    What role do you believe the National Guard and Reserve should have 
in defending the homeland?
    Answer. Homeland defense is a total force responsibility. However, 
experience has shown the Nation needs to focus on better using the 
extensive competencies and capabilities of the National Guard and the 
Reserves in support of their priority missions. If confirmed, I will 
update my understanding of the roles, missions, and capabilities of the 
National Guard and the Reserves and will work to ensure that they have 
the equipment, training, and personnel to accomplish their missions, 
both at home and abroad, during this time of war.
    Question. What role do you believe the Active-Duty Forces should 
have in defending the homeland?
    Answer. As part of the Total Force, Active-Duty Forces also have 
important roles to play in supporting civilian authorities in homeland 
defense, particularly in large-scale crises when local and State 
responders may lack response capabilities adequate to the task. If 
confirmed, I will look into the roles and missions performed by each 
element of the Total Force to ensure that we take best advantage of 
their competencies to fulfill this critical obligation to protect the 
American people.
                            homeland defense
    Question. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is now 
responsible for homeland security, but DOD retains responsibility for 
homeland defense.
    Answer. What do you believe are the principal roles and missions of 
DOD for homeland defense, and how do they relate to the roles, 
missions, and responsibilities of DHS?
    Question. DOD and DHS have complementary and mutually supporting 
roles, missions, and responsibilities. DOD is responsible for defending 
the United States from attack upon its territory at home and securing 
its interests abroad. DOD executes military missions to deter, defend 
against, and defeat those who threaten the United States. DHS is 
responsible for leading the Nation's efforts to prepare for, protect 
against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against the risk of 
natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters; to 
secure the Nation's borders, ports, and airports; and to ensure that 
the Federal Government works with States, localities, and the private 
sector as a true partner in prevention, mitigation, and response. As 
necessary, and consistent with the law, DOD provides support to DHS in 
the execution of its missions.
  reorganization of the office of the under secretary of defense for 
                                 policy
    Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you propose to 
the current organization of the Office of the USD(P)?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would anticipate the need to shift some 
portfolios to better align the organization with President-elect 
Obama's and Secretary Gates' policy objectives. For example, we may 
want to consider elevating and realigning strategic portfolios such as 
nuclear weapons, countering WMD, space, missile defense, and cyber. We 
may also want to consider how best to enhance the policy role in the 
PPBE process, for example by elevating the strategy, planning, and 
force development functions. Finally, there may be an opportunity to 
enhance policy coordination on the issue of Afghanistan and Pakistan, 
which currently spans multiple ASDs. If confirmed, I would consult with 
the committee in detail on these ideas.
    Question. Do you anticipate that any proposed changes would require 
changes to existing law?
    Answer. No. At this point, none of these potential portfolio 
adjustments should require changes to existing law.
                      private security contractors
    Question. Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely 
upon contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be 
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public 
areas in an area of combat operations?
    Answer. I understand the concerns of Congress on this issue and 
believe that a comprehensive review of the role of military contractors 
on the battlefield is needed in order to set the terms for how they 
might be utilized in the future. I also agree with President-elect 
Obama's views on the need to improve oversight and transparency in how 
private security contractors are utilized and to establish clear 
standards regarding accountability, command and control, Rules of 
Engagement, and personnel policies. If confirmed, I will work with 
civilian and military officials of the Department and others who have 
primary responsibility for policy development and employment of private 
security contractors.
    Question. In your view, has the U.S. reliance upon private security 
contractors to perform such functions risked undermining our defense 
and foreign policy objectives in Iraq?
    Answer. I do believe that several high-profile incidents in Iraq 
involving private security contractors have harmed U.S. policy 
objectives in Iraq. In December 2007, DOD and the Department of State 
agreed on consistent procedures for use of private security contractors 
in Iraq; moreover, both Departments have been transitioning to greater 
use of local nationals wherever practical. If confirmed, I expect to 
work on this issue and will keep Congress informed.
    Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure that 
any private security contractors who may continue to operate in an area 
of combat operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S. 
defense and foreign policy objectives?
    Answer. The use of security contractors in any area of combat 
operations must be fully coordinated among all agencies that employ 
them. There must be unified procedures and strong oversight for all 
such contractors, regardless of which U.S. agency hires them. 
Commanders on the ground should have the authority to restrict or 
redirect their operations as appropriate. I believe there must be 
assured legal accountability for the actions of all security 
contractors, not just those employed by the Defense Department.
    Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of private 
security contractors in Iraq are likely to be affected by the new SOFA 
between the United States and Iraq?
    Answer. It is my understanding that since January 1, U.S. 
Government private security contractors no longer have immunity from 
host nation law. Furthermore, they must comply with host nation 
registration and licensing requirements. For all contractors, the SOFA 
has meant substantially more liaison and coordination with Iraqi 
authorities at all levels.
    Question. Do you support the extension of the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to private security contractors of 
all Federal agencies?
    Answer. Yes.
            contractor performance of information operations
    Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts 
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information 
operations'' through the Iraqi media. The purposes of this contract 
include building up Iraqi public support for the Government of Iraq and 
the security forces of Iraq, and undermining Iranian influence in Iraq.
    What is your view of the appropriate roles of DOD and the 
Department of State in media campaigns to build up Iraqi public support 
for the government and security forces of Iraq and undermining Iranian 
influence in Iraq?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with the 
details of these programs, but believe they deserve careful scrutiny. 
If confirmed, I would expect to look into these matters and discuss 
them with members of the committee.
    Question. What is your view on the effectiveness of information 
operations conducted by the United States through the Iraqi media?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the United 
States to pay for media campaigns to build up support for the 
government and the security forces of Iraq at a time when the Iraqi 
Government has a surplus of tens of billions of dollars?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. Do you see a risk that a DOD media campaign designed to 
build up support for the government and security forces of Iraq could 
result in the inappropriate dissemination of propaganda inside the 
United States through the internet and other media that cross 
international boundaries?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. A spokesman for the Iraqi Government has been quoted as 
saying that any future DOD information operations in the Iraqi media 
should be a joint effort with the Iraqi Government. According to a 
November 7, 2008 article in the Washington Post, the spokesman stated: 
``We don't have a hand in all the propaganda that is being done now. It 
could be done much better when Iraqis have a word and Iraqis can 
advise.''
    Do you believe that DOD information operations through the Iraqi 
media should be conducted jointly with the Iraqis?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is 
appropriate for the DOD to conduct information operations in a 
sovereign country without the participation and approval of the host 
country?
    Answer. See previous answer.
                       detainee treatment policy
    Question. Section 1403 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006 provides that no individual in the custody or 
under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless 
of nationality or physical location shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, 
or degrading treatment or punishment.
    In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United 
States? Why or why not?
    Answer. I believe the prohibition on cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
treatment or punishment is clearly in America's best strategic interest 
and consistent with our values. During the long history of the Cold 
War, when America's way of life was challenged by a powerful competing 
ideology, we were ultimately successful, in part, because we held true 
to the best ideals and principles that sustained America as a shining 
beacon to millions under totalitarian rule. Power in the 21st century 
will stem as much from the strength and appeal of our ideas and moral 
principles as from our military might. If we are to defeat violent 
extremism, we must hold true to those ideas that make this country 
great, and continue to inspire the growth of freedom and tolerance 
around the world.
    Question. Do you believe that the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment or punishment'' has been adequately and 
appropriately defined for the purpose of this provision?
    Answer. I have not received enough information to have an informed 
opinion on this question. If confirmed, I expect to work with the DOD 
General Counsel on this issue.
    Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all 
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and 
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with 
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
    Answer. Yes, I will.
    Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment 
specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations, FM 2-
22.3, issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, the DOD 
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Section 2441 of title 18, U.S.C., as amended by the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006, defines grave breaches of Common 
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and cruel and 
inhuman treatment.
    In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a manner that 
provides appropriate protection from abusive treatment to U.S. 
detainees in foreign custody and to foreign detainees in U.S. custody?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I expect to work with the DOD General 
Counsel on this issue.
    Question. Do you believe that the United States has the legal 
authority to continue holding alleged members and supporters of al 
Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy combatants?
    Answer. Yes, I do as a general matter, but I am not in a position 
to comment on specific cases.
    Question. Do you believe that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals 
convened by the DOD to provide Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) detainees an 
opportunity to contest designation as enemy combatants provide 
detainees with appropriate legal standards and processes?
    Answer. I have not been briefed on this specific issue. If 
confirmed, I expect to work with the DOD General Counsel on this issue.
    Question. Do you believe that the Federal courts have the 
procedures and capabilities needed to fairly and appropriately review 
the detention of enemy combatants, pursuant to habeas corpus petitions?
    Answer. It is my understanding that U.S. Supreme Court recognized 
that some adjustment to normal habeas proceedings may be necessary in 
these cases and that the exact procedures to apply in these cases are 
still being considered by the courts.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
reviewing the status of GTMO detainees and determining whether the 
United States should continue to hold such detainees?
    Answer. If confirmed as USD(P), I would provide policy advice to 
the Secretary of Defense regarding the closure of GTMO and the 
disposition of the remaining detainee population.
    Question. Do you support closing the detention facility for enemy 
combatants at GTMO?
    Answer. Yes. As both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates have 
stated, the detention facility at GTMO has become a liability for the 
United States.
    Question. In order to mitigate the risk associated with the release 
of GTMO detainees, do you believe DOD should establish some form of 
rehabilitation training for enemy combatants held at GTMO?
    Answer. I understand that the efforts in Iraq to rehabilitate and 
reconcile detainees have been fairly successful. If confirmed as 
USD(P), I expect to learn more about whether such a program could be 
tailored appropriately and successfully implemented for the population 
at GTMO.
    Question. What other ways could the United States use to encourage 
or entice our allies or other nations to accept detainees from GTMO? 
Would monetary support or sharing of technology for monitoring 
detainees be helpful inducements?
    Answer. If confirmed as USD(P), I would work closely with the 
Office of Detainee Affairs and the State Department to seek new ways to 
encourage our allies and friends to assist us in transferring those 
detainees from GTMO who can be safely returned to their home countries 
or resettled in a third country when that is not possible. In some 
cases, financial incentives may be appropriate, and increased capacity-
building may be mutually beneficial for this purpose and for broader 
collaborative efforts to combat terrorism.
    Question. The Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 authorized the 
trial of ``alien unlawful enemy combatants'' by military commission and 
established the procedures for such trials.
    In your view, does the MCA provide appropriate legal standards and 
processes for the trial of alien unlawful enemy combatants?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to review any recommendation from 
the DOD General Counsel and the Department of Justice about whether the 
MCA strikes the right balance in protecting U.S. national security 
interests while providing appropriate legal standards and processes for 
a fair and adequate hearing.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it 
would be appropriate to use coerced testimony in the criminal trial of 
a detainee?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to review this matter with the 
DOD General Counsel and the Department of Justice.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
determining whether GTMO detainees should be tried for war crimes, and 
if so, in what forum?
    Answer. If confirmed, it is my understanding that I would play no 
role in determining which specific detainees should be tried for war 
crimes. However, should there be a review of our options for war crimes 
trials, I would expect to play a role in advising the Secretary of 
Defense on policy matters.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
reviewing the MCA and developing administration recommendations for any 
changes that may be needed to that Act?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to play a role in advising the 
Secretary of Defense on policy options.
    Question. In the past 2 years, significant changes have been made 
in Iraq in the way detention operations have been conducted in a 
counterinsurgency environment, including through the establishment of 
reintegration centers at theater internment facilities.
    What do you consider to be the main lessons learned from the 
changes to detention operations in Iraq?
    Answer. I visited Iraq in February and October of 2008 and was 
impressed by the ``COIN Inside the Wire'' approach taken by U.S. forces 
there. Particularly as we begin to transition detention operations and 
facilities to full Iraqi control, it is vital that we do our best to 
ensure that the quality of our facilities and our approach to detainee 
operations is maintained, as this line of operation is a critical 
component of successful counterinsurgency doctrine and practice. If 
confirmed as USD(P), I would be interested in seeing whether these 
counterinsurgency based programs can be tailored and applied more 
broadly to our detention operations elsewhere.
    Question. What should be done to incorporate those lessons learned 
into DOD doctrine, procedures, and training for personnel involved in 
detention and interrogation operations?
    Answer. I believe that a lot of these lessons are being captured 
today, and are reflected in new doctrine and directives, FM 3-24 
Counterinsurgency in particular. I firmly believe that these lessons 
should continue to be gleaned as we continue operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. To a degree perhaps unappreciated in the past, the way we 
treat detainees inside operational theaters is an important component 
of our overall strategy. If confirmed as the USD(P), I would work to 
ensure that these efforts continue in DOD schoolhouses, manuals, 
publications, and training, and that these lessons are applied as 
robustly as possible in all of our detention operations.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the USD(P)?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of 
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by 
a duly constituted committee, or to consult with the committee 
regarding the basis of any good faith delay or denial in providing such 
documents?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                        social science research
    1. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, the office you have been nominated 
for has been involved in a project called ``Minerva,'' which seeks to 
invest in social science and cultural research in support of military 
missions and capabilities. What is your assessment of the value of 
social science research (cultural anthropology, sociology, et cetera) 
to support defense missions?
    Ms. Flournoy. Social science research is increasingly valuable to 
support defense missions. To meet the varied and complex threats we 
face, we need to tap the breadth of cross-disciplinary expertise that 
is found within the social sciences.
    Secretary Gates has repeatedly spoken on the consequences of 
failing to understand the dangers posed by insurgencies and failing 
states. In his recent article in Foreign Affairs, for example, he wrote 
that: ``No one should ever neglect the psychological, cultural, 
political, and human dimensions of warfare.''

    2. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, how will you work to strengthen the 
Department of Defense's (DOD) in-house capabilities to perform this 
kind of research at our network of DOD laboratories and schools?
    Ms. Flournoy. I have not had an opportunity to review in detail the 
DOD's in-house capabilities for social science research. As such, I 
would envision first examining what in-house capabilities exist today 
and then seek to ensure that DOD professional military education 
institutions and research laboratories have the appropriate curriculum 
and relevant programs to perform this kind of research.

         importance of information sharing to national security
    3. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, the September 11 attacks illustrated 
a fundamental failure by our Government to share information 
effectively in order to detect and prevent the attack by ``connecting 
the dots.'' The 9/11 Commission identified 10 lost ``operational 
opportunities'' to derail the attacks. Each involved a failure to share 
information between agencies. In the aftermath of the September 11 
attacks, major efforts have been made to improve information sharing. 
Through legislation and executive orders these efforts were designed to 
effect a ``virtual reorganization of Government'' with communities of 
interest working on common problems across agency boundaries and 
between Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector. 
While we have established the necessary legal structures, I am 
concerned that implementation is lacking. What is your view on the 
importance of information sharing to our national security and what 
steps will you take to improve the Government's ability to share 
information in a trusted environment?
    Ms. Flournoy. I believe sharing accurate, relevant, and timely 
information horizontally among Federal agencies, vertically among 
Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector, and with 
our international allies and friends is critical to combating terrorism 
and ensuring national security, and that current and emergent threats 
require a coordinated whole-of-government effort able to bring to bear 
all elements of national power. I will strive to ensure that DOD, 
consistent with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007, is committed to the trusted sharing of information to enable all 
levels of government to do their part in assuring our Nation's 
security.

    4. Senator Reed. Ms. Flournoy, in the wake of September 11, 
Congress and President Bush put enhanced information sharing forward as 
a major goal by passing the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 and the 9/11 Commission Recommendations 
Implementation Act of 2007. The information-sharing environment 
established by this legislation is designed to enable our Government to 
use information in new and more powerful ways. While improved 
information sharing enhances our national security, it also presents 
the risk that the Government will use these powerful new authorities to 
acquire vast amounts of data. This has the potential to infringe on 
privacy and civil liberties. As the 9/11 Commission said, this increase 
in governmental power ``calls for an enhanced system of checks and 
balances.'' What steps will you take to ensure that, as information 
sharing is enhanced, new and more powerful protections are developed to 
safeguard privacy and civil liberties and how will you help make sure 
that the American public trusts that the Government will respect their 
privacy?
    Ms. Flournoy. I believe that the protection of privacy and American 
civil liberties is a legal imperative and that we need not compromise 
our civil liberties in the pursuit of security. As Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, I will provide careful oversight and policy 
guidance on all matters under my purview to ensure that they are 
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the law.
                                 ______
                                 
             Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
                           iraq stabilization
    5. Senator Akaka. Ms. Flournoy, the Strategic Framework and Status 
of Forces Agreement symbolized a major step toward Iraq assuming full 
responsibility for its security. Iraq has witnessed a nationwide 
reduction in civilian deaths. According to a DOD report to Congress 
released in December 2008, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, 
the civilian death rate is lower than any time since 2004. Although 
these developments are promising, security gains in Iraq remain 
fragile. What do you believe are critical activities the military must 
accomplish to ensure the stabilization efforts are not undermined after 
our military exit Iraq?
    Ms. Flournoy. As we plan for a responsible military drawdown in 
Iraq, I believe a critical portion of the U.S. military's stabilizing 
efforts must continue to be focused on ensuring that the Iraqi 
Government assumes control of the entire range of tasks necessary to 
organize, train, and equip its security forces. This includes, but is 
not limited to, helping our Iraqi partners develop a comprehensive 
defense strategy as well as a plan for the modernization and 
development of their forces.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
                         nuclear posture review
    6. Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Flournoy, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181) requires the 
Obama administration to conduct a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). What 
role will you have in the NPR?
    Ms. Flournoy. As Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I will 
oversee the NPR. I would expect to engage other senior officials in 
DOD, as well officials in the Departments of Energy and State, in this 
review and to consult fully with members of this committee.

    7. Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Flournoy, how do you propose to 
reorganize the DOD Policy office to address nuclear and deterrence 
policy issues?
    Ms. Flournoy. I would anticipate the need to elevate the way in 
which these issues are addressed by the DOD Policy office. I intend to 
make recommendations to Secretary Gates on how best to ensure that the 
critical issue of nuclear and deterrence policy is handled, and will 
certainly speak with committee staff and members on this issue in the 
near future.

   policy oversight of missile defense agency and ballistic missile 
                                defense
    8. Senator Bill Nelson. Ms. Flournoy, since it was created in 2002, 
the Missile Defense Agency and its programs have not had much policy 
oversight from DOD. If you are confirmed to be the Under Secretary for 
Policy, will you ensure that the Missile Defense Agency and the 
ballistic missile defense programs of the Department are subject to 
thorough policy oversight?
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes. If I am confirmed, I will review the 
Department's missile defense policy oversight processes to ensure they 
are appropriate and effective.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
                      troop levels in afghanistan
    9. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, as the U.S. military continues to 
draw down our forces in Iraq, how does the new administration propose 
to balance the needs of maintaining security in Iraq with its pledge to 
increase our troop levels in Afghanistan by as many 30,000 
servicemembers?
    Ms. Flournoy. As Secretary Gates recently testified, the Department 
is preparing a range of options for the President to achieve that 
balance, based on the assessments of the commanders on the ground, 
United States Central Command, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I look 
forward to engaging in the review of these options and in further 
discussions with the committee on this critical issue.

    10. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, how do these requirements square 
with the readiness levels and operational tempo we have demanded of our 
troops?
    Ms. Flournoy. The readiness levels and operational tempo of our 
troops require the Department's constant attention. Examining rotation 
timelines, as well as clearly defining our objectives and strategy in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, will be a priority for me. Working with our 
allies to increase their contributions to provide a safe and secure 
environment in Afghanistan and Iraq will be important. I also believe a 
strong interagency plan for Afghanistan can help adjust the demand on 
U.S. forces. Finally, Secretary Gates' intent to complete the planned 
growth of Army and Marine Corps end strength will also help alleviate 
some of the tension between readiness and OPTEMPO.

                   resources for iraq and afghanistan
    11. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, according to the recently signed 
Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, American combat troops will begin 
leaving Iraq very soon. How do you plan to address the significant need 
for equipment recapitalization and reset while also weaning the 
Department off of supplemental budget requests?
    Ms. Flournoy. Equipment recapitalization and reset decisions are 
part of the overall balance of choices between succeeding in today's 
wars while preventing tomorrow's conflicts. The Department will need to 
make these decisions with careful attention to the economic 
environment. As the Secretary has stated, the fiscal year 2010 budget 
must make hard choices, including what equipment to recapitalize. As 
Under Secretary, I will play an active role in helping the Secretary 
make such choices.

    12. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, what risks does DOD face by 
continuing to rely so heavily on the supplemental process?
    Ms. Flournoy. The Department should reinvigorate its ability to 
balance risk within defense planning. The supplemental process often 
makes integration with our overall defense planning efforts more 
difficult. Although supplemental funding may be necessary to meet surge 
requirements, the Department should seek to reduce its reliance on 
supplementals over time. Failure to do so could increase the risk that 
DOD will not be properly balanced for a complex future.

    13. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, given your expertise in 
counterinsurgency strategy, how do you plan to advise Secretary Gates, 
his deputy, and President-elect Obama on properly resourcing forces 
deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan? Specifically, how do you intend to 
advise they balance the need for counterinsurgency capabilities of 
today with the conventional deterrence capabilities that may be needed 
for tomorrow?
    Ms. Flournoy. I believe that the United States must be prepared to 
respond to a full spectrum of challenges, and maintain balanced 
capabilities for irregular warfare, conventional warfare, asymmetric 
challenges, and strategic deterrence. My advice will be informed by 
discussions with commanders in the field, Combatant Commander and 
Service Chief priorities, and a comprehensive review of existing 
studies and assessments on these matters.

    14. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, if you were rebaselining the 
defense budget by taking into account lessons learned from Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and war on terror needs, what weapons systems and training 
competencies would be your highest procurement priorities?
    Ms. Flournoy. As I have not been formally briefed on the full range 
of these issues, it is difficult to speak to specific weapon systems or 
training programs. As Under Secretary, I will work with the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and 
with the Military Services to ensure that the lessons drawn from 
Afghanistan and Iraq are used to develop weapons systems and training 
programs that meet our needs in current conflicts as well as our long-
term requirements. In general, however, I agree with Secretary Gates 
that DOD clearly needs to pay particular attention to developing 
systems and training programs that ensure the U.S. military is postured 
for success in counterinsurgency operations, stability operations, and 
building the capacity of America's partners and allies.

    15. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, I, along with other members of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, have worked to make sure that Iraq 
does not continue to sit on its burgeoning budget surplus while 
Americans are forced to go into further debt in order to help rebuild 
that country. How well do you believe Iraq is doing paying for its own 
reconstruction projects?
    Ms. Flournoy. I understand that the Government of Iraq is improving 
budget execution and has assumed the bulk of reconstruction costs. The 
Government of Iraq spent a total of $36 billion on reconstruction 
activities through the end of October 2008, $15 billion more than the 
same period of time in 2007. Despite budget revisions resulting from 
falling oil prices, the Government of Iraq remains committed to funding 
its own reconstruction activities. I will continue to make the transfer 
of financial responsibilities to Iraq a priority.

    16. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe it is necessary for 
the U.S. Government to request that Iraq assist in funding joint 
operations?
    Ms. Flournoy. I do believe Iraq should continue to pay for an 
increasing amount of the effort. However, rather than asking the Iraqis 
to contribute to the costs of joint operations, I believe there is a 
greater benefit in the Government of Iraq funding and developing its 
forces in order to assume greater responsibility for its own security 
and stability.

                      ballistic missile capability
    17. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, what is your assessment of the need 
for (and feasibility of) a missile defense system designed to counter 
Iran's growing ballistic missile capability?
    Ms. Flournoy. Iran continues to upgrade its existing ballistic 
missile systems and develop new ballistic missiles with increasing 
range, accuracy, and lethality. These developments give Iran the 
potential to threaten our deployed forces, our friends and allies in 
the region and in Eastern Europe, and perhaps at some point the U.S. 
homeland, as well as to limit our freedom of action in the region. To 
reassure our allies and friends, deter potential aggression, and, if 
necessary, defeat a ballistic missile attack, it is prudent to develop 
and deploy effective missile defense systems to counter Iran's growing 
ballistic missile capabilities.
    In doing so, however, we also need to ensure that such systems are 
developed in a way that is pragmatic, operationally effective, cost-
effective, and in collaboration with our allies. Missile defense 
systems are one tool in our national arsenal, along with diplomacy and 
continued multilateral cooperation with our partners and allies, to 
counter Iranian ballistic missile capability.

    18. Senator Bayh. Ms. Flournoy, do you plan to continue the 
development of ballistic missile defense?
    Ms. Flournoy. Although the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is 
not responsible for making acquisition programs decisions, if 
confirmed, I will review our ballistic missile defense programs along 
with other Department officials to ensure we have an appropriate mix of 
ballistic missile defense capabilities that are responsive to existing 
and emerging threats to our homeland, deployed forces, allies, and 
other friendly nations. However, we must ensure that these capabilities 
follow a strong testing regime, are effective, and are affordable.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                      troop levels in afghanistan
    19. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, General McKiernan has spoken of 
increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan by something on the order of four 
combat brigades. Do you support this request?
    Ms. Flournoy. I support General McKiernan's request for additional 
U.S. troops in Afghanistan to improve security and serve as trainers. 
As Secretary Gates recently stated, we lack the troops necessary to 
provide a baseline level of security in some of Afghanistan's most 
volatile areas. The Taliban has increasingly filled this security 
vacuum. Additional military presence, along with further development of 
the Afghan security forces, will go a long way to help secure the 
Afghan people from insurgents and help stabilize the country.

    20. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, would increasing the number of 
troops in Afghanistan require us to draw down in Iraq faster than we 
otherwise might?
    Ms. Flournoy. As Secretary Gates recently testified, military 
commanders are preparing a range of options for the President's review 
to balance drawing down combat forces in Iraq and increasing combat 
forces in Afghanistan.

    21. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, how large do you believe the 
Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP) should 
ultimately be?
    Ms. Flournoy. In September 2008 the international community and 
Government of Afghanistan agreed to increase the size of the ANA to 
134,000. The ultimate goal is for the Afghans to assume primary 
security responsibility of their country, and we plan to accelerate the 
expansion of the ANA. As we move towards this goal, we will continually 
reevaluate the ANA end strength in light of the current security 
situation to ensure it is appropriate.
    For the ANP, the current end strength agreed to between the 
Government of Afghanistan and the international community is 82,000. 
The current focus is to improve the quality of the current ANP to allow 
them to better secure the people of Afghanistan. The ultimate end 
strength of the ANP will also be subject to review and reevaluation 
over time.

                      nato support in afghanistan
    22. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the Afghanistan mission is an 
important test of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) out-
of-area capability. Yet, NATO commanders continue to have difficulty 
persuading allies to contribute forces to International Security 
Assistance Force (ISAF) or to provide NATO forces the appropriate 
equipment for their tasks. Secretary Gates testified last year that he 
is worried about the alliance evolving into a two-tiered alliance, in 
which you have some allies willing to fight and die to protect people's 
security, and others who are not. How do you assess the contributions 
of NATO allies to the war in Afghanistan?
    Ms. Flournoy. Afghanistan would be less secure without the 
contributions and sacrifices of our NATO allies and other ISAF 
partners. Our allies and non-NATO partners contribute to the ISAF 
mission in significant ways, with both military and civilian 
contributions, and have increased their contributions each year. 
Despite this, increasing NATO contributions remains a key part of our 
approach to Afghanistan. We must continue to stress to our allies the 
U.S. commitment to Afghanistan and the shared responsibility NATO has 
to secure and stabilize Afghanistan.

    23. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what steps would you recommend to 
persuade NATO nations to increase their efforts in concert with our 
own?
    Ms. Flournoy. Again, the contributions of our NATO allies are 
imperative to success in Afghanistan. President Obama and Secretary 
Gates have both called for greater contributions from our NATO allies. 
By committing more of our own resources to the challenge, the United 
States will be better positioned to persuade our allies to do more. The 
new administration's review of Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy should 
recommend concrete steps to increase allied contributions.

                    narco-trafficking in afghanistan
    24. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, we have heard estimates that over 
50 percent of Afghanistan's gross national product is associated with 
the illegal opium trade. Coalition strategies for countering the opium 
trade have not been effective to date. In your view, what strategy 
would be most effective in reducing opium production and trafficking in 
Afghanistan?
    Ms. Flournoy. While I have not been briefed in detail on our 
counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, it is my impression that our 
counterdrug strategy needs to be better integrated into the broader 
effort. Opium traffic in Afghanistan distorts the economy, corrodes the 
judicial system, and increases funding for insurgents and incentives 
for corruption and criminal violence. An effective approach to 
counternarcotics is a key component of a realistic Afghanistan 
strategy. I intend to focus on ensuring that this and other elements 
are properly addressed.

    25. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what should the role of the U.S. 
military forces be in the counterdrug program in Afghanistan?
    Ms. Flournoy. Any counternarcotics policy in Afghanistan should 
maintain an Afghan lead on counternarcotics operations with U.S. 
military forces supporting Afghan security forces. The U.S. military 
should continue to build Afghanistan's counternarcotics capacity in 
coordination with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the 
Departments of State and Justice in order to help Afghans to become 
self sufficient and reliable partners in the fight against illegal 
drugs.

    26. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe that DOD should 
provide support for counternarcotics operations carried out by other 
agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency?
    Ms. Flournoy. Breaking the narcotics-insurgency nexus is critical 
to overall success in Afghanistan. U.S. military forces should provide 
support to other agencies in counternarcotics operations. DOD 
international counterdrug policy and Rules of Engagement were recently 
revised to enable U.S. commanders to support other agencies in 
Afghanistan properly.

    27. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what is the appropriate role for 
coalition nations and the larger international community in effectively 
addressing the counterdrug challenge in Afghanistan and the surrounding 
region?
    Ms. Flournoy. I support the increased participation of NATO in 
addressing the counterdrug challenge in Afghanistan. DOD should 
continue to support NATO's role in the coordination and synchronization 
of deliberate counternarcotics interdiction operations. I understand 
that NATO defense ministers provided new guidance to the ISAF commander 
that allows for additional flexibility when conducting counternarcotics 
related military operations.

                          afghan national army
    28. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the goal for increasing the size 
of the ANA has been revised from 68,000 to approximately 134,000 
soldiers. Do you believe that a force structure of 134,000 is 
sufficient to address Afghanistan's growing insurgency?
    Ms. Flournoy. In September 2008 the international community and 
Government of Afghanistan agreed to increase the size of the ANA to 
134,000, with the intent of having an ANA that will be sufficient to 
meet Afghanistan's security needs. The ultimate goal is for the Afghans 
to assume primary security responsibility of their country, and 
accelerating the expansion of the ANA supports this goal.

    29. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, would you support a surge of 
trainers from the United States and coalition partners into Afghanistan 
to accelerate the expansion of the ANA?
    Ms. Flournoy. The expanded ANA will require additional trainers and 
mentors to meet the needs of a 134,000-strong force. I support a 
substantial increase in mentors and trainers as they are critical to 
the ANA's development and accelerated expansion.

                   cross-border attacks from pakistan
    30. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, one of the main threats to U.S. 
and coalition forces in Afghanistan comes from cross-border attacks by 
the Taliban and extremist militants who find safe haven in Pakistan's 
border regions. What steps in your view need to be taken to eliminate 
the threat posed by Taliban and extremist militants hiding out across 
the Afghan-Pakistan border?
    Ms. Flournoy. Controlling the movement of extremists across the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan border requires a unified effort by governments on 
both sides of the border and the support of U.S. and NATO forces in 
Afghanistan. As Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I will work to 
improve intelligence-sharing and cross-border coordination and 
encourage continued action by Pakistani forces to eliminate the 
militant threat within Pakistan.

                        u.s.-pakistan relations
    31. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the stability of Pakistan has 
ramifications for broad U.S. regional interests as well as being an 
important underpinning to our success in our war against global 
extremists. Which DOD policies regarding Pakistan would you recommend 
we sustain; which need to be strengthened; and which would you 
recommend for elimination?
    Ms. Flournoy. I have not been fully briefed on the entire range of 
DOD policies in Pakistan, and am not prepared to make specific policy 
recommendations at this time. I do, however, look forward to 
participating in an interagency review of Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy 
that should address this important question.

    32. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, what is your assessment of the 
efforts by the Pakistani Government to counter militant groups along 
the border with Afghanistan and to combat terrorism in general?
    Ms. Flournoy. Although I have not been briefed formally on these 
issues, I believe that the democratic Government of Pakistan should be 
strongly supported and held accountable for enhancing stability within 
its own borders, eliminating safe havens for extremists, and preventing 
cross-border attacks. I will support increased measures to enhance 
Pakistan's capability to secure its territory and combat terrorism.

    chief of the national guard bureau and the joint chiefs of staff
    33. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you think the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau should be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? 
Why or why not?
    Ms. Flournoy. The National Guard has become an integral part of the 
military operational force in recent years. As such, ensuring the 
National Guard is well integrated into the Defense Department's plans 
and policies is imperative. I agree with President Obama and Secretary 
Gates that ensuring that the concerns of our citizen soldiers are heard 
at the highest levels is particularly important. The Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau has only been a four-star position since December 
2008. I imagine that the issue of making him a member of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff will be debated in the months to come, and I hope to 
participate fully in that debate, make recommendations to the 
Secretary, and consult with members of this committee.

                             ``soft power''
    34. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, Secretary Gates has called on 
Congress to provide more funding for the State Department's Foreign 
Service and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Just a few 
days ago, Admiral Mullen expressed the same views commenting that our 
national security and foreign policy requires ``a whole-of-government 
approach to solving modern problems'' and ``we need to reallocate roles 
and resources in a way that places our military as an equal among many 
in government--as an enabler, a true partner.'' Admiral Mullen went on 
to say that ``as an equal partner in government, I want to be able to 
transfer resources to my other partners when they need them.'' What 
thoughts do you have on these remarks calling for more resources for 
civilian agencies responsible for ``soft power,'' including the 
Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Agriculture?
    Ms. Flournoy. I stand with the President, Secretary Gates, and 
Admiral Mullen in stressing the need for the United States to invest 
more heavily in its non-military instruments of national power. The 
need for a more integrated approach to achieving our national security 
objectives using all elements of national power can only be realized if 
we invest in building the capacity of our civilian agencies. As Under 
Secretary, I intend to support my interagency counterparts in their 
efforts to significantly expand the Government's ``soft-power'' 
resources and the capacity of civilian agencies to contribute to U.S. 
humanitarian, counterinsurgency, and post-conflict efforts.

    35. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, should Congress provide greater 
flexibility for the military to transfer funding during a crisis?
    Ms. Flournoy. Yes. I believe that greater flexibility during, and 
before, crises allows DOD and the interagency to better support U.S. 
objectives.

                                al qaeda
    36. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, General Hayden, the Director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency, has said that ``al Qaeda operating out 
of Pakistan is the greatest danger to the United States'' and that ``if 
there is a major strike in this country, it will bear al Qaeda's 
fingerprints.'' What do you believe is the greatest danger to the 
United States?
    Ms. Flournoy. Combating terrorism is one of the most pressing 
security challenges facing the United States. I agree with General 
Hayden that the al Qaeda network--whose leadership is concentrated 
within the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan but whose 
propaganda and violent extremist ideology inspire action by associated 
movements and potentially ``homegrown'' cells across the globe--remains 
an immediate threat to the United States and many of its allies. I am 
particularly concerned about terrorists gaining access to weapons of 
mass destruction (WMD).
    Both President Obama and Secretary Gates have cited the need to 
eliminate the terrorist sanctuary in the border regions of Pakistan, 
but there is no purely military solution. The Governments of Pakistan 
and Afghanistan will be central to defeating the terrorist and cross-
border insurgent groups that threaten the border region and the 
international community. To support their efforts, the United States 
must have an integrated strategy to promote security, development, and 
governance, and to prevent terrorism across the Afghanistan-Pakistan 
border. We must also bolster our efforts to keep WMD out of the hands 
of terrorists. I intend to work closely with my DOD and interagency 
colleagues to examine how best to strengthen U.S. efforts in these 
critical areas.

    37. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, how would you describe the 
current intent, composition, and capabilities of al Qaeda?
    Ms. Flournoy. I understand that al Qaeda remains committed to 
attacking the United States and its interests both at home and abroad. 
Its capabilities, while seriously degraded since September 11, 2001, 
remain significant. Surviving al Qaeda leadership have adopted an 
increasingly decentralized command and control structure that relies on 
the exploitation of modern communications systems to inspire like-
minded regional affiliates and independent cells. Regional affiliates, 
such as al Qaeda in Iraq and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as well 
as other al Qaeda efforts in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian 
Peninsula, broaden al Qaeda's capability to strike U.S. interests.

    38. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe DOD is adequately 
organized to meet this threat?
    Ms. Flournoy. DOD has taken many steps to improve its organization 
and capabilities to counter the terrorist threat. For example, Special 
Operations Command was designated the supported commander for planning 
and synchronizing combatant command operations against terrorist 
networks. Since the last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the 
Department has made a significant investment in Special Operations 
Force capabilities and personnel growth. The general purpose forces are 
also taking on increased missions to train and advise the security 
forces of our partners and allies to counter terrorist and insurgent 
threats.
    Many terrorist threats come from countries with which the United 
States is not at war, and manifest themselves in ways that cannot be 
overcome solely by military means. The responses they demand extend 
well beyond the traditional domain of any single government agency or 
department. Therefore, DOD works extensively with other departments and 
agencies, as well as the National Counterterrorism Center, in the 
development of U.S. Government counterterrorism plans and in the 
coordination of all elements of national power. These whole-of-
government efforts range from activities to disrupt terrorist 
organizations to promoting international partners' capacity to foster 
stability, the rule of law, and good governance.
    As Under Secretary, I plan to work with the Chairman and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders, and my colleagues across the 
interagency to review, assess, and refine the Department's organization 
to ensure that it meets the President's comprehensive strategy for 
combating terrorism.

    39. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, do you believe our European 
allies are adequately concerned and focused on the threat posed by al 
Qaeda?
    Ms. Flournoy. The United States and our European allies have a 
shared interest in countering transnational terrorism. The major 
terrorist attacks in both London and Madrid are just two examples that 
highlight the danger of this threat in Europe. Afghanistan would be a 
less secure environment without the contributions and sacrifices of our 
NATO allies and other international ISAF partners. However, as 
President Obama and Secretary Gates have both noted, efforts in 
Afghanistan would benefit from greater contributions from our European 
allies. In particular, European allies have unique capabilities--such 
as law enforcement competencies--that they can bring to bear in 
Afghanistan and elsewhere to build the capabilities and capacity of 
international partners.
    As Under Secretary I will seek to improve U.S. partnerships with 
European allies to increase our common ground on emerging threats and 
opportunities.

                       quadrennial defense review
    40. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, in your 2006 article titled ``Did 
the Pentagon Get the Quadrennial Defense Review Right?'', which 
appeared in the Washington Quarterly, you wrote that the 2006 QDR ``did 
not include a regular consultation process with the chairmen and 
ranking members of the key defense committees in the Senate and the 
House of Representatives.'' Do you continue to believe that political 
engagement on the QDR is important and, if confirmed, would you 
advocate for the consultation that you described? Why?
    Ms. Flournoy. I continue to believe regular engagement with all 
stakeholders in the Nation's defense enterprise is an important part of 
QDRs. The Department should regularly consult with Congress, 
interagency partners, defense industry, and key international partners 
with whom the United States works to understand and meet the challenges 
of today's security environment.
    The Department's engagement with Congress throughout the QDR 
process is especially important to ensure a smooth transition between 
QDR decisionmaking and any related legislation, to include 
appropriations. I expect hard choices will have to be made in this QDR 
and the support of Congress will be necessary to be successful.

    41. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, in that same article you wrote 
that ``DOD needs a new and more rigorous approach to defense planning, 
one that provides the analytical basis for setting strategic 
priorities, allocating risk, and managing portfolio of capabilities.'' 
Can you expand on your statement with respect to how the Department can 
recapitalize or improve efforts on the QDR?
    Ms. Flournoy. To be effective, the next QDR must articulate a 
comprehensive, long-term vision of U.S. military capabilities and 
identify where trade-offs, shifts in investment, or divestment should 
be made. I have long believed that DOD needs to enhance its ability to 
identify and manage risk across the spectrum of current operations and 
likely future requirements. I understand that the Department has made 
progress on refining its analytic and capability portfolio management 
tools and processes. I am particularly pleased that the 2008 National 
Defense Strategy stated that implementing the strategy ``requires 
balancing risks, and understanding the choices those risks imply. We 
cannot do everything, or function equally well across the spectrum of 
conflict. Ultimately, we must make choices.'' I intend to work hard to 
further strengthen the Department's defense planning in the QDR and 
beyond.

                relocation of u.s. marines from okinawa
    42. Senator McCain. Ms. Flournoy, the U.S. Government has an 
agreement with Japan regarding the realignment of U.S. Marines 
currently stationed in Okinawa. Current planning includes the 
relocation of about 8,000 marines and their families to the Territory 
of Guam. This committee may see in the fiscal year 2010 budget a 
substantial request for investment in new facilities to support 
movement of the marines to Guam. How do you view the agreement from a 
theater-wide strategic perspective?
    Ms. Flournoy. The agreement is rooted in a shared regional 
strategic perspective between the United States and Japan. As the 
westernmost U.S. territory for basing in the Pacific, Guam provides the 
strategic flexibility and freedom of action necessary to support 
peacetime engagement and crisis response. The agreement with Japan 
builds on other posture changes that will support forward-basing of 
submarines and transient aircraft carriers, projection of intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance and strike assets, and increased 
logistical sustainment capabilities. The relocation to Guam is a key 
element in transforming the U.S.-Japan alliance in ways that will 
strengthen the political support in Japan for our reduced and 
consolidated presence on Okinawa. Overall, these efforts will 
strengthen the deterrent effect of U.S. forces and assure our regional 
allies of an enduring U.S. forward presence.
                                 ______
                                 
               Question Submitted by Senator Mel Martinez
                               preemption
    43. Senator Martinez. Ms. Flournoy, both the 2008 National Defense 
Strategy and the 2006 National Security Strategy reference the act of 
preemption. Where do you see the line drawn between preemption and 
aggression? How will you ensure the legislature is correctly informed 
of military action with enough time for substantive thought and debate?
    Ms. Flournoy. The United States has the responsibility to protect 
and defend our citizens and allies. Although we do not seek conflict 
with other nations, neither should we ignore imminent threats to the 
United States. It is critical to consult with Congress and our allies 
in situations where the United States faces imminent threats. Precisely 
how the legislature is informed and in which situations the United 
States would use force are important questions that will need to be 
addressed in close consultation with Congress and our partners and 
allies. I intend to work closely with counterparts in Congress and 
other partners to ensure that U.S. national security objectives and 
decisionmaking processes are as transparent as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
              Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                              afghanistan
    44. Senator Collins. Ms. Flournoy, in your answers to the advance 
policy questions, you identified the need for the United States to 
develop and employ a more effective strategy in Afghanistan and the 
surrounding region. Can you provide more detail on your vision for a 
new direction for Afghanistan?
    Ms. Flournoy. President Obama has made it clear that the 
Afghanistan theater should be our top military priority. Secretary 
Gates has stated that more troops are needed ``to provide a baseline 
level of security in some of the more dangerous areas.'' To that end, 
the United States is planning to increase its military presence in 
Afghanistan, in conjunction with a large increase in the Afghan 
security forces. We should also improve coordination between Afghan and 
coalition forces in the field and enable the Afghans to assume the lead 
for more operations.
    At the same time, as in any counterinsurgency effort, success 
requires a commensurate increase in U.S. support to governance, rule of 
law, and economic programs. I will work with my counterparts at State, 
United States Agency for International Development, and other U.S. 
Government agencies to develop a comprehensive, holistic approach in 
Afghanistan and the broader region, particularly Pakistan. We should 
also support the United Nations in its mission to coordinate among the 
more than 40 nations and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations to 
help develop a comprehensive approach to reconstruction efforts in 
Afghanistan. Unity of effort and the effective application of both 
national and international resources will go a long way toward 
establishing the kind of sustainable security that is needed to ensure 
a successful outcome that is commensurate with U.S. interests.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Michele A. Flournoy follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 20, 2009.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Michele A. Flournoy of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy, vice Eric S. Edelman, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Michele A. Flournoy, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
               Biographical Sketch of Michele A. Flournoy
    Michele Flournoy was appointed President of the Center for a New 
American Security (CNAS) in January 2007. Prior to co-founding CNAS, 
she was a Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, where she worked on a broad range of defense policy and 
international security issues. Previously, she was a distinguished 
research professor at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at 
the National Defense University (NDU), where she founded and led the 
university's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) working group, which was 
chartered by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop 
intellectual capital in preparation for the Department of Defense's 
2001 QDR. Prior to joining NDU, she was dual-hatted as Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction and 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy. In that capacity, 
she oversaw three policy offices in the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense: Strategy; Requirements, Plans, and Counterproliferation; and 
Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasian Affairs. Ms. Flournoy was awarded the 
Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service in 1996, the 
Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service in 1998, 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs Joint Distinguished 
Civilian Service Award in 2000. She is a member of the Aspen Strategy 
Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Institute of 
Strategic Studies, the Executive Board of Women in International 
Security, and the Board of the Institute for Defense Analysis. She is a 
former member of the Defense Policy Board and the Defense Science Board 
Task Force on Transformation. In addition to several edited volumes and 
reports, she has authored dozens of articles on international security 
issues. Ms. Flournoy holds a B.A. in social studies from Harvard 
University and an M.Litt. in international relations from Balliol 
College, Oxford University, where she was a Newton-Tatum scholar.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Michele 
Flournoy in connection with her nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Michele Angelique Flournoy.

    2. Position to which nominated:
    Under Secretary of Defense (Policy).

    3. Date of nomination:
    Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    December 14, 1960; Los Angeles, CA.

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

    7. Names and ages of children:
    William Alexander (Alec), 11.
    Victoria Morgan, 9.
    Aidan Campbell, 6.

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Balliol College, Oxford University, M.Litt. International 
Relations, 1986 (09/1983-06/1986).
    Harvard University, B.A. Social Studies, 1983 (09/1979-06/1983).
    Beverly Hills High School, High School Diploma, 1979 (09/1975-06/
1979).

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Center for a New American Security, President and Co-Founder, 01/
2007-Present.
    Center for Strategic and International Studies, Senior Adviser-
International Security Program, 12/2000-12/2006.
    Institute for National Strategic Studies-National Defense 
University, Distinguished Research Professor, 09/1998-12/2000.
    Office of the Secretary of Defense-Department of Defense, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction and Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Strategy, 05/1993-09/1998.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Office of the Secretary of Defense-Department of Defense, Principal 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction and Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Strategy, 05/1993-09/1998.
    Defense Policy Board, 1998-2001.
    U.S. STRATCOM Strategic Advisory Group, 2004-2007.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    Center for a New American Security, President and Co-Founder.
    W. Scott Gould and Michele Angelique Flournoy Revocable Trust Co-
Trustee.
    Institute for Defense Analyses, Member-Board of Directors.
    Women in International Security, Member-Executive Board.
    Ava partners, Managing Director (clients below):

      MPRI, Speaker
      BAE Systems, Inc., Consultant
      Booz Allen Hamilton, Consultant
      Hicks & Associates, Consultant

    Lockheed Martin, Consultant.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    Institute for Defense Analses, Trustee, 2007-present.
    Women in International Security, member of the Executive Board, 
1999-present.
    Council on Foreign Relations, member, 1998-present.
    International Institute for Strategic Studies, former member.
    Aspen Strategy Group, member, 2002-present.
    Christ Church, Georgetown, parishioner and member of the Vestry, 
2006-present.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    None.
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    Provided policy advice to Kerry, Clinton, and Obama campaigns.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    06/16/08, Obama for America, $1,000
    09/29/07, Reed Committee, $1,000
    06/30/07, Hillary Clinton for President, $500
    06/22/06, Reed Committee, $1,000
    08/18/04, Democratic National Committee, $200
    07/09/04, Kerry Victory 2004, $500

    14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    Joint Distinguished Civilian Service Award by the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000.
    Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, 1998.
    Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, 1996.
    Newton-Tatum Scholar to Balliol College Oxford, 1983-1985.

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

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


      
    
    
      
    
    

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                                  Michele Flournoy.
    This 13th day of January, 2009.

    [The nomination of Michele Flournoy was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2009.]
                              ----------                              

    [Prepared questions submitted to Jeh Charles Johnson by 
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied 
follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD) 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and the chain of command by clearly 
delineating the combatant commanders' responsibilities and authorities 
and the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These reforms have also 
vastly improved cooperation between the Services and the combatant 
commanders in the strategic planning process, in the development of 
requirements, in joint training and education, and in the execution of 
military operations.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions based on your experience in DOD?
    Answer. At this time I have no proposals to amend any provision of 
the Goldwater-Nichols Act. If I am confirmed and if I identify possible 
changes that I think would be beneficial, I will propose those changes 
through the established process.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. See my prior answer.
                             relationships
    Question. What is your understanding of both the formal and 
informal relationship between the General Counsel of DOD and the 
following offices?
    The Secretary of Defense.
    Answer. The General Counsel is the Secretary's principal advisor on 
the wide variety of legal issues facing by DOD. I hope and expect to 
consult with the Secretary and his personal staff on these issues on a 
regular basis.
    Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. The General Counsel should work closely with the Under 
Secretaries, both personally and through the General Counsel's staff, 
to provide them and their respective offices with timely and quality 
legal advice.
    Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.
    Answer. Likewise, the General Counsel should work closely with the 
Assistant Secretaries, both personally and through the General 
Counsel's staff, to provide them and their respective offices with 
timely and quality legal advice.
    Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Answer. I am aware that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has his 
own dedicated Legal Counsel, and that a provision in the National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2008 codified the 
existence of this position through a new section 156 in title 10, 
U.S.C., and that this provision in law also provided that the Legal 
Counsel be a one-star officer. See ``NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008,'' Pub. 
L. No. 110-181, Sec. 543, 122 Stat. 3, 115 (2008). While the Chairman 
relies primarily upon his Legal Counsel for legal advice, the Legal 
Counsel and the DOD General Counsel should work together on the broad 
range of matters that affect DOD.
    Question. The Judge Advocates General.
    Answer. As General Counsel of the Air Force from October 1998 to 
January 2001, I believe I worked in a collegial and collaborative 
fashion with The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force and his staff 
to deliver effective legal service and advice to Air Force leaders. If 
confirmed as General Counsel of DOD, I hope and expect to resume that 
positive working relationship with all Judge Advocates General and the 
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    I am aware that The Judge Advocates General are responsible for the 
administration of military justice within their respective Services, 
and that senior leaders within the DOD should be mindful of the 
principles and restraints of unlawful command influence. Finally, I am 
aware that in 2004, title 10 was amended to direct that ``no officer or 
employee of DOD interfere with the ability of the Judge Advocate[s] 
General to give independent legal advice to'' the leadership of their 
respective military departments. See 10 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3037, 5148, 
8037 (2003), as amended by the Ronald Reagan NDAA for Fiscal Year 2005, 
Pub. L. No. 108-375, Sec. 574, 118 Stat. 1811, 1921 (2004).
    Question. The Legal Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff.
    Answer. See my answer above concerning the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs. In addition, I am aware that in 2008, title 10 was amended to 
direct that ``no officer or employee of DOD may interfere with the 
ability of the Legal Counsel to give independent legal advice to the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff.'' See Duncan Hunter NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-
417, Sec. 591, 122 Stat. 4356, 4474 (2008). I understand that current 
practice is for the DOD General Counsel and the Chairman's Legal 
Counsel to meet frequently to discuss issues of mutual concern and to 
exchange information. If confirmed, I hope and expect to continue that 
practice.
    Question. The Staff Judge Advocates to the Commanders of Combatant 
Commands.
    Answer. It is my understanding that the DOD General Counsel's 
relationship to the staff judge advocates of the combatant commands is, 
for the most part, through the Chairman's Legal Counsel.
    Question. The General Counsels of the Military Departments.
    Answer. As a former General Counsel of the Department of the Air 
Force, I am familiar with this relationship. The General Counsels of 
the Army, Navy, and Air Force serve as the chief legal officers of 
their respective departments, and each report to the Secretary of their 
respective departments. There is no direct reporting relationship to 
the DOD General Counsel, but the DOD General Counsel is the chief legal 
officer of DOD. The DOD General Counsel should meet regularly and work 
closely with the Army, Navy, and Air Force General Counsels. If 
confirmed, I will ensure that we work together closely.
    Question. The Counsels for the Defense Agencies.
    Answer. As I understand it, the DOD General Counsel is the Director 
of the Defense Legal Services Agency (DLSA), and the General Counsels 
of the defense agencies and DOD field activities are part of DLSA, and 
thus, report to the DOD General Counsel in his or her capacity as DLSA 
Director.
    Question. The Counsel to the Inspector General (IG).
    Answer. I am aware that a provision in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 
2009 amended the IG Act of 1978 to establish a ``General Counsel to the 
IG of DOD.'' See Duncan Hunter NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 
110-417, Sec. 907, 122 Stat. 4356, 4569 (2008). This new law, in 
substance, changed the relationship between the DOD General Counsel and 
the DOD IG's legal advisor, who reports directly to the DOD IG and 
performs duties assigned by the DOD IG. If confirmed, I hope and expect 
to work closely with the IG's General Counsel to provide timely and 
quality legal advice to our respective clients.
    Question. The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.
    Answer. The DOD General Counsel designates a non-voting 
representative to the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.
    Question. The Comptroller General.
    Answer. As I understand it, an agency head may request an opinion 
from the Comptroller General on the obligation and disbursement of 
public funds, and the DOD General Counsel may submit such questions to 
the Comptroller General on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. I 
understand that, on an informal basis, DOD General Counsel's office 
enjoys a very good relationship with the Comptroller General's office, 
which includes informal consultation. If confirmed, I intend to 
continue that relationship.
    Question. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
    Answer. The law states that the Court of Appeals for the Armed 
Forces ``is located for administrative purposes only in the DOD,'' 
which emphasizes the Court's judicial independence from DOD. See 10 
U.S.C. Sec. 941. I understand that, traditionally, the DOD General 
Counsel serves as an informal DOD liaison with the Court, and may be 
asked by the President to recommend candidates for appointment to the 
Court.
    Question. The Code Committee established under Article 146 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
    Answer. As I understand it, the Code Committee consists of the 
Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, The 
Judge Advocates General of the Military Departments, the Judge Advocate 
General and Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate 
to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and two recognized authorities 
on military justice appointed by the Secretary of Defense from public 
life. The DOD General Counsel has no formal relationship to the Code 
Committee. However, I am told that the General Counsel may provide 
informal support as the Code Committee desires, and informs the Code 
Committee with respect to the activities and recommendations of the 
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.
    Question. The Attorney General.
    Answer. The Attorney General is the chief legal officer and law 
enforcement authority of the United States. The DOD General Counsel 
must work closely with the Attorney General and his staff to fulfill 
their respective duties.
    Question. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Department of 
Justice.
    Answer. The OLC issues formal legal opinions that can and do affect 
the operations and policies of the various agencies of the executive 
branch. The DOD General Counsel must, therefore, work closely with the 
OLC to ensure the best possible legal advice is provided to officials 
of DOD.
    Question. The Office of Legal Adviser at the Department of State.
    Answer. The Departments of State and Defense must work together on 
many matters in furtherance of the national security of the United 
States. Therefore, it is necessary for the DOD General Counsel and the 
Legal Advisor at the Department of State, and their staffs, to consult 
with each other on legal issues of mutual interest.
                             qualifications
    Question. Section 140 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the 
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of DOD and that the General 
Counsel shall perform such functions as the Secretary of Defense may 
prescribe.
    What background and expertise do you possess that you believe 
qualifies you to perform these duties?
    Answer. I am a lawyer in good standing at the Bar of the State of 
New York and the District of Columbia. I am admitted to practice in a 
variety of Federal courts around the country, including the U.S. 
Supreme Court. I am a trial lawyer and litigator at Paul, Weiss, 
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP in New York City. I am a Fellow in the 
American College of Trial Lawyers.
    I have served in public office twice. From January 1989 to December 
1991, I was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern 
District of New York, where I prosecuted public corruption cases. From 
October 1998 to January 2001, I served as General Counsel of the 
Department of the Air Force, following nomination by the President and 
confirmation by the Senate. In that position, I worked in a 
professional and collaborative fashion with the more than 1,000 Judge 
Advocates General and civilian lawyers in the Air Force to accomplish 
many things for our common client. This also included working closely 
with the DOD General Counsel and attorneys within that office. In 2007, 
I was nominated by the New York State Commission on Judicial Nomination 
to be Chief Judge of the State of New York. The incumbent, Judith Kaye, 
was reappointed by the Governor.
    While in private law practice, I am active in civic and 
professional affairs. I was a member of the Ethics Committee and chair 
of the Judiciary Committee of the New York City Bar Association. I am 
also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what duties do you expect 
that the Secretary of Defense will prescribe for you?
    Answer. If I am confirmed, I hope and expect that Secretary Gates 
and his senior staff will call upon me for legal advice and guidance on 
the wide variety of matters that cross his desk.
                             legal opinions
    Question. If you are confirmed, would the legal opinions of your 
office be binding on all lawyers within DOD?
    Answer. The DOD General Counsel is the chief legal officer of DOD. 
Consequently, the legal opinions of the Office of the DOD General 
Counsel are the controlling legal opinions of DOD, with the exception 
of lawyers in the Office of the DOD IG General Counsel, who are 
explicitly exempted from the scope of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140, by virtue of 
section 907 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009. As stated before, I am 
also mindful of the recent changes in law that prohibit any officer or 
employee of DOD from interfering with the ability of the Judge 
Advocates General to give independent legal advice to the leadership of 
their respective military departments.
    Question. How will you ensure that such legal opinions are 
available to lawyers in the various components of DOD?
    Answer. Opinions of the Office of the DOD General Counsel are 
disseminated throughout DOD in the ordinary course of business, both 
electronically and in hardcopy format using normal departmental 
distribution processes. If confirmed, I expect to continue this 
practice.
    Question. If confirmed, are there specific categories of General 
Counsel legal opinions that you expect to reconsider and possibly 
revise? If so, what categories?
    Answer. If confirmed, one of my objectives is to assess whether the 
DOD General Counsel's legal opinions currently in effect need to be 
reconsidered or revised.
    Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the 
development and consideration (or reconsideration) of legal opinions by 
the OLC of the Department of Justice that directly affect DOD?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work with the OLC in the 
development, consideration, and reconsideration of OLC legal opinions, 
while recognizing that the ultimate responsibility for the development 
of those opinions resides with the Department of Justice.
    Question. What actions would you take in response to an opinion 
issued by OLC with which you disagreed as a matter of proper 
interpretation of the law?
    Answer. If OLC issued an opinion with which I materially disagreed, 
I would not hesitate to inform OLC of the extent and nature of my 
disagreement, mindful, again, that the Attorney General is the chief 
legal officer of the United States and that his or her legal opinions 
are controlling throughout the executive branch.
                        independent legal advice
    Question. In response to attempts within DOD to subordinate legal 
functions and authorities of the Judge Advocates General to the General 
Counsels of DOD and the military Services, Congress enacted legislation 
prohibiting any officer or employee of DOD from interfering with the 
ability of the Judge Advocates General of the Military Services and the 
legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide 
independent legal advice to the Chairman, Service Secretaries, and 
Service Chiefs. Congress also required a study and review by outside 
experts of the relationships between the legal elements of each of the 
military departments of each of the military departments.
    What is your view of the need for the Judge Advocates General of 
the Services, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps, and the legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to provide independent legal advice to Service Secretaries, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air 
Force, and the Chief of Naval Operations?
    Answer. This is my view: I respect and admire the role our Nation's 
military lawyers play for DOD. I appreciate that military lawyers, 
given their training and experience, may have a perspective that 
civilian lawyers do not have, particularly in matters of military 
operations, military personnel, and military justice. Further, as 
General Counsel of the Air Force from 1998 to 2001, I believe I worked 
in a collegial and collaborative fashion with the Judge Advocate 
General of the Air Force and his staff, and greatly respected his role 
and the advice he had to offer to the leadership of the Air Force.
    I believe that the Judge Advocates General of the military 
departments, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps, and the Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff should provide their best independent legal advice to the 
Secretaries of the military departments, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, and the Service Chiefs, as appropriate. That advice 
should be informed by the views of the Department of Justice, the DOD 
General Counsel, and the Military Department General Counsel concerned.
    Question. What is your view of the responsibility of judge 
advocates within the Services and joint commands to provide independent 
legal advice to military commanders?
    Answer. It is the responsibility of judge advocates within the 
Services and joint commands to provide legal advice to military 
commanders that is independent of improper external influence. Also, as 
a practical matter, judge advocates must be depended upon to provide 
timely and effective day-to-day legal advice to military commanders in 
the field, without seeking the approval and input of the DOD General 
Counsel for that advice. However, the DOD General Counsel is the senior 
legal officer of the Department. Therefore, judge advocates' advice 
should be informed by the views of the Department of Justice, the DOD 
General Counsel, the General Counsel of the military department 
concerned, and the Judge Advocate General concerned.
    Question. If confirmed, would you propose any changes to the 
current relationships between the uniformed judge advocates and General 
Counsels?
    Answer. I am not aware at this time of any changes that I would 
propose to the current relationships between the uniformed Judge 
Advocates and General Counsels.
                            detainee issues
    Question. Section 1403 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2006, provides 
that no individual in the custody or under the physical control of the 
United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical 
location shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or 
punishment.
    In your view, is the prohibition in the best interest of the United 
States? Why or why not?
    Answer. In my view, this prohibition is in the best interest of the 
United States, the national security interests of the United States, 
and is consistent with fundamental American values.
    Question. Do you believe that the phrase ``cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment or punishment'' has been adequately and 
appropriately defined for the purpose of this provision?
    Answer. I am not fully informed to provide an adequate response to 
this question. If I am confirmed, this is something I expect to review 
carefully.
    Question. What role do you believe the General Counsel of DOD 
should play in the interpretation of this standard?
    Answer. I believe the General Counsel should play a primary role in 
advising on the standards governing the treatment of persons detained 
by the U.S. military, including in any interpretation, if necessary, of 
the standard quoted above.
    Question. What role do you believe the Judge Advocates General of 
the military Services should play in the interpretation of this 
standard?
    Answer. The Judge Advocates General of the military departments 
should play a prominent role in the interpretation of this standard and 
other matters related to the treatment of detainees. I believe The 
Judge Advocates General and the military lawyers they lead bring an 
important and essential perspective to these and many other matters, 
and they play a vital role in supporting the operating forces 
worldwide. As I stated before, judge advocates must be depended upon to 
provide timely and effective day-to-day legal advice to military 
commanders in the field. If confirmed, and if called upon to offer any 
guidance on this standard, I hope and expect to consult the Judge 
Advocates General and the Chairman's Legal Counsel for this guidance.
    Question. If confirmed, will you take steps to ensure that all 
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and 
procedures fully comply with the requirements of section 1403 and with 
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment 
specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations, FM 2-
22.3, issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, the DOD 
Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Section 2441 of title 18, U.S.C., as amended by the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006, defines grave breaches of Common 
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including torture and cruel and 
inhuman treatment.
    In your view, does section 2441 define these terms in a manner that 
provides appropriate protection from abusive treatment to U.S. 
detainees in foreign custody and to foreign detainees in U.S. custody?
    Answer. Yes. If I am confirmed, I expect to review this issue 
closely.
    Question. Do you believe that the United States has the legal 
authority to continue holding alleged members and supporters of al 
Qaeda and the Taliban as enemy combatants?
    Answer. Yes. As a general matter, the United States is authorized 
to detain those individuals determined to be enemy combatants. See, 
e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) and the Authorization for 
Use of Military Force, 115 Stat. 224. I cannot comment, legally or 
factually, on the circumstances of the detention of specific 
individuals, which, in many cases, is the subject of pending 
litigation.
    Question. Do you believe that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals 
convened by DOD to provide Guantanamo detainees an opportunity to 
contest designation as enemy combatants provide detainees with 
appropriate legal standards and processes?
    Answer. If I am confirmed, I expect to examine this issue 
carefully.
    Question. Do you believe that the Federal courts have the 
procedures and capabilities needed to fairly and appropriately review 
the detention of enemy combatants, pursuant to habeas corpus petitions?
    Answer. I am familiar with the Supreme Court's decision in 
Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008). It is also my understanding 
that the exact procedures that will apply in the habeas cases that 
follow the Boumediene decision are still being considered by the 
District Court for the District of Columbia. I do not now have a 
personal belief about this issue. If confirmed, I will work closely 
with the Department of Justice to propose enhancements to current 
procedures and capabilities that may be necessary.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
reviewing the status of Guantanamo detainees and determining whether 
the United States should continue to hold such detainees?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to provide legal advice to the 
Secretary of Defense on the status of the Guantanamo detainees and 
determinations whether the United States should continue to hold such 
detainees.
    Question. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, authorized the 
trial of ``alien unlawful enemy combatants'' by military commission and 
established the procedures for such trials.
    In your view, does the Military Commissions Act provide appropriate 
legal standards and processes for the trial of alien unlawful enemy 
combatants?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to carefully review whether the 
Military Commissions Act strikes the right balance between protecting 
U.S. national security interests and providing appropriate legal 
standards and processes for a fair and adequate hearing.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that it 
would be appropriate to use coerced testimony in the criminal trial of 
a detainee?
    Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate looking carefully at whether use 
of coerced testimony is ever appropriate in the criminal trial of a 
detainee.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
determining whether Guantanamo detainees should be tried for war 
crimes, and if so, in what forum?
    Answer. Under the current structure, the General Counsel has no 
role in determining whether any particular Guantanamo detainee should 
be tried for war crimes. Rather, the Convening Authority makes the 
decision on which cases are referred to a military commission. If 
confirmed, I anticipate reviewing the current process to determine 
whether to recommend any changes to it.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
reviewing the Military Commissions Act and developing administration 
recommendations for any changes that may be needed to that Act?
    Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate reviewing the Military 
Commissions Act to determine whether to recommend any legislative 
proposals to change it.
    Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between 
the General Counsel of DOD and the legal advisor to the convening 
authority, the chief prosecutor, and the chief defense counsel for the 
military commissions?
    Answer. It is my understanding that, for reporting purposes, these 
individuals are all under the cognizance of the Office of the General 
Counsel. The legal advisor to the convening authority reports to the 
Deputy General Counsel (Legal Counsel). Consistent with the Regulation 
for Trial by Military Commissions, the chief prosecutor reports to the 
legal advisor. The chief defense counsel reports to the Deputy General 
Counsel (Personnel and Health Policy).
                     contractors on the battlefield
    Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on 
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military 
operations. The extensive involvement of contractor employees in a 
broad array of activities--including security functions--has raised 
questions about the legal accountability of contractor employees for 
their actions.
    Do you believe that current DOD regulations appropriately define 
and limit the scope of security functions that may be performed by 
contractors in an area of combat operations?
    Answer. I know that both President-elect Obama and Secretary Gates 
are concerned about the oversight and accountability of private 
contractors in areas of combat operations. I am not now familiar with 
the specific provisions of the Department's regulations in this area, 
but I recognize that this is an important issue. If confirmed, I will 
make review of the regulations one of my priorities.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such 
regulations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review these regulations and, if 
appropriate, make recommendations for changes.
    Question. Do you believe that current DOD regulations appropriately 
define and limit the scope of contractor participation in the 
interrogation of detainees?
    Answer. As stated above, I am not now familiar with the specific 
provisions of the Department's regulations in this area, but I 
recognize that this is an important issue. If confirmed, I will make 
review of these regulations one of my priorities.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to such 
regulations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review these regulations that would 
pertain to this matter and, if appropriate, make recommendations for 
changes.
    Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts 
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information 
operations'' through the Iraqi media.
    In your view, is DOD's use of private contractors to conduct 
information operations through the Iraqi media appropriate?
    Answer. I am not fully familiar with the Department's use of 
private contractors to conduct information operations. If confirmed, I 
will review this issue. I recognize that this issue requires close 
scrutiny.
    Question. Under what circumstances do you believe that it is 
appropriate for DOD to conduct information operations in a sovereign 
country without the knowledge and support of the host country?
    Answer. I do not have enough information about information 
operations at this point to comment on when it would be appropriate for 
DOD to conduct such operations in a sovereign country without the 
knowledge and support of that country. If confirmed, I will study these 
matters carefully and ensure that DOD directives and policy on 
information operations are compliant with U.S. law. Again, I recognize 
that this is an issue that requires close scrutiny. I note also that in 
dealing with the media, DOD Public Affairs has an obligation to 
disseminate truthful and accurate information about military 
activities, consistent with security guidelines, to both domestic and 
international audiences.
    Question. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 
defines ``inherently governmental functions'' to include 
``discretionary functions'' that could ``significantly affect the life, 
liberty, or property of private persons''.
    In your view, is the performance of security functions that may 
reasonably be expected to require the use of deadly force in highly 
hazardous public areas in an area of combat operations an inherently 
governmental function?
    Answer. From my prior experience as General Counsel of the Air 
Force, I am generally familiar with OMB Circular A-76. I am also 
familiar with section 832 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009 which 
provides the sense of Congress, regarding performance by private 
security contractors of certain functions in areas of combat 
operations. This is a sensitive and controversial area, which, if 
confirmed, I will study carefully.
    Question. In your view, is the interrogation of enemy prisoners of 
war and other detainees during and in the aftermath of hostilities an 
inherently governmental function?
    Answer. I am not now in a position to provide an informed view on 
this subject. I am generally familiar with OMB Budget Circular A-76 and 
am familiar with section 1057 of NDAA for Fiscal Year 2009, which 
reflects the sense of Congress regarding the interrogation of detainees 
by contractor personnel. Again, if confirmed, I will study this issue 
carefully.
    Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
addressing the issue of what functions may appropriately be performed 
by contractors on the battlefield?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to study this issue carefully and 
provide the appropriate legal advice and guidance.
    Question. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) was 
enacted in 2000 to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the U.S. courts 
to persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the 
United States.
    In your view, does MEJA provide appropriate jurisdiction for 
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and other areas of combat operations?
    Answer. I am generally aware of the provisions of the MEJA of 2000, 
Pub. L. No. 106-523, 114 Stat. 2488 (2000), as amended. See 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 3261-67. I am also aware that there have been legislative 
initiatives, including a bill introduced by then-Senator Barack Obama 
in February 2007, to explicitly cover MEJA's jurisdiction over 
contractors for Federal agencies other than DOD. I expect this 
legislative proposal will become a position of the new administration. 
I understand and appreciate the importance of appropriate 
accountability over all persons in support of our Armed Forces wherever 
located. If confirmed, I will give high priority to achieve that 
objective.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to MEJA?
    Answer. I am not now in a position to offer specific legislative 
changes to MEJA. If confirmed, I will give high priority to the 
Department's role in supporting this important law and provide advice 
when and where improvements are needed.
    Question. What role would you expect to play, if confirmed, in 
developing administration recommendations for changes to MEJA?
    Answer. If confirmed, to the extent that DOD develops 
recommendations for changes to MEJA to improve upon this law and its 
implementing procedures, I hope and expect to provide that necessary 
support. It is my understanding that the Office of the DOD General 
Counsel has been, since the enactment of MEJA, an integral player in 
implementing the act itself, and the processing of cases to the 
Department of Justice for consideration.
    Question. Section 552 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2007 extended 
criminal jurisdiction of the military courts under the UCMJ to persons 
serving with or accompanying an Armed Force in the field during time of 
declared war or a contingency operation, such as our current operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    In your view, does the UCMJ provide appropriate jurisdiction for 
alleged criminal actions of contractor employees in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and other areas of combat operations?
    Answer. I strongly support the position that civilians serving with 
or accompanying our Armed Forces overseas who commit crimes should be 
appropriately held accountable. I do not now have an informed view 
about whether the UCMJ currently provides the appropriate 
jurisdictional reach.
    Question. What is your view of the procedures agreed upon by the 
DOD and the Department of Justice to reconcile jurisdictional 
responsibilities under MEJA and the UCMJ?
    Answer. I am aware generally that there are procedures to reconcile 
these responsibilities reflected in a Secretary of Defense memorandum 
of March 10, 2008. If confirmed, I intend to examine whether this 
memorandum strikes the appropriate balance in the exercise of criminal 
jurisdiction.
    Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to the UCMJ to 
ensure appropriate jurisdiction for alleged criminal actions of 
contractor employees?
    Answer. I am not now prepared to offer specific suggestions or 
recommendations. If confirmed, I will examine this issue.
                        military justice matters
    Question. Article 6 of the UCMJ gives primary jurisdiction over 
military justice to the Judge Advocates General.
    What is your understanding of the General Counsel's functions with 
regard to military justice and the Judge Advocates General?
    Answer. In general, the DOD General Counsel has no direct role to 
play in specific military justice cases, or cases that may have 
military justice implications. Decisions in military justice cases are 
made by the commander of the accused, the convening authority, the 
military judge, and court members. The Service Courts of Criminal 
Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces provide 
appellate review of cases arising under the UCMJ, as does the U.S. 
Supreme Court through writs of certiorari. The Secretary of Defense 
becomes involved only in military justice in limited circumstances, and 
the General Counsel provides legal advice to the Secretary in those 
circumstances. The General Counsel, like the Secretary of Defense and 
other senior civilian and military officials in the Department, must 
avoid any action that may constitute unlawful command influence. I 
share the courts' oft-stated view that unlawful command influence is 
the ``mortal enemy'' of military justice.
    See also my answers above concerning the Joint Service Committee on 
Military Justice and the Code Committee.
    Question. In your view, how should the General Counsel approach 
military justice matters--both in terms of specific cases and general 
policy issues to provide useful advice without generating problems of 
unlawful command influence?
    Answer. See my answers above to the preceding question concerning 
the role of the General Counsel.
             prevention of and response to sexual assaults
    Question. As required by section 577 of the Ronald W. Reagan NDAA 
for Fiscal Year 2005, DOD issued a new policy for the prevention of and 
response to sexual assaults involving members of the Armed Forces.
    What is your assessment of the DOD policy as it pertains to the 
legal issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of sexual 
assault cases?
    Answer. I believe this is a very important issue and I intend to 
review it carefully if I am confirmed as General Counsel. I am aware of 
a Victim Witness Assistance Program to help victims of sexual assault 
navigate the military justice process.
    Question. What is your view of the provision for restricted and 
unrestricted reporting of sexual assaults?
    Answer. I dealt with this issue to some extent as General Counsel 
of the Air Force. Unrestricted reporting means law enforcement 
involvement and investigation that will ensue upon a report of sexual 
assault; restricted reporting allows a victim to disclose the details 
of the assault to specific individuals and receive medical treatment 
and counseling without involving law enforcement or triggering an 
automatic investigation. As I understand it, the goal of restricted 
reporting is to give the victim the support and confidence eventually 
to come forward with an unrestricted report so the offender can be held 
accountable. In all, there must be a balance between the need for the 
prosecution of sexual offenders on the one hand and the privacy and 
physical and mental well-being of the victim on the other. Finding the 
right balance is a delicate task. I do not now have a view about 
whether DOD has found that right balance.
    Question. What is your understanding of the adequacy of DOD 
oversight of military service implementation of DOD and Service 
policies for the prevention of and response to sexual assaults?
    Answer. I am currently unfamiliar with the adequacy of DOD 
oversight.
                 religious activity in the armed forces
    Question. What is your understanding of current policies and 
programs of the DOD and the Military Services regarding religious 
practices in the military?
    Answer. My understanding is that the Secretary of Defense and his 
staff provide overall policy guidance, and the Secretaries of the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force provide supplemental guidance.
    Question. In your view, do these policies accommodate the free 
exercise of religion and other beliefs without impinging on those who 
have different beliefs, including no religious belief?
    Answer. I have not been in DOD for 8 years and, at this time, am 
not in a position to evaluate whether the current policies accommodate 
these important interests imbedded in our Constitution. I appreciate 
the importance of this issue. If confirmed, I hope and expect to review 
this issue in detail.
    Question. In your opinion, do existing policies and practices 
regarding public prayers offered by military chaplains in a variety of 
formal and informal settings strike the proper balance between a 
chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her religious 
beliefs and the rights of other servicemembers with different beliefs, 
including no religious belief?
    Answer. See my answer to the prior question.
                             law of the sea
    Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
(UNCLOS) is currently pending in the Senate.
    What are your views on accession by the United States to UNCLOS?
    Answer. Like the President-elect and the current administration, I 
support U.S. accession to the UNCLOS. My understanding is that there 
are important national security interests that are to be furthered by 
U.S. accession. If confirmed, I look forward to working within the new 
administration and with the Senate towards favorable action on the 
Convention during the 111th Congress.
    Question. From a national security standpoint, what do you see as 
the legal advantages and disadvantages of the United States being a 
party to UNCLOS?
    Answer. As I understand it, the Convention secures important 
freedom of navigation rights upon which our maritime forces must be 
able to rely without question. By not being a party to the Convention, 
the United States has had to rely on customary international law, which 
is not universally accepted and can change over time in ways that may 
not be in the best interests of the country. Being a party to the 
Convention places these important navigational rights on the strongest 
legal footing as treaty rights, and gives the United States a seat at 
the table in treaty-based institutions.
    I do not see national security disadvantages of being a party to 
the Convention. Some suggest that being a party could subject our 
maritime forces to the jurisdiction of international tribunals. The 
Convention, however, expressly permits a party to exclude from 
international dispute settlement those matters that concern ``military 
activities,'' and the United States could assert the exclusive right to 
determine what constitutes a military activity.
    Question. In your view, is customary international law alone 
sufficient to safeguard U.S. navigational and overflight rights and 
freedoms worldwide?
    Answer. No. See my prior answer.
             processing the annual dod legislative request
    Question. One of the current responsibilities of the General 
Counsel of DOD is to coordinate the Department's legislative program 
and to provide the Department's views on legislative proposals 
initiated from outside the Department
    If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that the 
Department's legislative proposals are submitted in a timely manner to 
ensure ample opportunity for consideration by Congress before mark-up 
of the NDAA?
    Answer. I understand that over the past 3 years, the Office of 
General Counsel has restructured the Department's Legislative Program 
specifically to ensure that the Department transmits the annual 
National Defense Authorization Bill to Congress immediately after the 
President transmits his budget to Congress. If confirmed as DOD General 
Counsel, I will personally monitor this progress, and assess whether 
improvements in the process can be made.
    Question. What actions would you take, if confirmed, to ensure 
Congress receives the Department's views on other proposed legislation 
in a timely manner?
    Answer. When I was General Counsel of the Air Force, I was appalled 
at the slow turnaround time in responding to many letters from 
Congress. I recall one that took almost a year.
    I am told that, over the past 2 years, the Office of General 
Counsel has worked closely with the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Legislative Affairs and OMB to improve the Department's 
responses to requests for views on congressional bills. If confirmed, I 
will work to ensure that the Department provides Congress with timely 
views on proposed legislation.
                            judicial review
    Question. What is your understanding of the appropriate role of the 
Article III courts in the review of military activities?
    Answer. The role of Article III courts in review of military 
activities has been addressed repeatedly by the Supreme Court and lower 
Federal courts. Historically, the courts have afforded great deference 
to the military in the conduct of its affairs. See, e.g., Loving v. 
United States, 517 U.S. 748, 767 (1996); Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 
1, 4, 10 (1973); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1953). 
However, that deference is not without limits, and since September 11, 
2001, the Supreme Court has found it necessary to assert itself in 
matters of national security and the conduct of military affairs. For 
example, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 535-36 (2004), Justice 
O'Connor stated ``whatever power the United States Constitution 
envisions for the executive in its exchanges with other nations or with 
enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a 
role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.''
                                 client
    Question. In your opinion, who is the client of the General Counsel 
of the DOD?
    Answer. DOD is the client.
                              legal ethics
    Question. What is your understanding of the action a DOD attorney 
should take if the attorney becomes aware of improper activities by a 
DOD official who has sought the attorney's legal advice and the 
official is unwilling to follow the attorney's advice?
    Answer. Every DOD attorney is under an obligation to faithfully 
comply with all applicable laws and regulations. One such regulation, 
DOD Directive 5505.06, ``Investigations of Allegations Against Senior 
Officials of the DOD,'' requires referral to the DOD IG of senior 
official misconduct, including allegations of a violation of criminal 
law or conflict of interest law. If a DOD attorney learns of improper 
activities by an official who has sought his or her legal advice but is 
unwilling to follow it, the attorney should immediately notify his or 
her legal supervisor (or the senior lawyer in the next higher level of 
his or her organization) for review and appropriate action by that 
higher level attorney. This is the appropriate avenue to escalate 
concerns to ensure that corrective action is promptly taken.
    Question. Do you believe that the present limits on pro bono 
activities of government attorneys are generally correct as a matter of 
policy or does the policy need to be reviewed?
    Answer. To my knowledge, the present limits on pro bono activities 
are appropriate. That said, I am aware that there are a number of 
opportunities for DOD attorneys to be involved in many types of pro 
bono activities. If confirmed, for example, I intend to encourage DOD 
attorneys to participate in bar association activity. I believe that 
involvement by DOD attorneys in professional legal associations 
contributes to professional development.
    Question. In your view, do the laws, regulations, and guidelines 
that establish the rules of professional responsibility for attorneys 
in DOD provide adequate guidance?
    Answer. With respect to professional responsibility rules in DOD, I 
am aware that all DOD attorneys are required to be licensed to practice 
in a State, the District of Columbia, or a United States commonwealth 
or territory. DOD attorneys must also adhere to the highest standards 
of professional conduct, including compliance with the rules of 
professional conduct of their State bar(s) and any supplemental 
requirements imposed by their DOD component. If confirmed, I will 
examine the adequacy of the professional responsibility rules for 
lawyers in the Office of the DOD General Counsel and the DLSA, and make 
appropriate modifications or issue supplemental guidance if warranted.
                 role in the officer promotion process
    Question. In your view, what is the role of the General Counsel of 
DOD in ensuring the integrity and proper functioning of the officer 
promotion process?
    Answer. It is essential that the integrity and independence of the 
promotion selection process be maintained. Based on my prior experience 
as General Counsel of the Air Force, I know that the Secretary of each 
Service, in consultation with his or her own general counsel and Judge 
Advocate General, has the initial responsibility to ensure that the 
promotion selection process for both regular and Reserve officers is in 
compliance with law and DOD policy. I am also aware that all reports of 
promotion selection boards are reviewed by the Office of the DOD 
General Counsel prior to final action on the report by the Secretary or 
Deputy Secretary of Defense. If the DOD General Counsel determines that 
a promotion selection board fails to conform to law or policy, it would 
be the duty of the General Counsel to inform the Secretary or Deputy 
Secretary of Defense of the irregularities and to recommend appropriate 
corrective action. Further, in providing advice to the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the General 
Counsel should ensure that officer promotion policies promulgated in 
DOD regulations fairly and accurately reflect provisions of law set out 
in title 10.
    Question. What is the role of the General Counsel of DOD, if any, 
in reviewing and providing potentially adverse information pertaining 
to a nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Office of the DOD General 
Counsel reviews all nomination packages pertaining to general and flag 
officers with attributed adverse information before the package is 
forwarded to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense for approval. 
The General Counsel ensures that any adverse information attributed to 
such officers is supported by evidence in the associated reports of 
investigation. I am informed that the DOD General Counsel frequently 
provides specific advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the 
Secretary of Defense concerning difficult or unusual cases. The General 
Counsel also shares responsibility for ensuring that adverse 
information communicated to the Armed Services Committee is provided in 
an accurate, comprehensive, and timely manner. Further, I am advised 
that the DOD Office of General Counsel is actively involved in ensuring 
that the Armed Services Committee is notified in a timely manner about 
recently initiated investigations involving officers pending 
confirmation.
             litigation involving the department of defense
    Question. In your opinion, what is the relationship between DOD and 
the Department of Justice with respect to litigation involving DOD?
    Answer. The Department of Justice has statutory responsibility to 
represent the United States, its agencies, and its officers, including 
DOD, in all litigation matters. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 516. However, DOD 
attorneys work directly with counsel at the Department of Justice in 
cases in which DOD, or one or more of its components or officials, is a 
party or has an interest. DOD attorneys review pleadings before they 
are filed with the courts, conduct and direct discovery, participate in 
making major litigation decisions, and in some cases serve as members 
of trial teams.
    Question. In your view, does the Department need more independence 
and resources to conduct its own litigation or to improve upon its 
current supporting role?
    Answer. If confirmed, I am sure I will review this issue.
                       court of appeals decision
    Question. On January 4, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of National 
Center for Manufacturing Sciences v. Department of Defense, 199 F. 3d 
507 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court concluded that ``Because of the 
existence of 10 U.S.C. section 114, it is clear that any monies 
appropriated for National Center for Manufacturing Sciences by Congress 
for research must be authorized before they can be appropriated and 
distributed''; and ``Because 10 U.S.C. section 114(a)(2) requires 
authorization of these funds before they become available, 
appropriation alone is insufficient.''
    What is your view of the court's decision in this case and its 
implications regarding the obligation of funds that are appropriated, 
but not authorized?
    Answer. I am generally aware of this case. It was decided while I 
was General Counsel of the Air Force. In addition, I am aware that 
there is doubt about whether funds can be utilized that are 
appropriated but not authorized. In my experience, situations where 
funds have been appropriated but not authorized are often complex and 
may involve unique statutory language. As a result, if confirmed, I 
hope and expect that the Department, and the DOD General Counsel, will 
continue its practice of working closely with our oversight committees 
whenever this situation appears to be presented.
               role in military personnel policy matters
    Question. What role, if any, should the General Counsel play in 
military personnel policy and individual cases, including cases before 
the Service boards for the correction of military records?
    Answer. The potential range of issues that might require legal 
advice from the DOD General Counsel's office is very broad. The Office 
of General Counsel provides legal advice with respect to policy issues 
pertaining to military personnel, working closely with the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, which has 
overall responsibility for departmental guidance for the correction 
boards.
                            major challenges
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting 
the next General Counsel of DOD?
    Answer. Regardless of the substantive issues facing the Department, 
the military and civilian attorneys in the Department must work 
collaboratively to provide the highest quality, timely service to the 
Department and its leadership.
    Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these 
challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work closely with both the senior 
civilian and military attorneys across the Department to build the 
critical relationships necessary to successfully serve our clients in 
the highest traditional of public service.
                         most serious problems
    Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in 
the performance of the functions of the General Counsel of DOD?
    Answer. There is always room for improvement, but I believe the DOD 
General Counsel's office is one of the finest law offices I have 
encountered, with many talented, dedicated, and extraordinary career 
professionals. Since I last worked in the Pentagon, the challenges 
facing DOD General Counsel have become far more complex in the post-
September 11 world. It will be the highest honor of my professional 
career to lead this fine group of men and women in meeting those 
challenges.
    Question. What management actions and timelines would you establish 
to address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage the Department's senior 
civilian and military attorneys to work collaboratively to provide 
timely legal advice of the highest quality to our clients.
    Question. What do you see as the greatest legal problems facing the 
Department in the coming year?
    Answer. The world has changed since I last worked in the Pentagon 
in January 2001, and my single greatest reason for wanting to return to 
public service is to help combat international terrorism. I was a 
personal witness to the events of September 11, 2001. We must imagine, 
prepare for, and try to prevent the next attack, not the last one, and 
the greatest challenge of the DOD General Counsel going forward will be 
to find legal solutions and the best legal advice to promote our 
national security while safeguarding our individual liberties and 
American values.
    Question. Does the Office of the General Counsel have the resources 
to deal with these problems and do its everyday work?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will assess whether the resources available 
to the DOD General Counsel are sufficient to perform the tasks 
described above.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the General Counsel of the 
DOD?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of 
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by 
a duly constituted committee, or to consult with the committee 
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing 
such documents?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
             Question Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka
                         guantanamo bay reviews
    1. Senator Akaka. Mr. Johnson, DOD conducts Administrative Review 
Boards at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) to determine if a detainee will be 
released, transferred, or retained. According to a Pentagon spokesman 
on the GTMO issue, ``Since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or 
are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from the 
detention camp.'' This number has increased since a March 2008 Pentagon 
report cited 37 former detainees had been suspected of terrorist 
activities. In your view, to what extent has the Administrative Review 
Boards been able to establish effectively mitigation of risk that a 
released/transferred detainee will return to the fight?
    Mr. Johnson. I am aware of Administrative Review Boards and the 
role they play. However, I do not have enough information about 
Administrative Review Boards at this point to comment on their 
effectiveness, including whether Administrative Review Boards 
effectively consider the risk that a detainee will ``return to the 
fight.'' If confirmed, I expect to examine this issue carefully as part 
of the detainee review ordered by the President.
                                 ______
                                 
               Question Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
                sexual assaults in iraq and afghanistan
    2. Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Johnson, untold numbers of sexual 
assaults have been committed in Iraq and Afghanistan by executive 
branch contractors and employees. In 2007, I sent letters regarding 
sexual assault to the Secretaries of Defense and State and the Attorney 
General. On December 13, 2007, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Gates, 
requesting that he launch an investigation by the Defense Department's 
Inspector General (DOD/IG) into rape and sexual assault cases in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Following my letters, the DOD/IG stated that the Army 
Criminal Investigation Command (CID) investigated 41 sexual assaults in 
Iraq in 2005, 45 sexual assaults in 2006, and 38 sexual assaults in 
2007. These numbers are limited to only 3 years' worth of 
investigations by the Army in Iraq. They do not include investigations 
for both theaters of operations nor all the Services operating in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Consequently, there could be many additional 
investigations and assaults that have not been investigated. Also, 
because the DOD/IG would not provide information on the status of its 
investigations, it remains unclear how many of these cases have been 
prosecuted and/or processed within the military or criminal justice 
systems. If confirmed, how will you work with your counterparts at the 
Departments of State, Justice, and other executive branch departments 
with regard to contractor crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Mr. Johnson. Regrettably, as you state, there have been reported 
cases of sexual assaults committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. By any 
measure, these numbers are unacceptable. Even one case of sexual 
assault is one too many. In 2004, DOD created the Sexual Assault and 
Prevention Office to establish policy and procedures to address the 
various issues and difficulties encountered by victims of sexual 
assault worldwide. I understand also that attorneys of the Office of 
the General Counsel have been instrumental in providing legal advice 
and guidance in the development and implementation of those various 
policies. I am told that attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel 
work closely with Department of Justice officials on all reported cases 
of crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan where there is the 
possibility of prosecution under the Military Extraterritorial 
Jurisdiction Act or other Federal criminal jurisdiction, and cases 
involving civilians during contingency operations for which the 
recently-expanded jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
is available. If I am confirmed, I will see to it that the Office of 
the General Counsel will continue to be in the forefront of these 
efforts to hold accountable those who commit crimes while serving with 
or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States, as well as 
civilian contractors or employees of other Federal agencies whose 
employment relates to supporting the DOD mission overseas.
                                 ______
                                 
                Question Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
                       breakdown of communication
    3. Senator Pryor. Mr. Johnson, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
report of its Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody 
discovered a fundamental breakdown in communication between the 
respective Services' Counsels and that of DOD General Counsel. Such a 
breakdown could even be interpreted as General Counsel's blatant 
disregard for the opinion and counsel from the uniformed services. I 
believe the committee's report is quite clear about this correlation. 
As General Counsel to the Secretary of Defense, how will you establish 
a better working relationship with the Services to keep such a 
breakdown in communication from ever happening again?
    Mr. Johnson. I was General Counsel of the Air Force from October 
1998 to January 2001. As such, I appreciate the role the Service 
General Counsels play and their importance within the overall DOD legal 
community. Further, while Air Force General Counsel, I had extensive 
experience working in a collegial and collaborative fashion with The 
Judge Advocate General of the Air Force and his staff to deliver 
effective legal service and advice to the Air Force's leadership. If 
confirmed as General Counsel of DOD, I intend to continue that kind of 
positive working relationship with all Judge Advocates General and the 
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    As I stated during my testimony on January 15, my approach to legal 
analysis includes hearing from other senior counsel, such as The Judge 
Advocates General, as well as junior military and civilian lawyers 
working on the issue. Moreover, if I know that the Department's 
military lawyers have a strong view on a matter, I have in the past, 
and expect in the future, if confirmed, to include The Judge Advocates 
General collaboratively in discussions and deliberations on such 
issues. I believe that having the input of a cross-section of the 
Department's lawyers is important to being able to provide the best 
legal advice to the senior civilian and military leadership.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
                               detainees
    4. Senator McCain. Mr. Johnson, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 
provides that no individual in the custody or under the physical 
control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or 
physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
treatment or punishment. Do you agree that this standard applies to all 
detainees in U.S. custody, including those detained by the military but 
who may be subject to interrogation by other U.S. Government agencies?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.

    5. Senator McCain. Mr. Johnson, if confirmed, how do you intend to 
ensure the standard is followed by U.S. forces worldwide?
    Mr. Johnson. If confirmed, as part of the detainee review ordered 
by the President, I intend to examine thoroughly all detainee-related 
regulations and directives to ensure that this standard is clearly and 
effectively communicated throughout the Department and to U.S. forces 
worldwide.

                             guantanamo bay
    6. Senator McCain. Mr. Johnson, President-elect Obama has said he 
wants to close the military detention facility at GTMO. If confirmed, 
how would you go about executing the President-elect's policy? How 
would you approach this challenge?
    Mr. Johnson. The President has directed the closure of the 
detention facilities at GTMO, in an Executive order signed on January 
22, 2009. If confirmed, I expect to provide legal advice to the 
Department as it works closely with other departments and agencies to 
implement all aspects of this important Executive order.
                                 ______
                                 
              Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                             guantanamo bay
    7. Senator Collins. Mr. Johnson, President-elect Obama has 
indicated his desire to close the detention facility at Naval Station 
Guantanamo Bay. What would be your recommendation to Secretary Gates as 
to what to do with the detainees once GTMO is closed?
    Mr. Johnson. The President has directed the closure of the 
detention facilities at GTMO, in an Executive order signed on January 
22, 2009. If confirmed, I expect to provide legal advice to the 
Department as it works closely with other departments and agencies to 
implement all aspects of this important Executive order. At this point, 
I do not have specific recommendations for Secretary Gates about what 
to do with any remaining detainees once GTMO is closed. In my view, 
decisions concerning the detainees should be guided by several 
principles: adherence to the laws and American values; public safety; 
bringing to justice those detainees who can and should be prosecuted; 
and the risk of recidivism, i.e., the risk that a detainee released or 
transferred could return to the fight.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Jeh Charles Johnson follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                  January 20, 2009.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Jeh Charles Johnson, of New York, to be General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense, vice William J. Haynes II, resigned.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Jeh Charles Johnson, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
                 Biographical Sketch of Jeh C. Johnson
    Jeh Charles Johnson is a partner in the New York City-based law 
firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP.
    Mr. Johnson's career has been a mixture of successful private law 
practice (as an experienced trial lawyer) and distinguished public 
service (as a Federal prosecutor and presidential appointee). In 
private practice, Mr. Johnson has personally tried some of the highest 
stakes commercial cases of recent years. At age 47, he was elected a 
Fellow in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers. His 
experience as a trial lawyer began in 1989-1991, as an Assistant United 
States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where he 
prosecuted public corruption cases.
    In 1998, Mr. Johnson left Paul, Weiss for 27 months when President 
Clinton appointed him General Counsel of the Department of the Air 
Force. In 2004, Mr. Johnson served as Special Counsel to John Kerry's 
presidential campaign. He was also actively involved in Barack Obama's 
presidential campaign as an advisor on national security and 
international law issues. In January 2007, Mr. Johnson was nominated by 
the bipartisan New York State Commission on Judicial Nomination to be 
Chief Judge of New York. The incumbent Judith Kaye was reappointed by 
Governor Spitzer. Mr. Johnson was rated ``well-qualified'' for the 
position by the New York State Bar Association--the highest rating it 
can give.
    While in private practice, Mr. Johnson is active in professional 
and community activities. From 2001-2004, he was Chair of the Judiciary 
Committee of the New York City Bar Association, which rates and 
approves all the Federal, state and local judges in New York City. He 
now serves on the Executive Committee of the City Bar.
    Mr. Johnson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the 
American Law Institute. He currently serves on the Board of Governors 
of the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and the Board of 
Advisors of the National Institute of Military Justice. Mr. Johnson is 
a past or present director or trustee of Adelphi University, the 
Federal Bar Council, the Fund for Modem Courts, the New York Community 
Trust, the Legal Aid Society, the Delta Sigma Theta Research and 
Education Fund, the Vera Institute, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil 
Rights Under Law, the New York Hall of Science, the Film Society of 
Lincoln Center and the New York City Bar Fund, Inc. in 1995-1997.
    Mr. Johnson graduated from Morehouse College in 1979 and Columbia 
Law School in 1982.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals 
nominated from civilian life by the President to positions 
requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a 
form that details the biographical, financial, and other 
information of the nominee. The form executed by Jeh Charles 
Johnson in connection with his nomination follows:]
                          UNITED STATES SENATE
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              Room SR-228
                       Washington, DC 20510-6050
                             (202) 224-3871
                    COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM
      BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES
    Instructions to the Nominee: Complete all requested information. If 
more space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the 
form and the question number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation 
of your answer applies.
                    Part A--Biographical Information
    Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in 
this part of the form will be made available in committee offices for 
public inspection prior to the hearings and will also be published in 
any hearing record as well as made available to the public.

    1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
    Jeh Charles Johnson.

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

    3. Date of nomination:
    Intention to nominate issued January 8, 2009.

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

    5. Date and place of birth:
    September 11, 1957; New York, NY.

    6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
    Married to Dr. Susan M. DiMarco.

    7. Names and ages of children:
    Jeh Charles Johnson, Jr. (born September 19, 1994).
    Natalie Marguerite Johnson (born December 6, 1995).

    8. Education: List secondary and higher education institutions, 
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted.
    Morehouse College, August 1975-May 1979, B.A. 1979.
    Columbia University School of Law, August 1979-May 1982, J.D. 1982.

    9. Employment record: List all jobs held since college or in the 
last 10 years, whichever is less, including the title or description of 
job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment.
    Associate; Sullivan & Cromwell; 125 Broad Street; New York, NY; 
September 1982-October 1984.
    Associate; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; 1285 
Avenue of the Americas; New York, NY; November 1994-December 1988.
    Assistant United States Attorney; One Saint Andrews Plaza; New 
York, NY; January 1989-December 1991.
    Associate, then partner; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 
LLP; 1285 Avenue of the Americas; New York, NY; January 1992-October 
1998.
    Adjunct lecturer of law (in trial practice) (volunteer, part-time); 
Columbia University School of Law; 435 West 116th Street; New York, NY; 
January 1995-April 1997.
    General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force; Room 4E856; 
1740 Air Force Pentagon; Washington, DC; October 1998-January 2001.
    Partner; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; 1285 Avenue 
of the Americas; New York, NY; January 2001-present.

    10. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, 
honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, 
or local governments, other than those listed above.
    Transition Team for President-elect Barack Obama, November 2008-
December 2008.
    Transition Team for NYS Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, November 
2006-December 2006.
    Congressional Intern, The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.; 
Poughkeepsie, NY; May 1980-August 1980.
    Senate Intern; The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan; Washington, DC; 
May 1978-August 1978.
    Congressional Intern; The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.; Washington, 
DC; July 1977.

    11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an 
officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, 
or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other 
business enterprise, educational, or other institution.
    Partner; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP (law firm).
    Board of Governors, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.
    Director, Federal Bar Foundation.
    Member and Executive Committee member, New York City Bar 
Association.

    12. Memberships: List all memberships and offices currently held in 
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and 
other organizations.
    See the response to question 11 above.
    Member, American Bar Association.
    Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers.
    Member, Counsel on Foreign Relations.
    Member, Rockefeller Center Club (lunch club).
    Member, Nisi Prius (lunch club).
    Member, Bradford Swim & Tennis Club (local club for family in New 
Jersey).
    Member, American Law Institute.
    Member, Sigma Pi Phi fraternity.
    Member, National Institute of Military Justice.

    13. Political affiliations and activities:
    (a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or 
any public office for which you have been a candidate.
    Member, Dutchess County (New York) Republican Committee (1980-
1981).
    Member, New York County Democratic Committee (1993-1994).
    Delegate, Democratic National Convention (2008).
    (b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered 
to all political parties or election committees during the last 5 
years.
    National Finance Committee, Obama for America (2007-2008).
    New York State Counsel to Obama for America (2008).
    Special Counsel, John Kerry for President, Inc. (2008).
    See also the response 13(c) below.
    (c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $100 or more for the past 5 years.
    10/18/2008, Nebraskans for Kleeb $500.
    10/05/2008, Jill Morgenthaler for Congress, $250.
    09/30/2008, Linda Stender for Congress, $500.
    09/26/2008, New Jersey Democratic State Committee, $5,000.
    09/23/2008, Bill Richardson for President Inc., $1,000.
    09/16/2008, Democratic National Committee, $28,460.
    07/31/2008, Hillary Clinton for President, $2,300.
    07/29/2008, Friends of Kevin Parker, $1,000.
    07/24/2008, Obama Victory Fund, $2,300.
    07/09/2008, Committee to Re-Elect Eric Adams, $1,000.
    05/29/2008, Friends of Mark Warner, $2,300.
    05/07/2008, Lautenberg for Senate, $1,000.
    04/23/2008, People for Chris Gregoire, $500.
    04/22/2008, Andre Carson for Congress, $2,000.
    04/20/2008, Senate 2008, $2,000.
    04/01/2008, Patrick Murphy for Congress, $2,300.
    03/29/2008, Paul Hodes for Congress, $1,300.
    03/31/2008, Gillibrand for Congress, $500.
    03/21/2008, Waltner for Congress, $500.
    03/11/2008, Al Franken for Senate, $1,000.
    03/07/2008, Karim Camara, $1,500.
    02/13/2008, Cyrus Vance, Jr. for District Attorney, $1,000.
    12/31/2007, Paul Hodes for Congress, $1,000.
    12/01/2007, John Hall for Congress, $500.
    09/30/2007, Friends of Dick Durbin Committee, $500.
    09/25/2007, Democratic Governors Association, $500.
    09/25/2007, Linda Stender for Congress, $1,000.
    09/18/2007, Our Common Values PAC, $500.
    08/21/2007, Citizens for Harkin, $2,000.
    07/09/2007, Conyers for Congress, $2,000.
    06/13/2007, Friends for Gregory Meeks, $500.
    05/31/2007, Patrick Murphy for Congress, $2,300.
    03/27/2007, Friends of Jim Clyburn, $1,500.
    03/01/2007, Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. General Election Legal and 
Accounting Compliance Fund, -$2,000.
    02/09/2007, Linda Stender for Congress, $300.
    01/23/2007, Obama for America, $2,300.
    12/11/2006, Hopefund Inc., $4,000.
    11/04/2006, Harold Ford Jr. for Tennessee, $1,500.
    09/21/2006, Harold Ford Jr. for Tennessee, $2,000.
    09/07/2006, Linda Stender for Congress, $1,600.
    08/18/2006, Richardson for Governor, $1,000.
    08/04/2006, James Webb for U.S. Senate, $2,100.
    06/25/2006, Patterson for Attorney General, $200.
    06/17/2006, Linda Stender for Congress, $500.
    06/15/2006, Hopefund Inc., $1,000.
    06/12/2005, Democratic National Committee, $2,000.
    06/07/2006, Spitzer 2006, $2,000.
    06/06/2006, Menendez for Senate, $2,100.
    06/06/2006, Menendez for Senate, $2,100.
    05/26/2006, Friends of Hillary, $1,000.
    05/20/2006, Lee Harris for Memphis, $250.
    04/13/2006, Democratic National Committee, $1,000.
    03/28/2006, Bill Nelson for Senate, $1,000.
    03/20/2006, David Yassky for Congress, $250.
    02/06/2006, Harold Ford Jr. for Tennessee, $1,000.
    12/06/2005, Friends of Rahm Emanuel, $2,000.
    11/07/2005, Cam Kerry Committee, $500.
    11/02/2005, Spitzer 2006, $1,000.
    05/15/2005, Spitzer 2006, $1,000.
    04/25/2005, Carol March for Mayor, $250.
    04/13/2005, Deval Patrick, $500.
    01/08/2005, Mark Green for Attorney General, $1,000.
    11/23/2004, Jun Choi for Assembly, $100.
    09/12/2004, Kerry-Edwards Victory 2004, $1,000.
    07/08/2004, Obama for Illinois Inc., $250.
    06/08/2004, Obama for Illinois Inc., $250.
    06/06/2004, Garodnick for New York, $1,000.
    05/19/2004, Spitzer 2006, $1,000.
    05/07/2004, Max Sandlin for Congress, $100.
    04/23/2004, Texas Fund, $500.
    04/05/2004, Rahm Emanuel for Congress, $1,000.
    03/01/2004, Rangel for Congress, $100.

    14. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special 
recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.
    Recipient, DOD Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service, 2001.

    15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of 
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have 
written.
    ``Mock Juries, Why Use Them?'' Litigation Magazine (article on use 
of mock juries, written in July 2008, to be published).

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

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

                           Signature and Date
    I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement 
on Biographical and Financial Information and that the information 
provided therein is, to the best of my knowledge, current, accurate, 
and complete.
                                               Jeh Charles Johnson.
    This 12th day of January, 2009.

    [The nomination of Jeh Charles Johnson was reported to the 
Senate by Chairman Levin on February 5, 2009, with the 
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2009.]


 NOMINATIONS OF DR. ASHTON B. CARTER TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
 FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS; DR. JAMES N. MILLER, JR., 
  TO BE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY; AND AMBASSADOR 
    ALEXANDER R. VERSHBOW TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 
                     INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2009

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room 
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin 
(chairman) presiding.
    Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 
McCaskill, Hagan, Begich, Burris, McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 
Chambliss, Thune, Burr, and Vitter.
    Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff 
director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk.
    Majority staff members present: Madelyn R. Creedon, 
counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Mark 
R. Jacobson, professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, 
counsel; Peter K. Levine, general counsel; William G.P. 
Monahan, counsel; Russell L. Shaffer, counsel; and William K. 
Sutey, professional staff member.
    Minority staff members present: Joseph W. Bowab, Republican 
staff director; Pablo E. Carrillo, minority investigative 
counsel; Richard H. Fontaine, Jr., deputy Republican staff 
director; Paul C. Hutton IV, professional staff member; Daniel 
A. Lerner, professional staff member; David M. Morriss, 
minority counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff 
member; Christopher J. Paul, professional staff member; and 
Richard F. Walsh, minority counsel.
    Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Jessica L. 
Kingston, and Christine G. Lang.
    Committee members' assistants present: Jay Maroney, 
assistant to Senator Kennedy; Christopher Griffin and Vance 
Serchuk, assistants to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, 
assistant to Senator Reed; Christopher Caple, assistant to 
Senator Bill Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator Bayh; 
Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Michael Harney, 
assistant to Senator Hagan; Brady King, assistant to Senator 
Burris; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant to Senator Inhofe; 
Lenwood Landrum and Sandra Luff, assistants to Senator 
Sessions; Clyde A. Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; 
Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Dan Fisk and Brian 
W. Walsh, assistants to Senator Martinez; Chris Joyner and 
Kevin Kane, assistants to Senator Burr; Michael T. Wong, 
assistant to Senator Vitter; and Chip Kennett, assistant to 
Senator Collins.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN

    Chairman Levin. Good morning, everybody. The committee 
today considers the nominations of Ashton Carter to be Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
(AT&L); James Miller to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy; and Alexander Vershbow to be Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for International Security Affairs.
    Each of our nominees has a long track record of public 
service. Dr. Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for International Security Policy from 1993 to 1996. Since that 
time he's continued to serve as a member of the Defense Science 
Board and the Defense Policy Board, co-chair of the Review 
Panel on Future Directions for the Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency, member of the National Missile Defense White Team, and 
a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on 
International Security and Arms Control.
    Dr. Miller served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Requirements, Plans, and Counterproliferation Policy from 
1997 to 2000 and as a professional staff member for the House 
Armed Services Committee from 1988 to 1992.
    Mr. Vershbow is a career foreign service officer who has 
served as Ambassador to the Republic of Korea from 2005 to 
2008, as Ambassador to Russia from 2001 to 2005, and as 
Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
from 1998 to 2001.
    We welcome our witnesses and we welcome their families to 
today's hearing. Senior Department of Defense (DOD) officials 
put in long hours every day. We appreciate the sacrifices that 
our nominees and their families--and we emphasize that--are 
willing to make to serve their country.
    Dr. Carter, if confirmed, will assume leadership of DOD's 
acquisition organization at a particularly difficult time. 
According to recent estimates, the Department's 95 Major 
Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) have exceeded their 
research and development budgets by an average of 40 percent, 
seen their acquisition costs grow by an average of over 25 
percent, and experienced an average schedule delay of almost 2 
years.
    Last summer, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
reported that cost overruns on these major acquisition programs 
now total $295 billion over the original estimates, even though 
we have cut unit quantities and reduced performance 
expectations on many programs in an effort to hold down costs. 
These problems are the consequence of the Department's 
continuing failure to develop reasonable cost and schedule 
estimates at the beginning of program, failure to establish 
realistic performance expectations, failure to use mature 
technologies, and failure to avoid costly changes to program 
requirements, production quantities, and funding levels in the 
middle of ongoing programs.
    Over the last few years, these problems have been 
compounded by an alarming lack of acquisition planning across 
the Department, the excessive use of time and materials 
contracts, undefinitized contracts and other open-ended 
commitments with DOD funds, and a pervasive failure to perform 
contract oversight and management functions necessary to 
protect the taxpayers' interest.
    Dr. Miller will join DOD when almost 200,000 U.S. soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines are deployed in harm's way in Iraq 
and Afghanistan alone. Dr. Miller will play a key role in 
facing the challenge of managing the transition between two 
ongoing wars, drawing down in Iraq as we build up in 
Afghanistan. He will help shape our policies in other key areas 
around the world, from countering the potential threat of a 
nuclear Iran to developing a common approach with our 
international partners for addressing North Korea. He will also 
help lead the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which 
should get underway in the near future.
    Ambassador Vershbow when he becomes Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for International Security Affairs will have the 
responsibility for helping to develop the Department's policies 
relating to Iraq, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Eurasia. 
In this capacity he will oversee our relations with our NATO 
partners who are contributing to coalition operations in 
Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere. He is also likely to play a 
key role as we seek to improve our relations with Russia, a 
country where he served with distinction as Ambassador for 5 
years.
    I look forward to the testimony of our nominees on these 
issues.
    Senator McCain is on his way, and in a way it's a break 
that he's a little bit late because that gives us an 
opportunity to call on Senator Lieberman, who has another 
responsibility as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee in just a few minutes. So we're 
going to call on you, Senator Lieberman, for your introduction. 
We're delighted you're here.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
                      STATE OF CONNECTICUT

    Senator Lieberman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate your courtesy. I'm sorry that I can't stay for the 
hearing because we have one in Homeland Security and some 
nominees.
    I must say, this gives me a different perspective on the 
committee and the staff, being at this lower altitude.
    Chairman Levin. We hope you'll remember that. [Laughter.]
    Senator Lieberman. Exactly. I was going to say, I will show 
you more than the normal respect than I do from this altitude.
    Thank you. I'm here to introduce and to support the 
nomination of Dr. Ash Carter, but I must say that these are 
three remarkable individuals. We are very fortunate that they 
are prepared to serve our country, and I think it shows 
President Obama's good judgment and really high standards in 
making these picks.
    I must say as a U. Conn. [University of Connecticut] 
Huskies fan that my confidence in the President's judgment has 
been shaken somewhat by his failure to put the Huskies in the 
Final Four for the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic 
Association] brackets.
    Chairman Levin. He has a lot on his plate, so I think it's 
understandable.
    Senator Lieberman. I understand. My confidence has been 
shored up by these three nominees.
    I am here to introduce Ash Carter. I suppose that my 
constituency claim to Ash is that he spent 4 great years of his 
life in New Haven, CT, at college. But we've come to know each 
other very well over the ensuing years. I'm proud to consider 
him a friend. I've greatly benefited from his thinking on 
matters of national security. He has an extraordinary CV, which 
is before you: a double major, interestingly, in medieval 
history and physics at Yale; then a Rhodes scholarship and a 
doctorate at Oxford in theoretical physics.
    Of course, he comes to us now from his position on the 
faculty at the Kennedy Center at Harvard. He served on the 
Defense Science Board from 1991 to 1993, and then as Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He was 
in that position for 4 years, during his tenure led the multi-
billion dollar Cooperative Threat Reduction, the Nunn-Lugar 
Program supporting the removal of nuclear, biological, and 
chemical weapons from the former Soviet Union; and worked very 
closely with former Defense Secretary William Perry.
    He really brings a remarkable array of talents to this 
position of Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L. He combines 
both program execution experience with remarkable capability to 
both formulate and see through policy transformations. Ash 
Carter understands that the acquisition part of this position 
is of intense interest to members of this committee, to 
Congress, to the country, because of the persistent overruns in 
the cost of systems that we are acquiring. He understands our 
concern about the number and quality of acquisition personnel. 
I think he really will bring a tough, fresh, pro-taxpayer, pro-
national security view to this work.
    As I say, he has remarkable policy judgment and policy 
experience, which I think will benefit the Department overall 
on some of the major questions about, particularly in a 
resource-constrained environment, which systems should we 
acquire. For instance, how can we through the acquisition 
process implement the high hopes of the Goldwater-Nichols joint 
warfighting vision, which has been realized in many ways and 
still not fully in acquisition.
    I can go on a long time about Ash Carter. I will just say 
that I think we're very fortunate in him and his wonderful 
family that's with him, and that he's agreed to come back to 
Washington to serve our Nation. We will all be better and safer 
as a result of it, and of course I hope that our committee will 
recommend him favorably to the Senate.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. Your 
introduction's not only significant to Dr. Carter, it's very 
significant, of course, to us. Thank you for working this into 
your schedule. Senator Kennedy also has an introduction for Dr. 
Carter and we'll put a copy of that statement into the record 
here.
            Prepared Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
    It's a privilege to welcome Ash to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and I look forward to his confirmation as Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. I know that Ash has 
impressive plans for the Department of Defense and I look forward to 
working with him on a range of issues.
    Ash brings a wealth of experience to this position both from the 
private sector and his role as Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
International Security Policy under President Clinton. Most recently, 
he's been Ford Foundation Professor of Science and International 
Affairs at the Kennedy School at Harvard, where he led the faculty as 
Chair of the Department of International Relations, Security and 
Science. He is also a trustee at the Mitre Corporation and an adviser 
at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory and Draper Laboratory.
    Ash has been a respected leader in national security for many 
years. Now more than ever, the Nation needs his skills and commitment. 
I strongly support his nomination, and I look forward very much to his 
confirmation by the Senate.

    Senator McCain.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN

    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks, Senator Lieberman, for introducing our nominees 
today. Dr. Carter and Dr. Miller each have previously served in 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and Ambassador 
Vershbow, you have a distinguished career of service in the 
Foreign Service. I thank you all for your willingness to serve 
in these extraordinary positions of importance in DOD.
    Dr. Miller and Ambassador Vershbow, I expect that they're 
awaiting your arrival. Your responses to the committee's 
advance policy questions (APQs) reflect, I believe correctly, 
the high priority that must be placed on achieving success in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. I look forward to working with you.
    Dr. Carter, the need for comprehensive acquisition reform 
at DOD is an imperative. The American people can't afford the 
costly weapons procurement failures and mismanagement we've 
seen in the past. If confirmed as Under Secretary of Defense 
for AT&L, obviously you must ensure that acquisition 
decisionmaking is fiscally sound and responsive to our national 
security imperatives.
    Perhaps no two programs reflect the problems in DOD 
procurement more than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 
program and the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. The 
cost of the JSF program has increased 47 percent since 2001, 
from $65 million to $105 million per aircraft. What's even more 
troubling is that we don't know how much higher the cost of the 
program will go because the program is scheduled to buy 360 
aircraft under a cost reimbursable contract, with only 2 
percent of its development flight testing completed and 
critical technologies essential for the program remaining 
immature.
    Similarly, the FCS program, according to GAO, is ``unlikely 
to be executed within the Department's $159 billion cost 
estimate.'' In fact, consensus is emerging that the cost of 
that program is likely to balloon to over $200 billion. Yet, 
having already invested billions in that program, the Army is 
in many respects closer to the beginning of development than it 
is to the end.
    Adding to the existing litany of failed or failing major 
defense programs, the status of the JSF and FCS programs lead 
to the unavoidable conclusion that the current acquisition 
process is broken. I won't go into the presidential helicopter 
issue.
    Unless difficult decisions are made and serious reform 
measures undertaken, our ability to provide for our national 
security will be over time fundamentally compromised. The 
endless cycle of runaway costs, prolonged delivery schedules, 
and poor performance in the acquisition of major weapons has in 
my view mired us in a form of unilateral disarmament.
    Dr. Carter, your cumulative experience and expertise in a 
wide range of defense-related matters is notable. However, I do 
have concerns about your lack of in-depth experience in 
acquisition-related matters. I'll look forward to your telling 
us about that. By the same token, I understand that experience 
alone is no guarantee of success in the arena you're about to 
enter.
    I sincerely hope that you will bring needed clarity of 
vision and skill in management to this position. I look forward 
to your testimony.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
    Now, we do expect Senator Reed to be here at any moment to 
make his introduction of Dr. Miller, but we are going to 
proceed and if he is able to get here he will make that 
introduction at that time.
    I would suggest, Ambassador Vershbow, that you now move 
over one seat to your right and shift your name plate for us.
    I will ask you first for your opening statements. Dr. 
Carter, let me call on you first, and then I'll ask you the 
standard questions when you're all done with your statements. 
Dr. Carter.

   STATEMENT OF ASHTON B. CARTER, PH.D., NOMINEE TO BE UNDER 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS

    Dr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. Thank you for 
giving me the opportunity to appear before you as the nominee 
for the position of Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L. I 
thank Senator Lieberman for introducing me, and my wonderful 
wife Stephanie and my daughter Ava and my son Will for their 
support.
    I'm humbled, but challenged, by the magnitude of President 
Obama's, Secretary Gates', and this committee's needs for this 
job in these times, times in which the world is perilous, but 
moreover when the perils are changing rapidly, times of severe 
budget pressures against a background of economic crisis, and 
times of poor performance in how we conceive and buy the 
defense systems we need, poor performance that is widely 
acknowledged.
    What is not changing is that the world looks to the United 
States to use its power for good, and that power depends in the 
first measure on the impressive quality of the soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines who make up our military, but 
importantly also on the equipment and technology they have.
    I seek the consent of this committee and the Senate for 
this job. The constitutional phrase is ``advice and consent.'' 
I certainly require your consent. But in view of the challenges 
to the Department, I'm going to need your advice, too. Some of 
that advice is contained in your legislation, the Weapons 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. I've read it carefully and I 
endorse its aims. If confirmed, I pledge to you, Mr. Chairman, 
to you, Senator McCain, and the other members of this committee 
to benefit from your long experience and dedication in this 
field.
    The job of Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L has several 
dimensions and I'd like to address each one briefly in turn. 
First and foremost is to get under control the many troubled 
programs that are supposed to be supporting our troops, present 
and future. As this committee well knows, too many of these 
programs are failing their cost, schedule, and performance 
expectations, and some are failing even more fundamentally the 
test of whether they are needed for the future military 
challenges we are most likely to face.
    The state of these programs is not acceptable to the 
warfighter or to the taxpayer, and job one for the person who 
occupies the position for which I appear before you as the 
nominee is to get them under control.
    I've had 25 years of experience working with and for DOD 
and its supporting defense industry and laboratories. I began 
my work in DOD with Secretary Caspar Weinberger on technical 
aspects of space, nuclear, command and control, and strategic 
defense programs in the 1980s. In the 1990s I was privileged to 
serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense.
    In between government service, I have been a faculty member 
at Harvard's Kennedy School, director of its largest research 
center, and chair of the International and Global Affairs 
Faculty, a senior partner of Global Technology Partners, and a 
consultant and adviser to defense companies, to DOD 
laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development 
Centers (FFRDCs), a member of the Defense Science Board and of 
DOD's Threat Reduction Advisory Council.
    I believe I know the security challenges this Nation faces, 
the needs and workings of DOD, the nature of the defense 
industry and the demands upon it, and the views and policies 
laid down by this committee. I believe I know how to work with 
all parties over time to find the right path out of the woods 
for these many troubled programs, and if confirmed, I will try 
to do just that.
    A second challenge for the incumbent of this job is to 
reform the acquisition system itself so we don't get ourselves 
into this situation again. One problem among many that 
Secretary Gates has stressed and that is just unacceptable in 
time of war is the apparent inability of the acquisition system 
to provide systems in months rather than years or even decades.
    I concur with Secretary Gates that there is no silver 
bullet that will fix defense acquisition, and indeed the many 
troubled programs in DOD today--and Senator McCain has named 
two of them--have each its own history and reasons for getting 
into trouble, and no changes to the acquisition system itself 
can substitute for good sense, good discipline, alignment of 
what we buy with what our strategy requires, and above all good 
people performing the acquisition function. But it's also true, 
to paraphrase Eisenhower, that the right system might not 
guarantee success, but the wrong system guarantees failure.
    I participated in many panels and studies that have 
assessed the defense acquisition system going back to the 
1980s. I've even written a few books about it. I've also served 
for nearly 2 decades as a board member and consultant to the 
MITRE Corporation, which is DOD's systems engineering and 
acquisition support FFRDC. I've a strong familiarity with the 
acquisition practices and key programs of DOD and the 
Intelligence Community and also a strong commitment to reform.
    A third critical responsibility of this job is to oversee 
the science and technology (S&T) efforts of the Department. As 
a physicist, I have a deep appreciation for the fact that S&T 
is the key source of this Nation's comparative advantage in 
military affairs. But this advantage is not a birthright and 
needs constant attention, especially in a world where the 
science and engineering base outside of defense and outside of 
this country is growing rapidly.
    I keep closely abreast of the development in defense 
technology, among other ways, through my affiliations with the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory and 
the Draper Laboratory and through membership in various panels 
of the National Academy of Sciences. If confirmed, I will be 
committed to preserving DOD's technological edge.
    Fourth and finally, the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L 
plays a key role in our nuclear deterrent and in other 
strategic issues--missile defense, space, and cyber. I've been 
deeply involved in technical aspects of nuclear weapons and 
missile defense since the 1980s, when I worked on technical 
aspects of MX missile basing in the Strategic Defense 
Initiative. I conducted the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) 
for President Clinton and, through the Nunn-Lugar program for 
which I had responsibility, worked to de-nuclearize Ukraine, 
Kazakhstan, and Belarus. More recently, I have served as expert 
working group chair for the Commission on the Future Strategic 
Posture of the United States, the so-called Perry-Schlesinger 
Commission.
    As far as missile defense is concerned, that was the first 
area of defense technology I ever worked in, assessing the 
possibility that lasers or neutral particle beams could 
intercept ascending ballistic missiles from space. I've written 
and edited two technical manuals on missile defense and for the 
last 10 years I've been a member of the Missile Defense 
Agency's (MDA) White Team.
    If confirmed, I will use this background to inform and 
implement the Nation's policies on these important programs in 
consultation with this committee.
    In sum, Mr. Chairman and members, I believe I have 
experience and demonstrated commitment relevant to each of the 
several dimensions of the important job for which you are 
considering me. But even more, I have a strong desire to help 
President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Congress put DOD on a 
solid strategic, programmatic, and budgetary path, where our 
troops and the taxpayer expect it.
    I look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Carter.
    Now, Senator Reed, we'll call on you to introduce Dr. 
Miller.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 
                          RHODE ISLAND

    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 
McCain, and my colleagues. I'm delighted to be able to 
introduce Dr. James Miller, the President's nominee for Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Dr. Miller has a 
distinguished academic career, a B.A. at Stanford and a 
master's and doctorate in public policy from the Kennedy School 
of Government at Harvard University. He has served on the Hill 
as a staff member for the Armed Services Committee in the House 
of Representatives from 1988 to 1992. He served in the Pentagon 
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Requirements, 
Plans, and Counterproliferation Policy. He has advised the 
Defense Science Board. He's been recognized for his service.
    He brings to this task both great academic preparation and 
great practical experience, both in DOD and here on Capitol 
Hill. He has been working for the last several years, not only 
with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, but 
also for the Center for New American Security. He's been 
thoughtfully pursuing the whole range of policy issues which 
will confront both himself and Secretary Flournoy. He has the 
experience, the qualifications, and the character to do a 
remarkable job.
    I also want to recognize the fact that he is supported by 
an extraordinarily strong and decent family. His wife Adele is 
here. He has four of his five children here: Zoe, Colin, Lucas, 
and Adrienne. The fifth daughter, Allison, is at Pomona 
College, I guess watching this on some type of webcast, I'm 
told. His mother is here, Doris Miller; his sister Amy 
Lockhart; his nephew James Leipshur; and a special family 
friend, Brooks Hoffman. So I think if it were a simple show of 
hands, he'd be confirmed.
    I am delighted to be here and I want to thank you, Mr. 
Chairman and Senator McCain, for graciously allowing me to 
introduce the nominee. Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. I know how much Dr. Miller appreciates your 
introduction, and we do too. I'm sure we'll now call on him to 
live up to that introduction. Dr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF JAMES N. MILLER, JR., PH.D., NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY 
             UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY

    Dr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and 
members of the committee. I'm very grateful to Senator Reed for 
his kind introduction and for his strong leadership on national 
security over the years. I do want to also thank members of my 
family whom he introduced for being here and for their love and 
support.
    It is a great honor to be here before you today as 
President Obama's nominee for Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy. I want to thank President Obama for nominating me 
and I want to thank Secretary Gates, Deputy Secretary Lynn, and 
Under Secretary Flournoy for their support.
    As the chairman noted, with over 200,000 soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines deployed in harm's way in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and more around the world, it is a critical time for the 
country. Even as our military strives to succeed in current 
operations, it must also prepare for a wide spectrum of 
possible conflicts overseas, while coping with challenges in 
cyber space and outer space, and at the same time preparing to 
support the defense of our homeland.
    Secretary Gates has often talked about the need for a 
strategy that balances between the many competing demands on 
our military. If confirmed, I look forward to assisting in 
developing and refining such a strategy and in applying it in 
support of sound policy decisions that strengthen our military 
and that protect our Nation. If confirmed, I expect to spend 
much of my first year on the QDR and on congressionally-
mandated reviews on nuclear posture, missile defense, and space 
policy, among others.
    I believe that my background in government, the private 
sector, academia, and as director of studies at a think tank, 
as Senator Reed referred to, as well as time I have spent 
advising the Department in other capacities, has prepared me 
well for these major reviews and for the myriad other issues 
that would arise during my tenure.
    If confirmed, an important part of my job would also be 
assisting the Under Secretary in managing and leading the 
policy organization as a whole and helping to improve its 
effectiveness and its capacity to cope with the very complex 
strategic environment. I believe that my experience over the 
past 2 decades plus in the Pentagon and in both the private and 
nonprofit sectors provides a solid foundation for leading and 
managing in OSD Policy.
    I started my professional career over 20 years ago working 
for Les Aspin as a staffer on the House Armed Services 
Committee and had the great honor to serve during the Clinton 
administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. If 
confirmed, I will be humbled by the privilege to serve my 
country again, this time during a time of war.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, and members of the 
committee. I look forward to any questions.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Dr. Miller.
    Now Ambassador Vershbow.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ALEXANDER D. VERSHBOW, NOMINEE TO BE 
   ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 
                            AFFAIRS

    Ambassador Vershbow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator 
McCain, and members of the committee. It's an honor for me to 
appear before this committee as President Obama's nominee for 
the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
International Security Affairs. I'm very grateful to the 
President, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy for supporting 
my candidacy for this important position.
    I'm very pleased that my wife Lisa, who's been my partner 
during our 32-year journey in the foreign service, is here 
today. Unfortunately, our two grown sons, Benjamin and Gregory, 
weren't able to travel from New York and Boston to attend this 
hearing, but some close friends are here with their kids to 
represent ours.
    If confirmed for this position, I look forward to working 
with this committee and with other Members of Congress to shape 
a bipartisan policy toward the many national security 
challenges that confront our Nation, our allies, and our 
friends, and to seize the many opportunities that exist to 
resolve conflicts and establish a more peaceful world.
    The portfolio of the Assistant Secretary for International 
Security Affairs is a daunting one as it encompasses defense 
relations with the countries and international organizations of 
Europe, including NATO, the Middle East, and Africa. If I'm 
confirmed, among the many issues on which I'll advise the 
Secretary and Under Secretary, I see a number of especially 
urgent priorities:

          Implementing the President's strategy to end the war 
        in Iraq, draw down our forces, and develop a normal 
        long-term security relationship with a sovereign, 
        democratic Iraq;
          Combatting terrorism, preventing weapons of mass 
        destruction (WMD) proliferation, and strengthening 
        security and stability across the Middle East;
          Transforming NATO to meet the challenges of the 21st 
        century, while ensuring the success of the alliance's 
        current International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 
        mission in Afghanistan;
          Promoting a more cooperative security relationship 
        with Russia in areas of common interest, while also 
        strengthening the security and independence of other 
        European partners; and
          Developing the role of our new Africa Command 
        (AFRICOM) in helping build the capacity of African 
        nations and organizations to address security 
        challenges on the continent.

    I believe that my 32 years of experience in the foreign 
service equip me to deal with these and the many other security 
issues that are among the responsibilities of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. 
Throughout my State Department career I have worked very 
closely with DOD in shaping and implementing U.S. policy for 
the former Soviet Union and NATO, in contributing to U.S. 
efforts on nonproliferation and counterterrorism, and in 
managing a wide range of international conflicts and crises.
    Over the years I've had the privilege of working closely 
with the U.S. military in U.S.-Soviet arms negotiations, in two 
tours of duty at NATO when the alliance acted to end the 
conflicts in former Yugoslavia, and most recently in keeping 
the peace on the Korean Peninsula. I've come to respect the 
courage, vision, and dedication of our Armed Forces and I've 
become a true believer in the importance of close civil-
military coordination in meeting today's threats. Indeed, I 
think our success in Iraq and Afghanistan depends critically on 
our ability to craft a comprehensive strategy that integrates 
all the tools of national power, military and civilian, in 
support of our objectives.
    If confirmed, I will strive to embody the spirit of 
Defense-State cooperation that the President and Secretary 
Gates have called for.
    Once again, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this 
committee, I am honored to appear before you today. I look 
forward to hearing your views and ideas, both today and in the 
future, and I would be pleased to answer your questions. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
    Let me now ask you all the standard questions. Have you 
adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts 
of interest?
    Dr. Carter. Yes.
    Dr. Miller. Yes.
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken 
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the 
confirmation process?
    Dr. Miller. No.
    Dr. Carter. No.
    Ambassador Vershbow. No.
    Chairman Levin. Will you ensure your staff complies with 
deadlines established for requested communications, including 
questions for the record in hearings?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
    Dr. Carter. Yes.
    Dr. Miller. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses 
and briefers in response to congressional requests?
    Dr. Miller. Yes.
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
    Dr. Carter. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from 
reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
    Dr. Carter. Yes.
    Dr. Miller. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and 
testify upon request before this committee?
    Dr. Carter. Yes.
    Dr. Miller. Yes.
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Do you agree to provide documents, 
including copies of electronic forms of communication, in a 
timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or 
to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good 
faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes.
    Dr. Miller. Yes.
    Dr. Carter. Yes.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    We'll have an 8-minute round.
    First for you, Dr. Carter. This year John Young, who's the 
current Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L, wrote a memo in 
which he stated that many of the problems we've encountered in 
the acquisition of major weapons systems are attributable to 
programs that have a poor foundation at milestone B, which is 
the starting point for major development and manufacturing 
design.
    He said that: ``Fundamentally, these programs move past 
that milestone with inadequate foundations built upon 
artificially low cost estimates, optimistic schedules and 
assumptions, immature design or technology, fluid requirements, 
and other issues.''
    Now, as you've mentioned in your opening comments and as 
you're aware of, Senator McCain and I have introduced a bill, 
S. 454, that's designed to help put MDAPs on a sound footing 
from the outset by addressing program shortcomings in the early 
phases, particularly of the acquisition process. Dr. Carter, 
you've already commented on this, but generally would you agree 
with John Young's assessment that many of our acquisition 
problems arise out of programs that are built on unreasonable 
cost and schedule estimates, unrealistic performance 
expectations, and immature technologies?
    Dr. Carter. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. If you are confirmed, will you work with us 
to enact legislation which addresses those problems?
    Dr. Carter. Absolutely.
    Chairman Levin. By the way, we are going to have a markup 
on that bill next Thursday morning.
    You've worked long and hard in the missile defense area, 
and one of the issues which has arisen is whether or not we 
should have exempted or should continue to exempt missile 
defense programs from many of the most basic requirements of 
the DOD acquisition system. Until now, missile defense programs 
are not considered to be acquisition programs and therefore 
they're not required to have requirements validated by the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council. They're not required to 
undergo analyses of alternatives and business case analyses; 
they're not required to obtain independent certification of 
technological maturity; they're not required to receive 
milestone approval from AT&L; they're not required to have 
formal baselines for system cost, schedule, and performance; 
and they're not required to track and report on deviations in 
planned acquisition costs and program schedules. They're also 
not required to develop comprehensive test plans leading up to 
operational test and evaluation.
    Do you believe, Dr. Carter, that the MDA programs should be 
subject to cost and schedule baselines against which 
performance can be measured?
    Dr. Carter. I do.
    Chairman Levin. Do you believe that the principle of fly-
before-you-buy should apply to missile defense programs as it 
is to other defense acquisition programs? In other words, 
should missile defense programs be subject to operationally 
realistic testing before they're fielded?
    Dr. Carter. I think missile defense, like other programs, 
should be subject to such testing, yes.
    Chairman Levin. Will you, if confirmed, review the current 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation reports on missile 
defense testing, including classified portions, and inform the 
committee of your views of any concerns and your assessment, 
including any corrective steps that you feel are necessary to 
ensure that our ground-based missile defense program is 
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable?
    Dr. Carter. Absolutely, I will.
    Chairman Levin. This question will go to any or all of you. 
Throughout the Iraq war we've used private security contractors 
to perform a wide variety of security functions that require 
the use of deadly force in a hostile environment. To some 
extent this was done out of necessity because we didn't have 
sufficient troops to provide needed security. However, the 
extensive use of private security contractors in Iraq resulted 
in some abuses, including the September 2000 shooting incident 
in Baghdad.
    Would you agree that DOD needs to undertake a comprehensive 
review of whether, and to what extent, it is appropriate for 
contractors to engage in functions that require them to make 
discretionary decisions about the use of deadly force outside 
of the military chain of command and on a routine basis? So 
first, do we need to undertake that comprehensive review? Let 
me call first on Dr. Miller, let me ask you.
    Dr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe we do.
    Chairman Levin. Okay. Dr. Carter?
    Dr. Carter. I would agree with that, absolutely.
    Chairman Levin. Ambassador?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes, I agree as well, Senator.
    Chairman Levin. This is for you, Dr. Carter, going back to 
the acquisition bill that we've introduced. One of the 
provisions in that bill is the provision that relates to 
putting some teeth in the Nunn-McCurdy statute, which already 
exists. We would establish a presumption that a program that 
exceeds its critical cost threshold would be terminated unless 
it can be justified from the ground up.
    In your response to one of our APQs, you stated that you 
believe that the current statutory provision provides the 
authorities that are needed and that you do not see the need 
for any changes at this time. Now, on this question, this is 
what GAO had to say earlier this month about this issue. DOD's 
tendency to initiate programs with unrealistic cost estimates 
based on a lack of knowledge and overly optimistic assumptions. 
This is GAO speaking--``reinforced by an acquisition 
environment in which there are few ramifications for cost 
growth and delays. Only in very rare instances have programs 
been terminated for poor performance. When the Department 
consistently allows unsound, unexecutable programs to begin 
with few negative ramifications from poor outcomes, 
accountability suffers.''
    According to GAO, tougher requirements for programs that 
exceed Nunn-McCurdy thresholds could force programs ``to be 
more candid and upfront about potential costs, risks, and 
funding needs, increasing the likelihood of successful program 
outcomes.''
    Would you agree with the GAO assessment?
    Dr. Carter. I would, and I'd add a little bit to that and 
say that staring a Nunn-McCurdy breach in the face is and ought 
to be a disciplining factor, for any program manager.
    What I meant in the APQ was that as I understand it the 
Department now has the authority to terminate a program if it 
makes a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Also it's true, as I understand 
it, that programs can breach the thresholds for reasons other 
than poor management. That's not to say that in many cases poor 
management isn't the reason, but sometimes it's for other 
reasons that they breach the threshold. So some flexibility in 
how the Department responds to the fact of a breach is 
appropriate.
    But, that said, the terror factor, I can tell from program 
managers I know, about facing a Nunn-McCurdy breach is there 
and is real and is a healthy factor.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Senator McCain.
    Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ambassador Vershbow, you have extensive experience in Korea 
and relations with North Korea. What do you think the 
implications are and what it means that the North Koreans have 
announced that they're going to have another ``missile test''?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, although I'm not going to be 
dealing with Korea if confirmed for my proposed position, I 
have been working that very----
    Senator McCain. I would think that North Korean activity 
may pose a threat to our security in the Pacific and in the 
region.
    Ambassador Vershbow. Indeed, and it's something that we 
need to ensure that our allies, even far away from Korea, 
recognize. The proliferation of ballistic missile technology 
and nuclear weapon technology from North Korea is a global 
threat.
    I think that their announced intentions to launch a 
ballistic missile, ostensibly to launch a satellite, which we 
can't yet confirm, is an effort to escalate the pressure on the 
United States and the international community to legitimize 
North Korea's possession of these kinds of technologies and 
their nuclear weapons programs. At the same time, it is clearly 
going to be inconsistent with the two United Nations Security 
Council resolutions that were adopted in 2006. So it's clearly 
going to be a serious provocation and, as I think Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton said just yesterday, ``there will be 
consequences.'' I'm not yet in my position, so I can't say what 
those consequences will be, but it will be a very serious act.
    Senator McCain. Thank you.
    Dr. Carter, your experience in weapons acquisition is?
    Dr. Carter. Senator, I've been working for 25 years in and 
with DOD, the defense industry, and defense laboratories on 
defense programs. That's where I began my career. That's the 
background I come from in physics. I know that we have 
interacted some over the years on policy questions as well, but 
most of my career in this field has been devoted to and 
involved in programs and defense technology.
    Senator McCain. Dr. Carter, the Defense Business Board has 
warned that DOD's procurement plan is ``unsustainable,'' and 
with respect to the Department's budget decisions that 
``business as usual is no longer an option.'' The board found 
that DOD can only meet its priorities if it makes hard budget 
decisions on its largest and costliest acquisition programs.
    Do you agree with that viewpoint as expressed by the 
Defense Business Board?
    Dr. Carter. I do.
    Senator McCain. Can you give the committee some insight 
into how you intend to address unfunded acquisition commitments 
that are currently in the DOD's procurement plan?
    Dr. Carter. Thank you for that question, because I rather 
suspect those unfunded commitments are large, and when I assume 
this job, if I assume this job, one of the first things I'm 
going to want to do is look program by program through the 
pipeline of programs that we have and try to get in front of 
the process that we've experienced over the last few years of 
discovering, oops, all of a sudden midway through a program, 
how much trouble it's in.
    Senator Levin quoted what we know now about MDAPs and the 
cost overruns in the MDAPs. I'm not sure that's the end of the 
story, and one of the things I would do, if confirmed, is see 
whether there isn't more to that iceberg.
    Senator McCain. Do you believe we should have a policy of 
no cost-plus contracts?
    Dr. Carter. Ideally, one would like to get into a situation 
where by the time one gets to the procurement phase of a 
program the program's parameters, technical and production, 
manufacturing, engineering, and so forth, are well enough known 
that one can have a competition of that kind. Earlier in a 
program, or in a program that is inherently riskier 
technologically, it may just not be possible to anticipate 
exactly what it's going to cost until one gets into it.
    So I would say in answer to your question that in earlier 
phases of a program that kind of contracting might not work. In 
later phases it should be our aspiration to do that kind of 
contracting.
    Senator McCain. You would agree there's been a dramatic 
consolidation of major defense contractors and corporations 
since your early days in the Pentagon?
    Dr. Carter. Absolutely. In fact, I was at the so-called 
``last supper,'' the famous last supper that Les Aspin and 
Secretary Bill Perry, John Deutch, and I attended along with 
the defense industry leaders of that time. There were, I 
suppose, 16 of them around the table. It's Norm Augustine who's 
called it the ``last supper,'' because he famously turned to 
two industry leaders to his left and his right at that time and 
said: ``Next year one of the two of you won't be here.'' We 
went down from 16 to 5.
    Senator McCain. The point is, with this consolidation it's 
hard to have true competition.
    Dr. Carter. Exactly right.
    Senator McCain. So the conundrum is that you have basically 
an uncompetitive or very dramatically changed competitive 
environment than we had some years ago. The result has been, at 
least evidence might suggest, that with the lack of 
competition, combined with a cost-plus contract environment, 
the initial cost proposals made are usually far less than even 
those who are competing for the contract believe. Is there any 
validity to that suspicion?
    Dr. Carter. I think there is validity to the suspicion that 
low-balling goes on in programs. It's also true that there are 
fewer primes now. I do think that competition is the great 
discipliner, and it's still possible to have competition even 
in the defense industry that we have. The bill that the 
chairman and you have introduced makes note of that and 
suggests some ways that can be done.
    For example, even if competition at the production phase is 
not possible, competition at earlier phases in the programs 
might still be possible. You can have competition below the 
prime levels, at the levels of the subcontractors who are 
building the subsystems. So I think there are various ways that 
we can keep competition alive even in the defense system and 
it's necessary to do that.
    Senator McCain. You really believe that?
    Dr. Carter. I think it's not something that can be done 
across the board, but I think it's something that can be done 
very substantially, and it certainly would be my aspiration, if 
confirmed, to get as much competition as we possibly can.
    Senator McCain. I appreciate your support for the 
legislation that Chairman Levin introduced. Updating of the 
Nunn-McCurdy law is one of the real intents of this. But I'm 
not positive we're really getting at the magnitude of the 
problem. Do you share that concern? Including a change in 
attitude inside the Pentagon?
    Dr. Carter. I think the bill's provisions get at the heart 
of the matter as regards programs in their early phases, which 
as I understand it, is its intent. Now, if I'm confirmed, 
that's not going to be my only problem. There are all these 
programs that are well past that stage. The mistakes were made, 
whatever they were, back in the past and you can't start all 
over again.
    So you have the problem that we are where we are, with lots 
of problems, programs, that had your provisions been in place 
when they were born wouldn't be where they are now. But they 
are where they are now. So that's a separate problem, which I 
understand the bill wasn't intended to address.
    But as regards programs in their early phases, it seems to 
me it touched on all of the things that we now know are 
problems in early phases of programs and if addressed would 
lead to results later in phases of the program that would be 
very different from the ones we're facing today.
    Senator McCain. I'm very pleased to join Chairman Levin on 
this effort. But I also think that unfortunately, as you say, 
there are some, as I mentioned in my opening comments, such as 
FCS, JSF, and others that are already huge, big ticket items. I 
just don't see the funding being there to continue these 
programs that have already been initiated.
    I'm sure you share that view and I look forward to working 
with you on it. I thank you, Chairman Levin.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you so much, Senator McCain.
    Let me first thank Senator Reed for taking the gavel for an 
hour or so, and call on Senator Begich.
    Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a few questions. Dr. Carter, I'm going to follow up 
on Senator McCain's comments. The issue of acquisition is one 
of those complex problems, especially when you're developing 
new technology. I come from a little different perspective, I 
think, on this, and that is in the first phase--and I think you 
said this--in the technology development, because we're really 
testing technology which is unknown in a lot of cases. So the 
costing of it is going to be always very difficult.
    If you asked Bill Gates in the early days of Microsoft what 
he thought it would cost to develop, or you go to Google or you 
go to any of the technology companies, they would tell you one 
thing and what really happened was much different, because 
you're dealing with the unknown.
    I think then as you move down the path, how do you then, 
once the technology is developed, ensure that the 
competitiveness, as you describe, continues to stay in play? 
But do you subscribe to that thought, that the technology part 
is going to be always very difficult? Maybe I'm missing 
something, but every time I talk to private sector companies in 
a variety of technology developments it's always very 
difficult.
    Am I missing the boat there?
    Dr. Carter. No, Senator, I wouldn't say you're missing the 
boat at all. It gets back to something that Chairman Levin 
raised earlier. I'm sorry, Senator McCain did. In an early 
stage of a program, if it's an ambitious program--and we want 
to have technologically ambitious programs--it's fair to not 
exactly know where you're going and what you're getting into. 
That's the nature of the beast.
    So fair enough, and that's the point about cost-plus 
contracts and those phases. But the ambition of the program 
ought to be to get itself to a point where before it goes into 
production it's resolved all those technology issues. So you 
need to get yourself to a point where you do understand the 
technology you're dealing with, what it's going to cost, how 
it'll perform, and what schedule you can produce it.
    That's the point at which a different kind of contract 
instrument might become appropriate. I should also note that in 
the legislation that was referred to earlier, one of its 
provisions is to strengthen the Department's discipline in 
making sure that before it passes into those later phases it 
really has done the job of understanding the technology.
    But you're absolutely right. I'm a scientist and if you 
knew where you were going that wouldn't be science.
    Senator Begich. It wouldn't be science. You'd know the 
answer.
    Again I just wanted to follow up, and then I have a couple 
more questions. But I'm a former mayor. I'm a mayor that 
happens to be a Senator. As a mayor, you always have to think 
7, 10 steps down the road. We continually use technology to 
develop those early stages, but once we've figured out what 
we're going to do and how we're going to do it, even with the 
sole contractor, you could be very competitive by putting in 
systems that reward price control. I would hope that, in your 
new position, there would be an opportunity, that there's a 
reward opportunity for price control, because sometimes in a 
noncompetitive environment that the almighty dollar becomes 
very competitive to achieve as much as they can.
    So let me ask you--I'm going to read a comment in your 1984 
book. It seems like every week we talk about missile defense 
and as a Senator from Alaska, I have a great interest in this 
issue. In your book titled, ``Ballistic Missile Defense'' 
(BMD), you stated: ``Ideally, an actual BMD deployment in the 
United States would be preceded by three stages of analysis: a 
study of the underlying technology; an assessment of the 
technology effectiveness when embodied in a specific system, 
assigned a specific defense goal; and a judgment of the 
desirability or need of the defense.''
    Twenty-five years later after you've written that book, do 
you think we have done that with the missile defense system, 
those three stages?
    Dr. Carter. Missile defense has come a long way since then. 
But I would say that those three steps applied to missile 
defense today are as appropriate as they were then. In fact, 
they really apply to any program, and missile defense, as was 
mentioned earlier, needs to be looked at in the way that other 
programs are.
    The only thing I'll say is at that time the mission was so 
different. The mission was to defend the whole country, as 
President Reagan's aspiration was to defend the whole country 
against 3,000 equivalent megatons of Soviet throw weight. So 
that was a pretty daunting mission. Today we're looking at a 
mission that is much more modest than that, defending ourselves 
against North Korean or Iranian missile threats which are far 
less formidable than was the Soviet Union's, and therefore the 
job's easier, in addition to us having behind us 25 years of 
technology development.
    Senator Begich. I think you answered--my second question 
was going to be that, in regards to other major systems, that 
those three stages should also be utilized?
    Dr. Carter. Absolutely.
    Senator Begich. Just to reiterate that.
    Dr. Carter. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Begich. Another quick question, if I can. I guess 
it again goes to the issue--and I think you hit it and maybe we 
can elaborate a little bit on missile defense and how you see 
it as a shield and how it fits into our overall defense policy 
for homeland as well as deployed forces and others, as you 
mentioned, North Korea and Iran. Can you elaborate a little bit 
more on that, how you see it in the big picture?
    Dr. Carter. I can. I presume that is going to be addressed 
by the Department in a systematic way in its QDR that Dr. 
Miller will be conducting. But just to anticipate some aspects 
of it, today, unlike in the time when we were facing the Soviet 
missile threat, we are in the protection against nuclear attack 
sense as concerned about non-state actors and rogue state 
actors as we are concerned about established nuclear powers, as 
was the case with the former Soviet Union.
    There are a lot of ways that they might introduce nuclear 
weapons into our country, of which a ballistic missile is only 
one. In fact, terrorists are unlikely to use that method. So I 
would say that we have to have walls as well as a roof to our 
defense. I've been involved in many programs aimed at building 
those walls as well. I think there's a balance question.
    Senator Begich. So it's a piece of the equation, what level 
is the question.
    Dr. Carter. Certainly missile defense fits into that 
portfolio, and then we have to balance that mission area, which 
is defending ourselves against nuclear attack, against all the 
other mission areas we have, like Iraq and Afghanistan and so 
forth. I understand that's a complicated cocktail or portfolio, 
and Dr. Miller's going to sort it all out if he's confirmed.
    Senator Begich. You've led to my question for Dr. Miller, 
since he's been so quiet there, I didn't want to leave him 
alone here. But you gave him the lead-in to a question you must 
have read here that I have.
    Dr. Miller, you're going to be doing the QDR and the NPR. 
What are your thoughts on the value of the QDR and the NPR for 
defense? But also, add a little missile defense to that on top 
of it. You can thank Dr. Carter for setting that up for me. 
Thank you, Dr. Carter.
    Dr. Miller. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Dr. Carter. 
[Laughter.]
    Dr. Miller. Senator, the QDR has been mandated as a key 
part of the Department's planning and preparation. Several have 
been conducted, going back to the early 2000s and a little bit 
before, in fact into the 1990s. The NPR has been similarly 
conducted several times. The Missile Defense Review and the 
Space Policy Review will be new this time around and will need 
to be integrated into that, into that broader set of issues.
    Sir, my view is that it makes terrific sense for, at least 
every 4 years, to take a fresh look from starting principles, 
from strategy to broad policies, and then looking at the full 
range of programs and other activities in the Department, the 
organization of the Department as well, which is a key function 
of the QDR, and applying that across the board to the nuclear 
area, to missile defense, and so forth.
    Senator Begich. Very good. My time is up. Mr. Ambassador, I 
did have questions. We'll submit those in writing to you, and I 
thank you all very much for being here. I have to go to another 
committee. But thank you for those answers.
    Senator Reed [presiding]. Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in the same 
situation that Senator Begich is, that we have two simultaneous 
hearings, fortunately in the same building here.
    There are two oversights in the introduction of both Dr. 
Miller and Dr. Carter that I'd like to correct for the record 
now. One is that, in the case of Dr. Carter, that Bill Perry 
was the best man at his wedding. The other was, Dr. Miller, 
that during your tenure as professor at Duke University, two of 
my kids were your students. You didn't know that, did you?
    Let me ask a question of each one of you, if you don't mind 
responding. It's a three-part question. About a year ago there 
was a communique from NATO leaders that stated: ``We therefore 
recognize the substantial contribution to the protection of 
allies from long-range ballistic missiles to be provided by the 
planned deployment of the European-based United States missile 
defense assets.''
    Of course, we've been busy putting that together. However, 
there is uncertainty now, and I've seen several things that 
have come from Poland. Right now they're in a holding pattern, 
not sure what to do. However, Foreign Minister Sikorski said: 
``We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States.''
    Now, the three-part question to each one of you. First, 
what in your opinion is the importance of the European site to 
the United States and NATO? Second, what impact would it have 
if we discontinue this program? Third, what impact would there 
be if there is a delay in this program? You can answer in any 
order.
    Dr. Carter. I'll take a shot first, Jim. First I'll try to 
answer the question from the perspective of the job for which 
you're considering me, which is the acquisition perspective, if 
I may, and then Dr. Miller can answer it from the policy 
perspective.
    From the acquisition perspective, the importance of the 
site is that it is intended principally to protect the 
continental United States from a ballistic missile attack of 
long range from Iran. It would also have some capability in the 
current configuration to defend parts of Western Europe against 
intermediate range. So the importance of the site is that it is 
between Iran and us, and that's why it was selected.
    The second and third parts had to do with the impact of 
delay, and Jim can address the geopolitical questions of the 
impact of delay. From a purely technical point of view, when 
one is considering deployment of a missile defense, there's 
always a tradeoff. You look at the threat and you don't want to 
deploy too late after the threat develops. On the other hand, 
the longer you wait the better the system is that you can 
deploy.
    Now, we find ourselves with respect to Iran in a situation 
where they're not there yet in terms of an intercontinental 
ballistic missile threat. From that point of view, just purely 
speaking technically, one wouldn't have to have a defense in 
the field until the threat was in the field. With every passing 
year we'll get a little better. So the longer we wait, the 
better the system. But if you wait too long, you don't have the 
system in the field by the time the threat develops.
    I would say that's the tradeoff purely from a program point 
of view in terms of the timing. So the need is Iran and the 
question of timing becomes a tradeoff----
    Senator Inhofe. Are you saying then that you don't think we 
should proceed with that development and give a communication 
to the Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic?
    Dr. Carter. No, I'm not saying that. I'm just speaking from 
the acquisition point of view we have to be ready while the 
threat isn't there yet. We have to be there before the threat 
is. That argues for early deployment. The longer we wait, the 
better the system we could have, which would argue for being 
able to wait if you chose to wait.
    I realize there are many factors other than these only that 
go into the question of whether you deploy now or don't deploy. 
But purely from a technical point of view, that would be the 
tradeoff.
    Senator Inhofe. Dr. Miller?
    Dr. Miller. Senator, the question of the use of the system, 
I'd just say that I concur with Dr. Carter's assessment of the 
purpose with respect to defending the United States and a 
significant portion of Europe.
    The impact of the delay, let me say two things. The first 
is that President Obama has reportedly suggested that if the 
Iranians were to delay or in fact verifiably stop their efforts 
at pursuing nuclear weapons then that would change the 
calculation, and then that is something that should be 
considered as a possible opportunity to improve the technology 
of the system and to consider its future.
    The second thing I say about delay is that one of the 
issues associated with the system, as you suggested, is its 
impact on our relations with the Czech Republic, Poland in 
particular, and with the rest of NATO, and the perceptions of 
Russia of that and the degree to which the United States 
continues to stand by its allies. Clearly that is an essential 
element of what the United States should consider in going 
forward and in the timing of the system.
    Senator Inhofe. I don't want to go any further with this. 
I'm using up all my time and I didn't want to do that. But I 
can cite a lot of examples where the National Intelligence 
Estimate has been wrong. I agree, Dr. Carter, most people 
believe that capability is not there, but the consequences of 
being wrong are just unbelievable, and I think we need to be 
thinking in those terms. I'd like to be able to carry this on.
    I have two other areas real quickly. I've been concerned 
about all of our aging everything. I'm talking about our Navy 
fleet, our KC-135s, our tanker capability. Everything that we 
have out there is aging. I'd have to say--and this is probably 
for you, Dr. Carter--it doesn't make sense to continue to spend 
money in maintaining these systems. There are several studies, 
business plan studies, that are on record right now, that I'm 
sure you've looked at, and I'd ask you to look a little bit 
deeper, as to the cost of maintaining what we have as opposed 
to getting in new systems. I think of the KC-X as one example, 
and others.
    Do you have any thoughts about our aging fleets and how you 
want to approach them? That would include ground equipment, 
air, everything else that we have.
    Dr. Carter. Thank you. My only thought is that I share your 
concern. With every passing year, everything gets a year older. 
If confirmed, I know that that's one of the first things that I 
have to do, look at these----
    Senator Inhofe. Let's do that. Then for the record, I would 
like to get from you some of these studies that have been made, 
because one of the problems, of course, is our accounting 
system that we have here. You can't do things that you would do 
if you were in the private sector in terms of taking care of 
these problems, because that's not the way the system works.
    Dr. Carter. Yes, sir.
    [The information referred to follows:]

    First, the Department of Defense considers business cases to exist 
in several documents, usually including the Analysis of Alternatives 
(AoA), Acquisition Strategy, Independent Cost Estimates, funding 
profiles, and Technology Readiness Assessments. Second, the Department 
of Defense uses such ``business cases'' to support certifications 
required by title 10, section 2366b. I have included three examples of 
business cases for the Joint High Speed Vessel (TAB A), Joint Precision 
Approach and Landing System (JPALS), and Global Combat Support System-
Army (GCSS-A).
Joint High Speed Vessel
    Business Case Analysis: The business case for the Joint High Speed 
Vessel (JHSV) is made in the following documents, which when viewed 
together support the four provisions in section 2366b that are required 
to be certified based on a business case analysis. The documents are:

         JHSV AoA dated April 2006 (copy of executive summary 
        attached at TAB A).
         JHSV Capability Development Document (CDD) dated 
        January 27, 2007.
         JHSV Acquisition Strategy dated July 19, 2007, with 
        Revision 1 dated July 8, 2008.
         JHSV Program Office Cost Estimate dated July 18, 2008.
         JHSV Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) completed in 
        November 2008.
         The Program Objective Memorandum 2010 Budget Estimate 
        Submission.
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System
    Business Case Analysis: The business case for the JPALS program is 
based on the following documents, which when viewed together support 
the four provisions required to be certified based on the business case 
analysis in section 2366a. The documents are:

         Initial AoA for JPALS by the Air Force, August 1997; 
        Updated AoA validated by the Air Force Requirements for 
        Operational Capability Council on November 17, 2005 (copy of 
        executive summary attached at TAB B).
         Evaluation of JPALS AoA (Sufficiency Review), Office 
        of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Program Analysis and 
        Evaluation, December 19, 2007.
         Prior to the Joint Capabilities Integration and 
        Development System Process, JPALS requirements documented in 
        the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved 
        Precision Approach and Landing Capability (PALC) Mission Need 
        Statement, JROCM Ser# 108-95, August 29, 1995.
         PALC Initial Capabilities Document Ser# 717-88-07, 
        JROCM Ser# 208-05, September 19, 2005.
         JPALS CDD validated by the JROC, JROCM Ser# 056-07, 
        March 16, 2007.
         Service Cost Position (SCP), by Naval Air Systems 
        Command 4.2, delivered to the OSD Cost Analysis Improvement 
        Group (CAIG), February 15, 2008 (updated April 7, June 3, and 
        June 19).
         OSD CAIG ICE, CAIG brief on April 1, 2008 (updated 
        June 17); report dated June 25, 2008.
         Fiscal Year 2009 President's Budget (PB09)--JPALS 
        Program funding.
         JPALS Acquisition Strategy (AS), June 2008.
         Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA), by Director, 
        Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), March 13, 2008.
         Program Support Review, by Deputy Under Secretary of 
        Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (Acquisition and 
        Technology)/System & Software Engineering, January 10-11, 2008; 
        Briefing report dated April 7, 2008.
Global Combat Support System-Army
    Business Case Analysis: The business case for the GCSS-A program is 
made in the following documents, which when viewed together support the 
four provisions required to be certified based on the business case 
analysis in section 2366a. The documents are:

         GCSS-A AoA validated October 24, 2005; revalidated May 
        25, 2007 (copy of executive summary attached at TAB C).
         GCSS-A CDD, dated June 13, 2006.
         PB09, February 4, 2008.
         GCSS-A AS Army Acquisition Executive signature dated 
        April 2, 2008, pending final signature by the Missile Defense 
        Agency.
         GCSS-A Economic Analysis and SCP from the Assistant 
        Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics & Technology) 
        dated April 28, 2008.
         GCSS-A CAIG ICE dated May 17, 2008.

    [Tabs A, B, and C are for official use only and are retained in the 
committee files.]

    Senator Inhofe. The last thing I'd like to ask you, Dr. 
Carter, is on the question of the shelf life of some of our 
nuclear weapons. You and I talked about that in my office. Do 
you think that we can continue to have something that we 
believe will work without conducting underground testing? I 
think also about the credibility that we have in our other 
countries, as to whether they look at us and some of the stuff 
that we have there in our nuclear weaponry, and can we keep 
that credibility without underground testing? Real quickly, can 
I have your thoughts on that?
    Dr. Carter. A safe and reliable stockpile is critical. I 
understand that's partly the responsibility of the person in 
this job. The national laboratory directors, who understand the 
physics of these weapons, are required every year to give an 
answer to your question about whether the existing stockpile is 
safe and reliable in the absence of underground testing.
    There is a program, the Stockpile Stewardship Program, 
that's been going on for quite a long time. My understanding--
I'll learn more if and when I get in this job--is that their 
judgment is that the Stockpile Stewardship Program has allowed 
them so far to give an answer yes to that question. They can't 
see forever into the future, but for now their answer would be 
yes.
    Senator Inhofe. You would follow their guidance, then?
    Dr. Carter. Yes. In fact, I believe it's required under the 
law that we follow their guidance.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
    Based on the order of arrival, I will now ask my questions.
    I had the privilege of introducing Dr. Miller and his 
family and I want to welcome Ambassador Vershbow, but I want to 
say a particular word about Dr. Carter. I've had the privilege 
of knowing Ash for many years. He has an extraordinary 
intellectual range, from theoretical physics to medieval 
history, but is also terribly pragmatic, practical, and has the 
common sense that is necessary.
    I think one of the things that, Ash, commends you to the 
job is not only do you have great technical knowledge, but you 
also understand the institutional and cultural politics and 
policies that will make your job--make your tenure, I think, 
very successful, so welcome.
    Dr. Miller, one of the challenges that we have and you have 
particularly is dealing with the current situation, but looking 
ahead, and looking down the road to those places where problems 
will occur in the future. One of the issues that seems to be 
universal is the lack of capacity in many places in the world 
for effective governance, for effective control. It's seldom 
the marquis issue. It's not as pressing as a crisis in Iran or 
Afghanistan, et cetera. But in the longer run it might be one 
of the most significant challenges we have.
    Could you give us your thoughts on how you and Secretary 
Flournoy are going to deal with this issue of capacity-
building, particularly in places that now seem obscure. But 
Somalia was obscure, Afghanistan was obscure, et cetera.
    Dr. Miller. Senator, thank you. Secretary Gates has noted 
in the National Defense Strategy that the prospect of 
challenges arising from states that are troubled is probably at 
least as significant a challenge for the security environment 
as the challenges that may arise from strong states.
    This has been a growing focus of DOD, first within Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and then more broadly a look at building partner 
capacity at least since the last QDR. Congress has certainly 
played an important role if you look at the authorities for the 
so-called sections 1206, 1207, 1208, that give the authority to 
provide resources through DOD in operations where there's 
counterterrorism and where the United States is involved in 
stability operations for section 1206, in moving money to the 
State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction 
and Stabilization for section 1207, and then for the Special 
Operating Forces for section 1208.
    All those authorities are relatively new and all worth 
looking at closely in terms of how they can be tailored most 
effectively. In addition then, there is the Commander's 
Emergency Response Program funds and others. It is an area that 
as the United States draws down its forces in Iraq over the 
coming years, it's an area where I would expect the Department, 
and I would hope the Nation, to provide significant attention, 
and where building the capacity of the State Department and 
U.S. Agency for International Development and other agencies is 
a critical step in that, as is working with our partners, our 
allies, in helping these countries that are struggling, sir.
    Senator Reed. Thank you.
    Ambassador Vershbow, if I could get your response to this, 
because I think part of your duties will touch upon this, 
particularly engaging our allies in this same capacity-building 
effort?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I agree with 
what Dr. Miller just said. It is just as important in looking 
at some of these post-conflict situations or at unstable parts 
of the world, to help on the civilian side with the capacity-
building for more effective governance. It ranges across the 
spectrum from helping with economic development, developing 
effective judicial institutions, police, rule of law.
    I think all of these things require a comprehensive effort 
by different parts of our government, and I think that the 
legislation that Dr. Miller referred to, section 1206, section 
1207 in particular, were designed well to require close State-
Defense coordination, even a dual-key approach to the 
implementation of these programs, because we're really all in 
this together.
    I think that some of the problems we had early on in Iraq 
reflected, I think, insufficient attention to these issues of 
governance. I think we've begun to work more closely with the 
Iraqis to get it right in that regard, and I think that's one 
of the reasons why the trends are more favorable in Iraq, and I 
think we now are turning our attention to Afghanistan, where 
there are similar problems of weak governance.
    So yes, Senator, you've identified a very critical problem, 
and I think my background, having been at the State Department 
and now moving over to DOD, I hope, if confirmed, will help me 
in creating this kind of integrated approach.
    Senator Reed. Let me follow up with a question about 
Afghanistan, which is the necessity of more decisive and robust 
engagement by NATO. A corollary to that would be the recent 
announcement that France is rejoining NATO. Can you comment on 
both those issues?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Yes, Senator. I think that it's been 
very helpful that NATO has stepped up to the challenge in 
Afghanistan and contributed to the ISAF coalition. We haven't 
always gotten quite as many troops as we had hoped, but I think 
one shouldn't underestimate the importance of the contributions 
that they made and the sacrifices that our allies have made. On 
a per capita basis, for example, Canada has taken more 
casualties than the United States. So I think the spirit of 
we're all in this together, shared risk, has been on display in 
Afghanistan.
    Looking ahead, it's not clear how many more troops we will 
be able to get from our allies, but I think that as we look to 
trying to do better in Afghanistan, we will be looking to our 
allies, if they can't contribute more on the military side, to 
contribute more on the civilian side, where the list of tasks 
is almost infinite as to what kind of contributions they could 
make.
    As for French reintegration, I think this is a very 
important and positive step. The French have been good allies 
even when they weren't fully integrated in the military command 
structure, contributing sizable forces in Bosnia and Kosovo, 
and they have sizable forces on the ground in Afghanistan.
    So I think bringing them fully into the military structure 
and the planning structure, which would mean that they would 
have more forces committed to NATO, assigned to NATO, will 
hopefully enhance NATO's effectiveness in the future.
    Senator Reed. Thank you.
    Dr. Carter, you have an extraordinarily difficult 
challenge, as both Senator Levin and Senator McCain outlined. 
Senator McCain particularly talked about the concentration of 
the industry, the sense that you might be outgunned. I want to 
bring that down to a very practical, operational level. Let me 
ask you the question: Are there sufficient system engineers, 
acquisition professionals, people capable to go one-on-one with 
industry, that has the capacity through their incentive 
structures and their ability to recruit to mount a significant 
number of people, experts in an area?
    Maybe the pathway to a better acquisition system is having 
on our side of the table more depth, more professional, better 
supported individuals.
    Dr. Carter. First of all, thank you for your kind words.
    Senator Reed. I was going to say that at Yale we deal with 
history and theoretical physics with the same course, but----
    Dr. Carter. Two separate things, but maybe this job is the 
perfect union.
    Senator Reed. It's the perfect--yes, alchemy, too.
    Dr. Carter. But I appreciate all you've taught me and I 
thank you for your kind words.
    Your question really goes to the heart of things. Actually, 
this committee has received some testimony in the last couple 
of weeks that I thought was excellent on this very subject of 
systems engineering and, more generally, the competence and 
size of the government workforce to manage this much money and 
programs that are this complicated.
    I do have that concern. I know that this committee has 
taken some action in that regard, and it's a subject that, if I 
am confirmed, I intend to take very seriously because, as I 
said earlier, you can have all the great paper acquisition 
system you want and if you don't have the right people to do 
it--systems engineering is a particularly important thing. A 
lot of people don't relate to systems engineering very well, 
but it's the ability to look at the whole task from early on, 
concept development and technology development, right through 
sustainment, and look at all of its aspects.
    There are organizations in the Services and OSD that do 
that, and I've been associated with some of them. For a long 
time our ballistic missile programs were managed by the 
Ballistic Missile Office out at San Bernardino, CA, which is a 
perfect example of a systems engineering organization that 
dealt with all offensive ballistic missiles end to end. It's a 
very important skill set.
    Dr. Kaminski testified on this subject a couple of weeks 
ago on the basis of a study he did for the National Academy of 
Sciences, and if I'm confirmed, you bet it's a serious concern, 
because one person isn't going to be able to do it, however 
hard I work.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
    Senator Chambliss.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thank you as well as your families for your 
willingness to continue or come back, as the case may be, into 
public service. We appreciate that very much.
    I want to pick up, Dr. Carter, on what Senator Reed was 
talking about and what Senator McCain was talking about 
earlier. That is this issue of competition that you and I had a 
chance to visit about. As we have downsized, we do note that 
there are not only limited chances for competition, but also 
increased chances of conflict of interest. In the Levin-McCain 
bill there is a provision that would require the contract for 
the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance 
functions contain a provision prohibiting the contractor or any 
affiliate from having a direct financial interest in the 
development or construction of the weapon system or its 
components.
    At face value this provision would seem to prohibit a 
company from performing any systems engineering and technical 
assistance (SETA)-related work that you just talked about on a 
contract for which they are prime or subcontractor. Given that 
over the last several years the larger defense contractors have 
bought up many of those smaller contracts for systems 
engineering that traditionally supplied the support, this 
provision may have the effect of prohibiting much of the 
systems engineering expertise from being available at DOD.
    Now, the current provisions in the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation allow for avoidance, neutralization, or mitigation 
of significant potential conflicts of interest. At face value, 
the bill would simply require avoidance. Do you believe that 
strict avoidance is all that's necessary, or do mitigation and 
neutralization of conflicts of interest--could they be 
appropriate in some instances?
    Dr. Carter. I'm not sure I can give you a fully complete 
answer to that. That's something I'd like to get in and take a 
look at if I am confirmed. But I understand the question 
entirely. These large firms are now both making stuff and 
involving themselves in the process by which we decide as a 
government what we're going to buy and what it's going to look 
like, and that is the very clear possibility for the fact and 
at a minimum the appearance of a conflict of interest.
    It's another form of organizational conflict of interest, 
the other one being the ``make versus buy'' question in a large 
and integrated firm. I see quite clearly the potential for 
conflict there. I am also aware within companies of their 
attempts to build firewalls between the organization that's 
doing the SETA work and the organization that will do the other 
work. I think from the outside looking in, those firewalls are 
always questionable.
    But the only reason I can't give you a clear answer is that 
there is a countervailing factor, which is we do need that SETA 
work done. If, as Senator Reed said, we can't do it within the 
walls of government, then how are you going to get it done? If 
excellent SETA work can be done by those companies, one doesn't 
want to lose access to that competence.
    So somehow we have to get access to it without the conflict 
of interest, and you're asking me how to do that and I'm saying 
I don't know. I can't give you a good answer as I sit here 
today, but I know that you want and deserve a good answer, and 
that would be something I would try to give you in time if I 
were in the job.
    Senator Chambliss. As Senator Levin said, we're going to 
take up this bill it looks like next Thursday. I don't know the 
answer either. That's why I'm asking you, because we need to 
solve this, obviously, to make your job easier and make sure 
that we have the ability to inject that competition that is so 
sorely needed to do what Senator McCain suggested earlier, and 
that is try to get these costs under control.
    This train wreck that was coming 10 years ago is here with 
respect to certain systems, and we have other train wrecks down 
the road that are going to make it very difficult for you to 
operate within the budget if we don't make sure we have that 
competition there.
    If you have any thoughts on it between now and next week, I 
wish you'd let me know.
    Dr. Carter. May I add just one thing?
    Senator Chambliss. Sure.
    Dr. Carter. So as not to have nothing at all to help you, 
what the provision is, as I understand it, as drafted, is it 
requires more transparency. That certainly is necessary and 
clearly required. In addition to that, I can't say more. But to 
the extent that that's what is provided for in this draft 
legislation, I think it's absolutely appropriate.
    Senator Chambliss. Again, you and I discussed the issue of 
multi-year contracts. I'm a big fan of multi-years. I wish we 
could do more of them. What are your thoughts on multi-year 
contracts?
    Dr. Carter. I think there are, as we discussed, Senator, 
instances when multi-year contracting is appropriate and cost 
effective, and in those instances I would, if I were in this 
job, recommend that multi-year procurement be followed. I 
understand that there are other considerations in multi-year 
contracting, but where it is cost effective--and I think there 
are examples where it can be cost effective--my job would be to 
say what was cost effective.
    Senator Chambliss. We have two depots in my State. I have 
an opportunity to visit those depots regularly, at Warner 
Robbins and at Albany. Our folks do great work there, both on 
the military side and the civilian side. You're familiar with 
the 50-50 rule. You're also familiar with the fact that there's 
some discussion that's ongoing relative to changing the way 
modification work is incorporated in the 50-50.
    Assuming that this discussion does continue, I want a 
commitment from you that you will dialogue with the committee 
and particularly me about any changes that might be forthcoming 
to the 50-50 relative to that modification within our depots, 
before any changes are made.
    Dr. Carter. Absolutely, I give you that commitment.
    Senator Chambliss. Dr. Miller and Ambassador Vershbow, 
earlier this week, General Craddock testified before this 
committee and in his written testimony he recommended 
maintaining two heavy brigade combat teams (BCTs) in Europe. I 
would like the thoughts of both of you on troop levels and 
composition for European Command, and how do you think we need 
to posture ourselves in Europe in response to Russia as well as 
our commitments to allies, threats of WMD proliferation, and 
transnational terroristic threats?
    Dr. Miller. Senator, the plan change to take those 
additional two heavy BCTs out of Europe is the product of a 
global posture review conducted by the previous administration, 
something like 6 years ago now. I think that what's happened in 
the mean time is that the world has changed. We're obviously 
now at war in Iraq and Afghanistan in significant ways. As we 
begin the transition from Iraq over the coming years and as we 
rebalance in Afghanistan as well, my view is that it merits 
taking a fresh look, not just at the question of these two 
heavy BCTs, but a fresh look at the global posture across the 
board.
    I would anticipate, if confirmed, it would be something I 
would hope to engage in as part of the QDR.
    Senator Chambliss. Ambassador?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, I fully agree with what Dr. 
Miller just said about the importance of taking a fresh look at 
the overall global force posture. In the case of the 
recommendation by our Supreme Allied Commander, General 
Craddock, I think it is important to take a look at that. It's 
under review, as I understand, right now. Clearly there have 
been some significant developments even in the last year, 
including the Russia-Georgia war, which has cast new light on 
the critical importance of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, 
especially for our new members in Central and Eastern Europe.
    So I think it is appropriate to look at this question in 
the context of our global force posture review.
    Regarding potential cooperation with Russia in dealing with 
trans-national terrorist threats--that was your second 
question, Senator?
    Senator Chambliss. Yes.
    Ambassador Vershbow. I think we've had reasonably good 
cooperation with Russia over the years, even as some other 
aspects of our relationship have become more difficult. I think 
that the Russians certainly recognize that some of the most 
serious threats to their own security are the same as the ones 
that we worry about: instability to their south, Islamic 
fundamentalism, and of course the conflict in Afghanistan is 
very close to their own borders.
    We've had a good counterterrorism working group with the 
Russians that has identified potential areas of cooperation. 
But I think there's more that we could do. I think there are 
some areas where we see the Russians taking a stance that could 
be more constructive. Iran is one example. I hope that as we 
try to expand those areas of cooperation we can do more with 
the Russians than we have in the past.
    Senator Chambliss. Thank you.
    Senator Reed. Senator Hagan.
    Senator Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each and 
every one of you for your interest and commitment to service in 
our government.
    Dr. Miller, I too had a son who graduated from Duke, 
although he was there much later, after you left. Sorry he 
didn't get to take your classes.
    In North Carolina we have a large number of resettled 
refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and they 
talk to me frequently about the extreme violence in the eastern 
region of their home country. Last week, General William Ward, 
the Commander of AFRICOM, provided our committee with an update 
on the dire security situation in the east. He spoke about the 
ongoing military operations against the various rebel groups in 
that region, which according to reports his command helped to 
plan.
    I was wondering, Ambassador Vershbow and Dr. Miller, if you 
could provide the committee with your views on the situation in 
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and any update on the 
assistance that AFRICOM recently provided in supporting the 
multilateral military operation; and also if you can keep me 
and my staff updated on any decisions that are being made 
involved in decisions related to the Congo.
    Ambassador Vershbow. Thank you, Senator. I think that 
you've identified an important issue that highlights the fact 
that security problems on the African continent are going to 
become an increasing focus for the United States in the coming 
years. I think that the fact that we decided to consolidate our 
resources focused on Africa in the form of the new AFRICOM was 
a very important initiative. The design of that has, I think 
rightly, tried to take a more integrated approach between 
civilian and military instruments of power.
    Since I'm not yet confirmed, I don't have a very up-to-date 
insight into exactly how deeply involved we were in the recent 
operations. I do understand that there was some planning 
assistance involved.
    I think that the trends in the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo have been positive as they've begun to recover from a 
decade of conflict and civil war. But I think that our 
provision of security assistance in targeted ways can help them 
get over the remaining hurdles. Thus far I think we've been 
focused on helping them reform their own defense sector and 
provide capacity-building assistance. But I need to get more 
deeply into the subject, if confirmed for this position, and I 
look forward to keeping in touch with you and your staff on 
this issue.
    Senator Hagan. Thank you.
    Dr. Miller. Senator, I would just add that, to pile onto 
what Ambassador Vershbow had to say, that the work of AFRICOM, 
working with other agencies of the Government--including State 
and the U.S. Agency for International Development, in 
situations where it's not quite so dire and where those 
personnel are able to get in is, I believe, a critical part of 
U.S. capabilities for making improvements on the African 
continent.
    The use of targeted aid and the support of AFRICOM in terms 
of planning operations I think is also a very important 
instrument. I, like Ambassador Vershbow, don't have insights 
into exactly what happened, but I also will commit, if 
confirmed, to work with you and your staff to keep you updated.
    Senator Hagan. Thank you.
    I have another question, about the oil bunkering. Your 
responses to the committee's APQs--and this is to Ambassador 
Vershbow and Dr. Miller again--you discussed your intent to 
work with the State Department to develop strategies to counter 
the serious problem of oil bunkering in the Niger Delta. In 
particular, you emphasized maritime security and military 
capacity-building.
    Given our growing dependence on West African countries for 
our energy requirements, I was pleased to see your interest in 
working on this issue. Ambassador Vershbow and Dr. Miller, can 
you expand on your answer to the committee? I'm particularly 
interested in knowing whether you believe we can overcome the 
issue of systemic corruption in Nigeria and successfully 
building the Nigerian military's capacity to respond to this 
threat, and whether you think any near-term progress can be 
made on this issue?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, I will confess that this is a 
subject on which I need to learn a lot more about.
    Senator Hagan. Okay.
    Ambassador Vershbow. But from what I've been briefed thus 
far, I'm told that the assistance programs that we've carried 
out with the Nigerian military are going well, that the level 
of professionalization is improving. So I think with persistent 
effort over several years, we should be able to help them deal 
with the corruption issue.
    But this is again an area where I may need to delve more 
deeply into the subject.
    Senator Hagan. Okay.
    Dr. Miller. Senator, the problem of oil bunkering and 
lawlessness in the Niger Delta is longstanding and serious. The 
assistance that the United States can provide I think is 
important, but I think it's essential to understand that this 
the problem has deep roots in the history and regionally in 
this area of the Delta and with the Nigerian military facing 
other challenges as well, security challenges in the north. We 
should expect to make progress and we should work to make 
progress, but we should expect that it will be challenging. The 
question of corruption is certainly longstanding and one where 
the United States will have to pay attention as it works with 
the government.
    Senator Hagan. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin [presiding.] Senator Thune.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to all of you for your willingness to serve the 
country. I appreciate your appearing before the committee this 
morning and responding to the questions that we have.
    As I conveyed to Dr. Carter in a meeting in my office, I 
have an interest in long-range strike capability and I would 
like to pose a question to Dr. Carter as well as Dr. Miller, 
regarding that subject, and refer to an article that was 
published in the January-February edition of the Foreign 
Affairs Journal, in which Secretary Gates wrote that ``The 
United States' ability to strike from over the horizon will be 
at a premium'' and will ``require shifts from short-range to 
long-range systems, such as the Next Generation Bomber (NGB).''
    Dr. Carter, I also wanted to note that you had written a 
piece titled ``Defense Management Challenges for the Next 
American President'' for Orbis, which is a journal published by 
the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Your piece was in the 
winter 2009 edition of that publication, and in that piece you 
write about what you quote as ``prudently hedging'' against the 
down side scenario of competitive or aggressive behavior by 
China.
    You write that: ``A more specific focus of prudent hedging 
is to frustrate Chinese efforts in counter-air, counter-
carrier, counter-space, and counter-information capabilities.'' 
When you speak of frustrating Chinese efforts in counter-air 
capabilities as part of what you term the ``China hedge,'' do 
you think those efforts should include development of the NGB, 
which is expected to be able to penetrate air space that is 
protected by highly advanced air defense systems?
    Dr. Carter. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the reference 
to both Secretary Gates's statement and to that article.
    There are several dimensions to frustrating Chinese anti-
air capabilities which are relevant in a number of situations, 
the Taiwan Strait contingency being one. That article also 
refers to the possibility, which I certainly don't hope for and 
I personally consider unlikely, but still one to be taken 
seriously, that China's evolution takes it in a direction that 
brings it to a position of antagonism with the United States. 
That needs to be a little piece of our planning and our 
technology and program work that hedges against that 
eventuality. That was the thrust of the article.
    The NGB would certainly be in that portfolio of things. I'm 
sorry I'm not in a position to speak specifically to the NGB 
program now. I have not had access to that program in the 
course of the pre-confirmation process. So that's something 
I'll be able to look into if and when confirmed.
    I noted from our conversation the importance of that 
program in your mind as well as mine. When I get access to it, 
if you'll allow me, I'd like to come back and tell you what I 
found.
    Senator Thune. Good. I appreciate that. I understand you're 
somewhat limited at this point in time in what you can say 
about it.
    Dr. Miller, in your view, how does the NGB and long-range 
strike capability fit into our national security strategy and 
the new QDR?
    Dr. Miller. Sir, I certainly agree with the quote that you 
provided from Secretary Gates with respect to the importance of 
long-range capabilities. More broadly, I'd say that over time 
it's worth considering a shift in balance, shorter range to 
longer range, and also not across the board from any systems, 
manned to unmanned as well, because unmanned provides longer 
duration, persistence, and some other advantages.
    Like Dr. Carter, I have not had an opportunity to look into 
the details of the program and its capabilities, but we 
certainly expect that it would be an important issue in the 
QDR.
    The question of shorter-range and long-range aviation 
overall takes up a tremendous amount of the overall 
procurement, research and development procurement budget of the 
Department. So it's certain to be an area of attention in the 
QDR, pretty much without question, sir.
    Senator Thune. As you perhaps know, the 2006 QDR did call 
for fielding the NGB by 2018. I guess I would be interested as 
you have an opportunity to begin to review some of those time 
lines, your thoughts about whether or not that's something we 
can continue to keep on schedule.
    We are somewhat concerned about the age of the bomber fleet 
today, the B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, and some of the limitations that 
are imposed on those as assets that can be used in different 
operations and theaters, and the need for long-range strike and 
the need for range and payload that bombers can deliver. So my 
view is that the NGB is an important piece of our national 
security strategy, and I hope that you will come to that 
conclusion when you have an opportunity to review it more 
completely.
    One other question, with regard to the missile defense 
systems. I know some of that ground's been covered already and 
so I'll try not to be redundant. But I think the question has 
to do with capability and reliability. I think I mentioned, Dr. 
Carter, in our discussion as well that the system has 
demonstrated considerable success during test flights and, 
according to the MDA, across all missile defense systems 
programs. Thirty-seven of 47 hit-to-kill intercepts have been 
successful since 2001.
    Now, in the past 2 years, 13 of 15 intercepts have been 
successful, and we've had a couple combatant commanders in 
front of the committee, Admiral Keating and General Renuart, 
who testified earlier that they're confident the ground-based 
missile defense system would work if North Korea ever fired a 
missile at us. In fact, Admiral Keating went so far as to say 
that we have a high probability of knocking down a North Korean 
missile fired at us.
    The President, however, has said that missile defense 
should be deployed only after ``the technology is proved to be 
workable.'' If confirmed, the three of you are going to have 
considerable influence on the future of this system, and I'd 
like to get your thoughts on that.
    Dr. Carter, are you confident about that capability at this 
point?
    Dr. Carter. Senator, I'm not confident of that as I sit 
here today. Clearly it's something, given the quote you made 
from the President, that if I am confirmed, I need to get in 
and get a look at.
    I do have some familiarity, however, with that as a 
consequence of my beat on the National Missile Defense White 
Team, and the technical effectiveness of the system has grown 
steadily over time, that's to be expected with the evolution of 
technology. There are really two questions to ask about the 
effectiveness of the ground-based system against a North Korean 
threat.
    The first is whether, if the North Koreans, which is 
likely, at first do not have any special so-called 
``penetration aids'' or gimmicks on board their missile, but 
they're just trying to get it over here, what is the chance of 
an intercept in that case? We've done a lot of testing that 
bears upon that question. I think that General Renuart and 
General Chilton--I don't want to put words in their mouth, but 
I think that they anticipate, particularly if one has the 
option of shooting several times at an incoming primitive 
missile, of having a good chance, as you said, of being 
successful.
    The question of the next generation--or a ballistic missile 
accompanied with penetration aids gets a lot more difficult. In 
fact, it's inherently difficult for a passive infrared sensing 
missile defense system to deal with that circumstance. Now, 
that wouldn't be what the North Koreans started with first. 
That becomes another question.
    I think both the first issue, dealing with North Korea in 
the near-term, and the second issue, dealing with them in the 
far-term, are in the intent of the President's statement, and 
if I'm confirmed, I'll get in there and get to the bottom of it 
and discuss it with you as we go.
    Senator Thune. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just to the other 
members of the panel. Dr. Miller and Ambassador Vershbow, what 
would you plan to do about the European missile defense site, 
the so-called third site, that has been something that has been 
of great focus here in the last few years, and more recently in 
the last few weeks as discussions have gotten to more of an 
elevated level about that particular site.
    Dr. Miller. Senator, let me first provide a very brief 
answer to the earlier question and agree with Dr. Carter, but 
also note how much has changed over the last couple decades 
from when I worked on the Hill previously. The defense of the 
country clearly needs to be top priority of all departments, 
including DOD. There is no such thing as a perfect defense 
against all threats.
    We have to expect adversaries to adapt, including North 
Korea, as Dr. Carter suggested. In looking at the system's 
capabilities for our National Missile Defense Security and how 
those should be adapted over time is a fundamental issue.
    I say that because, when you talk about the European site, 
so-called ``third site,'' that is an issue as well. It will be 
addressed, I would expect, as part of another review of the 
congressionally-mandated review of the Missile Defense Review, 
but also in the context of discussions with Poland and the 
Czech Republic. The United States had previously made an offer 
to Russia to have some involvement, some cooperation with the 
system. I expect that it would make sense to me to have 
continued engagement with Russia on that question; then also to 
have a look at what Iran does and whether it's willing to 
verifiably stop its nuclear activities, and what that does for 
the threat and how that comes into the mix.
    I expect that there'll be extensive consultations with our 
allies on this question and with Russia on this question over 
the coming weeks and months.
    Senator Thune. Ambassador, anything to add?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Senator, I endorse what my colleagues 
have said. If confirmed for my job, I will be approaching this 
issue, obviously, from the political perspective. I will leave 
the issue of technical evaluation of the effectiveness of the 
systems to my colleagues.
    I think it is important that the NATO alliance has endorsed 
missile defense. I think we've come a long way in reaching 
consensus that there is an emerging threat that affects not 
only the United States, but our allies in Europe; and I think 
that our newer allies in Poland and the Czech Republic have 
taken important risks in agreeing in principle to the third 
site.
    As I understand it, our overall policy on missile defense 
is now under review, so I can't really speak authoritatively as 
to precisely what we may do. But I would underscore what Dr. 
Miller said, that when it comes to the third site in Europe the 
driving factor is the emerging threat posed by Iran, both its 
pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability and its ability to 
marry that capability to long-range ballistic missiles.
    Now, of course if we were, as others have said, able to 
eliminate that threat in a verifiable way, we'd have to look at 
the situation in a different light. But we're far away from 
achieving that goal, and so I think it's going to be a very 
important issue, on which we will need to continue to consult 
with our allies and of course with Congress.
    The Russians have made a lot of complaints about the 
proposed third site. I believe that if one looks carefully at 
the geography and the technical capabilities that are being 
considered, this system poses no threat to Russia. It's 
directed at Iran. But I think the way forward--and this is 
something that Chairman Levin has spoken about just recently--
could be to try once again to pursue cooperation in missile 
defense with Russia, which faces similar threats, may have some 
technological contributions to make to some kind of combined 
architecture. I think this could be a way of reinvigorating 
NATO-Russia cooperation, which has not fulfilled its early 
promise.
    So there's a lot of different dimensions to this issue. The 
policy is under review. I think we'll want to continue to take 
on board the views of this committee and other Members of 
Congress.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, and I appreciate your 
observations. I agree when you have NATO endorsing it, the 
Czechs and Poles have invested and risked a lot on this, and I 
would hope that it's something that we don't walk away from.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Levin. Senator Vitter.
    Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'm going to have to be real brief because I have to run to 
the floor. So I have two questions for Dr. Carter. Doctor, 
several acquisition programs have experienced cost overruns, 
including Nunn-McCurdy breaches and schedule delays and the 
like, and we all want to turn this negative trend around. What 
would you consider to be the essential principles of 
acquisition reform that could help do this, and specifically 
what are your thoughts about how competition can contribute to 
that?
    Dr. Carter. Thank you, Senator. I think I'd start, with 
respect to the reform part of your question, with the 
observation of Secretary Gates, and he said a few weeks ago 
with respect to acquisition reform: There is no silver bullet. 
What he meant by that--and I completely agree--is that as we 
look at the programs that are in trouble, as you noted--I think 
you said several; I wish it were only several; it's many 
severals that are in trouble--and you go back through their 
lifetime and do the diagnosis, how did we get to where we are, 
what went wrong, there are a number of different things that 
you can point to.
    So there isn't one common denominator, but there are some 
things that keep popping up. One is the size and quality of the 
acquisition workforce, the people who do this job, from 
contracting to systems engineering and so forth, on the 
government side. That seems to be a frequent offender.
    Another one--and I'm committed to try to fix that problem 
and this committee has already taken some action in that regard 
in years past, long before I came along for nomination, to deal 
with that. Other causes, I won't go through them all, but 
they're almost all covered in the draft legislation that is 
coming out of this committee, the Weapons Acquisition Reform 
Act of 2009. They have to do with, in addition to systems 
engineering, better cost estimation, including paying attention 
to cost estimates once you get a cost estimate, technology 
development, technology maturity, technology readiness at the 
early stage of a program, and your second point, which is 
competitiveness.
    I believe that competitiveness is the single most powerful 
tool the government has to get good value. We have a system in 
which we don't make our weapons inside the government. We 
contract with the private sector for them, and competition is 
the great discipliner. It's not always possible to have 
competition in programs because there aren't always many 
manufacturers of the things that we need in defense. There's 
been some consolidation of the industry over the last couple 
decades. But even in those cases, it's usually possible to have 
competition far enough into the program to discipline it, that 
is through the development phase. It's also possible, even if 
you can't have competition at the level of the prime contractor 
throughout the lifetime of the program, to maintain a 
competition at lower tiers of the program that supply 
subsystems.
    So in all these ways we need to keep looking for ways to 
keep competition alive, because that's the great discipliner 
that gives value to the warfighter and to the taxpayer. I'm 
committed to looking for those vehicles to keep competitiveness 
alive and, as I said, some of them have already been suggested 
by this committee.
    Senator Vitter. I'm concerned about several examples of 
that, and one near the top of my list is JSF and the issue of 
engines. Congress has repeatedly pushed for competition in that 
area and has inserted that into the budget, and DOD has 
repeatedly resisted and never itself put that into the budget.
    Would you support having that in the budget and continuing 
that competition because of the discipline, particularly long-
term, it would provide?
    Dr. Carter. I understand exactly why some have favored an 
alternative engine for JSF, and I also understand the other 
argument. Let me just spell the two out. But the net of it is 
that I don't have access to the information now that allows me 
to make this tradeoff. But if you have two engines, you have 
the value of competition. On the other hand, you're paying for 
two programs.
    So where does that come out? That's a quantitative question 
essentially and I don't have access to the information to allow 
me to make that assessment.
    Senator Vitter. I'd urge you to focus on that as soon as 
possible. I'm going to propound some more detailed questions 
about that as your nomination is pending. I believe that the 
Pentagon's decision, based on what I know, is based on a very 
short-term calculus of those pros and cons you're talking 
about, not a project life calculus, and I'm concerned about 
that, and I think competition there would really bring some 
rigor to that program, and I think a lot of folks, not just 
those directly involved, but the prime and other folks 
involved, support that.
    I'll be propounding some more detailed questions, but I'd 
love for you to look at that.
    Dr. Carter. I absolutely will look into it and try to 
answer the questions.
    Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
    Senator McCaskill, are you ready?
    Senator McCaskill. I am. I just have one brief area I want 
to cover, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank Dr. Carter for spending some time with me 
in my office yesterday. I want to just for the record of this 
hearing talk about some of the things we talked about 
yesterday, most specifically contracting as it relates to 
operations in a contingency and the problems that have occurred 
in Iraq and before that in Bosnia, the same problems; and make 
sure that we have on the record your commitment to realize that 
that's a very important part of your responsibility at DOD.
    Specifically, I would like you to speak briefly about what 
you would envision your plans as it relates to the drawing down 
of the contract force in Iraq. It is a huge undertaking to draw 
down that contract force and to do it in a way that is cost 
effective for the American taxpayer and that we get value out 
of the stuff that we've paid for that these contractors have is 
a big concern of mine. I have not yet heard anyone really 
address this issue that shows that there's a lot of planning 
going into it and a lot of forethought about how we can do it 
in a way that works for the American taxpayer, because frankly 
not much about contracting has worked either for the American 
military in terms of getting stuff we need at the best value, 
or the American taxpayer.
    Dr. Carter. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciated your 
giving me the time yesterday. I do absolutely share your 
concern. This is a big subject, contractors, the use of 
contractors in contingency operations, when that's appropriate 
and how to manage them.
    My own view is, as I shared with you yesterday, it's 
unavoidable. We can't do it all ourselves. But there's a 
question of what activities are appropriate to contract out and 
then contracting competently so that there is no waste, fraud, 
and abuse and there's effective and efficient contracting. I 
think that there's reason for concern in recent years in 
dealing with Iraq and also Afghanistan about all those 
questions, you're absolutely right.
    Also, another point you made which I agree with: Once you 
have all of these folks working for you and the need goes away 
or the need changes, are you able to move them from one place 
to another or move them off the government payroll when the 
contingency's over?
    The last thing I'll say, I'll say for everyone, but I said 
yesterday, is I'm highly aware that the title of the job for 
which you're considering me is ``AT&L,'' and that's not an 
afterthought in a time of war. Secretary Gates has expressed 
his determination to supply the troops in the field the way 
they deserve. We have a big job to move equipment out of Iraq 
and into Afghanistan, and I realize I will be involved in that 
and that's a huge task, and to deal with this question of 
contingency contracting and contractors on the battlefield. As 
I said to you yesterday, that's something I know I need to get 
on top of if I get in this job, and I'm committed to working 
with you and learning from you and telling you what I learn as 
I do that.
    Senator McCaskill. I think it is a big job, and I think 
that one of the ways that we will fix this long-term is for 
there to be an atmosphere of accountability. I'm not aware of 
anyone ever losing any kind of rank, getting any kind of 
demotion, just for their failure to oversee contracts in a way 
that makes sense. Until we instill that in the culture, I worry 
that our military commanders, for all the right reasons, want 
to focus on the mission, and they don't see how much stuff 
costs on contracts, whether it's in the mess or whether it's 
who's cleaning the latrines or who's doing the laundry--they 
don't really see that as part of the mission, and fixing that 
culture is probably the hardest part, and I wish you all the 
luck.
    Dr. Carter. Thank you.
    Senator McCaskill. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
    Dr. Carter, DOD now actually spends more for the 
acquisition of services than it does for the acquisition of 
products, including major weapons systems. Yet the Inspector 
General and GAO have reported that the Department routinely 
fails to conduct required acquisition planning and contract 
oversight functions for its services contracts.
    We enacted a provision a couple years ago that required the 
DOD to develop a comprehensive inventory of activities that are 
performed by service contractors, to serve as the basis for an 
analysis of whether we've gone too far in contracting out. The 
first inventory was supposed to be submitted last July. The 
Department now says it'll be unable to meet this requirement 
until 2011 at the earliest.
    Now, that really shows the problem. We have contracted out 
so much of the services that are needed that we can't even 
inventory those services for years.
    This is a real issue around here, this contracting out and 
whether or not we're getting our money's worth. There are some 
policy issues, but there's also some financial issues here. 
There's some real policy issues which I referred to in terms of 
contracting out security functions, but there's also some 
significant dollars here that are at issue. Will you ensure 
that the Department conducts the inventory of activities 
performed by service contractors in a timely manner?
    Dr. Carter. I will, Senator.
    Chairman Levin. Will you tell us what the earliest date is 
we can expect that? Once you're confirmed and check this out, 
will you get back to the committee?
    Dr. Carter. You bet, Senator.
    Chairman Levin. Dr. Miller, you wrote last September about 
the need for game-changing diplomacy with Iran, to emphasize 
more the need to put in place a comprehensive verification 
regime on Iran's activities and to talk directly with Iran on a 
broad range of issues. President Obama last Friday issued a 
video message to the people and Government of Iran in which he 
said that Iran had a choice, to assume its rightful place in 
the community of nations, but that Iran could not achieve this 
through terror and arms.
    Do you believe that there is an opportunity to engage Iran 
on issues of mutual concern, or at least that the attempt 
should be made?
    Dr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, yes, I believe certainly an 
attempt should be made. Whether there's an opportunity or not 
we will find out as we see the reaction of the Iranians.
    Chairman Levin. One of the issues, of course, that we're 
most concerned about with Iran is a potential missile threat, 
particularly if they ever achieve and obtain a nuclear weapon, 
given the makeup and the rhetoric of their current leadership. 
One of the arguments that I've been making is that if we can 
improve our relations with Russia, particularly if we can work 
with Russia on a joint missile defense that would be a defense 
against Iranian missiles, that this could be a true game-
changer in a lot of ways, not just in providing a missile 
defense, but in terms of making a very strong statement to Iran 
about the determination of the world community, including 
Russia working with us, to deal with an Iranian threat.
    First, Dr. Miller, if the United States and Russia could 
agree on a cooperative approach to missile defense, do you 
think that would be an important statement in terms of a 
determination to deal with Iran, but also could help to improve 
U.S. security in other ways?
    Dr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
    Chairman Levin. Ambassador Vershbow, do you have a comment 
on that? Would you agree with that?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would agree very 
much that if we could achieve cooperation with Russia on 
missile defense it would be a very important step in our 
relationship with Russia in dealing with a common threat, and 
it would send a very important message to Iran as well, which 
could underpin the diplomatic engagement that we are going to 
attempt to see whether we're able to get them to change their 
course on nuclear weapons development.
    Chairman Levin. Secretary Gates told us about a month ago 
or so that NATO would welcome cooperation or discussions about 
the possible cooperation between the United States and Russia 
relative to a cooperative approach to missile defense. You, of 
course, are an expert on NATO. Would you agree with Secretary 
Gates that NATO would welcome those efforts?
    Ambassador Vershbow. I agree 100 percent with Secretary 
Gates on this, and my experience is that this attitude of our 
NATO allies goes back many years. As NATO itself has come to 
see the importance of missile defense, they have also 
emphasized their interest in cooperating with Russia. Whether 
it's in the NATO-Russia context or a U.S.-Russia context, 
they're very much for it.
    Chairman Levin. Dr. Miller, the Law of the Sea Convention 
is pending in the Senate. In your response to prehearing policy 
questions, you stated that you support U.S. accession to the 
convention. Can you tell us what advantages you see in our 
joining that convention?
    Dr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, in my view there are numerous 
advantages to accession. Let me just list a couple for 
starters. The first is that the United States has a strong 
stake in freedom of navigation across the globe and that the 
convention would bring the United States additional tools to 
enforce that and to bring it in compliance also with 
international guidelines on that with the other countries that 
are involved across the globe.
    Second, stepping out of the defense area, as the Arctic 
opens up and we've seen an opening that allows passages that 
haven't been the case for as long as we've recorded the 
situation up there, there is a growing competition over 
minerals and over energy resources of other kinds, including 
oil, in that area, and accession to the Law of the Sea would 
give the United States a firm foundation for competing for 
those resources.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Dr. Miller, Ambassador Vershbow, let me turn to Afghanistan 
for a minute. One of the reasons that the expansion of the 
Afghan Security Forces is slower than we'd like is the lack of 
trainers. That's the long pole in the tent, we've been told by 
a number of our military leaders.
    The second longest pole would be the shortfall in equipment 
for the Afghan Security Forces. At Tuesday's hearing, General 
Craddock said that NATO members are failing to provide funds 
for the NATO Afghan Army Trust Fund, which would help pick up 
costs both of training and equipping the Afghan army.
    Let me ask you, Ambassador, would you look into the NATO 
trust fund issue, press NATO members to meet the agreed target 
for that fund? Will you--and I guess this would also apply to 
Dr. Miller--try to see what you can do to speed up the 
availability of equipment to the Afghan army and the Afghan 
police?
    Ambassador Vershbow. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I 
definitely will make all of those things a high priority. I 
think that these are issues that we would also be looking for 
some progress on at the upcoming NATO summit, and particularly 
the trust fund that you mentioned. These are all keys to 
success in Afghanistan and I think our allies have not done as 
well as we had hoped, but we will continue to press.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you.
    Senator Sessions.
    Senator Sessions. Thank you, Chairman Levin, for your 
courtesy and your good leadership of this committee.
    I congratulate President Obama on your nominations. From 
what I have seen in my opportunity to meet with each of you, I 
believe you bring to the government the kind of experience and 
good judgment that we need. You'll be under a lot of 
challenges. There's an article today about liberal groups 
demanding the President cut the defense budget even more. Our 
preliminary analysis of the budget that the President has 
submitted would indicate that he will be taking the defense 
expenditure from over 4 percent, almost 4.5 percent of gross 
domestic product, to 3 percent of gross domestic product. 
That's a dramatic cut if it's carried out and it's going to put 
some real pressure on each one of you in conducting your 
affairs in a fair and legitimate way.
    What has happened in the past is that procurement, Dr. 
Carter, is the thing that gets whacked, because you have to pay 
the salaries for our men and women in uniform and their health 
care, the electric bills, the housing, the transportation and 
upkeep on the equipment, and the fuel that goes in it. That is 
just a dangerous thing and I hope that you will recognize, as 
you and I talked earlier, that each President does have a 
responsibility during his watch to not only pay the salaries of 
our personnel, but also to provide for the future the weapons 
systems that they may need, but take years to develop.
    Would you agree that that's a responsibility a President 
has?
    Dr. Carter. I would, absolutely.
    Senator Sessions. Dr. Carter, in your advance questions I 
was pleased with a number of your answers. One of them, you 
were asked about international participation in the American 
defense base and you stated: ``It also helps the Department to 
achieve the advantages of competition in contracting, which 
includes the ability to obtain world-class best value products 
for our warfighters.''
    Do you stand by that statement?
    Dr. Carter. I do.
    Senator Sessions. I think that's fundamentally correct. Let 
me ask you this first, ``best value'' is a term that has some 
meaning within defense circles. Could you briefly summarize 
what that means to you?
    Dr. Carter. Yes. ``Best value,'' I think, means in 
acquisition more or less what it means in everyday life, which 
is looking at a purchase, in this case of a system, by taking 
into account all of the attributes that one wishes to have. So 
it means the same thing as it means when I think the person, 
any of us, goes in to best value to buy a radio or something.
    Senator Sessions. So price is a factor, quality is a 
factor, capabilities are a factor, all things, and you try to 
make a judgment for the warfighter based on the overall 
assembly of qualities that provide the best value for the 
military?
    Dr. Carter. That's correct. One attaches weights to the 
various factors and makes a decision accordingly.
    Senator Sessions. Let me just be frank with you. We're 
talking about an Air Force refueling tanker bid process that's 
been stopped. Secretary Gates said that as soon as you're on 
board it'll be your project. Congratulations. I said he punted 
and he caught his own punt and now he's going to hand it off to 
you. [Laughter.]
    But I believe strongly that best value is a fundamental 
principle of any good acquisition system. So I'm a little 
worried because I've heard some comment that, not official, 
but, well, we might just decide this purely on price. I would 
note that in the last bid round that the aircraft that would be 
built in my State was a good bit cheaper. At any rate, I think 
it was a more capable aircraft also.
    But I think best value is the right principle. Do you 
intend to apply the best value principle to your supervision of 
the bid process for the number one Air Force priority, the 
replacement of the aging tanker fleet?
    Dr. Carter. I recognize this is going to be a big 
responsibility. I think best value is a good principle in 
acquisition, as it is in everyday life. What I committed to you 
when we chatted earlier, and I do again, is my job as I 
understand it, if I'm confirmed, with respect to the tanker 
deal, is to serve up the best acquisition strategy as honestly 
as I possibly can.
    I realize that this acquisition program's been through its 
ups and downs and so forth. I'm going to take a fresh eye to it 
and call it to the Secretary of Defense as straight as I 
possibly can.
    Senator Sessions. But do you intend to use the principle of 
best value for the warfighter? Because we required this 
contract to be bid, Congress did, after a flap over the 
contract--and some people went to jail. We required it to be 
bid, and there were only two bidders in the whole world that 
could supply this aircraft. Both of them would build their 
aircraft in the United States.
    I guess my question to you is, when you're going to analyze 
this why would you not use the traditional process of best 
value?
    Dr. Carter. I would use exactly the traditional process of 
best value in this case and attach the weights to the various 
parameters that go into best value, of which price is one, and 
call it like I see it. The Secretary of Defense and the 
President will have a voice in that as well. But my commitment 
to you is I will call it absolutely straight.
    Senator Sessions. I thank you for that. We had a lot of 
political talk and out of all this storm DOD will have to 
maintain its reputation for integrity and making decisions on 
the merits and not politics. I feel like you've been there, you 
understand the pressures you're likely to be subjected to, but 
you'll do the right thing. That's what my present belief is, 
and I hope that the Secretary or others wouldn't alter the 
traditional process of choosing the best aircraft.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
    There are no more questions, so we will bring the hearing 
to a close. I want to before I close just say two things. 
First, we're going to bring these nominations to a vote of the 
committee as quickly as we possibly can and hopefully get these 
to the floor before recess.
    Second, I just want to not only thank you for your 
commitment to public service; I want to thank again your 
families. If you don't mind, Dr. Miller, I want to single out 
particularly your younger kids. They have looked interested way 
beyond what could reasonably be expected of kids their age. I 
have grandkids about their age, so I won't say any more than 
that. But anyway, I know how important it is that all of you 
have your families here, but particularly when you have young 
kids that would much rather be out there in the rain.
    Dr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Levin. Thank you all. We will stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the committee adjourned.]

    [Prepared questions submitted to Ashton Carter by Chairman 
Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
                        Questions and Responses
                            defense reforms
    Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense (DOD) 
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have 
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have 
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain 
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant 
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments 
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment 
to the combatant commanders.
    Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act 
provisions?
    Answer. I worked in the Pentagon both before and after the passage 
of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and I have seen its benefits in terms of 
jointness, provision of military advice to the President, and 
streamlined acquisition management. Some of the act's principles are 
also being applied to interagency coordination. At this time I see no 
specific changes in the act that I would recommend. If confirmed, I 
would have the opportunity to assess whether changes were needed, and 
if so consult with this committee.
    Question. If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to 
address in these modifications?
    Answer. Acquisition reform must be a central priority, and if 
confirmed I will be assessing proposals for reform, including ones that 
might touch on aspects of Goldwater-Nichols. I will consult with this 
committee if such a proposal arises and appears to have merit.
                                 duties
    Question. Twenty years ago, Congress established the position of 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition in response to the 
recommendations of the Packard Commission. The Packard Commission 
report stated: ``This new Under Secretary . . . should be the Defense 
Acquisition Executive. As such, he should supervise the performance of 
the entire acquisition system and set overall policy for R&D, 
procurement, logistics, and testing. He should have the responsibility 
to determine that new programs are thoroughly researched, that military 
requirements are verified, and that realistic cost estimates are made 
before the start of full-scale development. (In general, we believe, 
cost estimates should include the cost of operating and maintaining a 
system through its life.) He should assure that an appropriate type of 
procurement is employed, and that adequate operational testing is done 
before the start of high-rate production. He also should be responsible 
for determining the continuing adequacy of the defense industrial 
base.''
    Do you believe that the position of Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(ATL)) has the duties and 
authorities necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Packard 
Commission?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you see the need for modifications in the duties and 
authorities of the USD(ATL)?
    Answer. No.
    Question. Do you believe that DOD has effectively implemented a 
streamlined chain of command for acquisition programs, as envisioned by 
the Packard Commission?
    Answer. I believe that the Department has implemented acquisition 
chains of command that provide a good management structure to meet 
current acquisition requirements and outcomes. If confirmed, I will 
continue to examine these acquisition structures and oversight chains.
    Question. Do you see the need for modifications in that chain of 
command, or in the duties and authorities of any of the officials in 
that chain of command?
    Answer. Not at this time. I believe the statutory reporting chain 
which provides USD(AT&L) directive authority for Service acquisition 
programs via the Service Secretaries is a critical authority which must 
be maintained. If confirmed, I will evaluate the current chains of 
command and recommend adjustments, if needed.
    Question. Section 133 of title 10, U.S.C., describes the duties and 
responsibilities of the USD(ATL).
    Assuming you are confirmed, what additional duties do you expect 
that the Secretary of Defense will prescribe for you?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary to assign me duties 
and functions commensurate with the USD(AT&L) position, and any others 
he may deem appropriate.
    Question. Do you recommend any changes to the provisions of section 
133 of title 10, U.S.C., with respect to the duties of the USD(ATL)?
    Answer. No, I do not.
                             qualifications
    Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for managing an 
acquisition system pursuant to which DOD spends almost $400 billion 
each year. Section 133 of title 10, U.S.C., provides for the Under 
Secretary to be appointed from among persons who have an extensive 
management background in the public or private sector.
    What background and experience do you have that you believe 
qualifies you for this position?
    Answer. I have had 25 years of experience working with and for DOD 
and its supporting defense industry and laboratories on major weapons 
systems and command and control systems. I first worked in DOD for 
Secretary Caspar Weinberger on space programs, nuclear weapons systems, 
command and control systems, and strategic defense in the 1980s. In the 
1990s I was privileged to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense. In 
between government service I have been a consultant and advisor to 
defense companies, to defense laboratories and federally-funded 
research and development centers (FFRDCs), and a member and consultant 
to the Defense Science Board and to DOD's Threat Reduction Advisory 
Council. I have participated in many panels and studies that have 
assessed the defense acquisition system going back to the 1980s and 
have written three books that address the subject. As a physicist, I am 
very familiar with developments in defense technology and therefore 
with the role the USD(AT&L) plays in overseeing the science and 
technology (S&T) efforts of the Department. The USD(AT&L) also plays a 
key role in our nuclear deterrent and in other strategic issues. I have 
been deeply involved in technical aspects of nuclear weapons and 
missile defense since the 1980s.
    Question. What background or experience, if any, do you have in the 
acquisition of major weapon systems?
    Answer. Acquiring weapons systems in a manner that that warfighter 
and taxpayer deserve has several dimensions, and I have background and 
experience in each. Secretary Gates and Deputy Secretary Lynn have 
stressed the need to ensure that the Department's acquisition program 
meets the needs of the 21st century, and I believe they expect the 
USD(AT&L) to contribute, with other senior managers, to that end. I 
have previously participated in many governmental and nongovernmental 
reviews and analyses of U.S. military strategy, trends in the types of 
threats the United States will face in the future, and the spectrum of 
military and nonmilitary responses to these threats. Once a need is 
identified and a materiel approach selected, it is important to know 
whether the technology is mature enough to permit an acquisition 
program to commence and then to proceed at every key milestone. I am a 
physicist with long involvement in the technical aspects of defense 
programs, and I therefore believe that if confirmed, I will be able to 
discharge the USD(AT&L)'s responsibility to assess technology readiness 
levels at each step of the acquisition process. Development, 
procurement, and sustainment of major weapons systems require 
experience with DOD and the defense industry, systems engineering at 
every stage, and iron discipline. I have had 25 years of experience 
working with and for the Defense Department and its supporting 
industry, laboratories, and FFRDCs. Finally, the acquisition system 
itself is widely regarded as having failed both the warfighter and the 
taxpayer, and reform of the system is an imperative. I have 
participated in numerous reform efforts dating to the 1980s and have 
written three books that deal with the subject. I believe that, if 
confirmed, I can use this experience to help identify reforms that will 
avoid in the future some of the problems we are having with major 
defense programs today.
                     major challenges and problems
    Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will 
confront the USD(ATL)?
    Answer. A first major challenge is to ensure that AT&L is 
supporting the war effort through rapid acquisition of systems our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines need in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
in the war on terror; ensuring that the logistics supply lines into and 
out of Iraq, and into Afghanistan, can support the forces and the 
required deployment timetables; and making sure the role of contractors 
on the battlefield is appropriate. A second major challenge is to get 
under control the many troubled acquisition programs that are supposed 
to be supporting our forces--both today and tomorrow. Too many of these 
programs are failing to meet their cost, schedule, and performance 
expectations, and some are failing even more fundamentally the test of 
whether they are needed for the future military challenges we are most 
likely to face. In addition to disciplining these programs, reform of 
the acquisition system is needed to ensure that we do not get ourselves 
in this position again in the future. A third challenge is to ensure 
that the Department has the strongest S&T base supporting national 
security. A fourth challenge is to ensure, consistent with overall 
national policy, a safe and secure nuclear deterrent and technically 
effective missile defense programs.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for 
addressing these challenges?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would use the experience and knowledge I 
have of defense programs, technology, and DOD to focus on these 
priorities, working with the acquisition team, other senior managers in 
the Department, Congress, and industry leaders to produce real progress 
for the warfighter and taxpayer.
                        acquisition organization
    Question. Do you believe that the office of the USD(ATL) is 
appropriately structured to execute its management and oversight 
responsibilities?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to familiarize myself with 
the AT&L office organization, so at this time, I am not aware of 
significant structural impediments to accomplishing its function.
    Question. Do you believe that any change is needed in the duties 
and responsibilities of the Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense serving 
under the USD(ATL)?
    Answer. See previous answer.
    Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the relationship 
between the USD(ATL) and senior acquisition officials in the military 
departments?
    Answer. Not at this time. If confirmed, I will be actively involved 
in setting acquisition policy. My expectation would be to ensure the 
senior acquisition officials in the military departments and defense 
agencies implement and follow those policies, and demonstrate effective 
execution.
    Question. Do you see the need for any additional processes or 
mechanisms to ensure coordination between the budget, acquisition, and 
requirements systems of the DOD and ensure that appropriate trade-offs 
are made between cost, schedule, and performance requirements early in 
the acquisition process?
    Answer. I am not aware of a need for additional processes or 
mechanisms at this time. If confirmed, I will examine these issues and 
recommend appropriate changes. I do believe, however, that coordination 
among these functions is absolutely necessary to best serve the 
warfighter and taxpayer.
    Question. What do you believe should be the appropriate role of the 
Service Chiefs in the requirements, acquisition, and resource-
allocation process?
    Answer. The Service Chiefs have a key role to play in the 
development of capability needs and in the planning and allocation of 
resources consistent with those needs. Service Chiefs do not play a 
formal role in the acquisition chain of command, but I would respect 
and encourage their advice on matters within their purview.
    Question. What do you believe should be the appropriate role of the 
combatant commanders in the requirements, acquisition, and resource-
allocation processes?
    Answer. Combatant commanders have an important role in the 
development of capability needs and advising on priorities and 
allocation of resources consistent with those needs. I believe the 
acquisition system should be especially responsive to their urgent 
needs. If confirmed, I would respect and encourage their advice on 
matters within their purview.
    Question. Do you see the need for any changes in the structure or 
operations of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)?
    Answer. JROC membership may be appropriate for the USD(AT&L). The 
USD(AT&L) must continue to at least participate in a full advisory 
role. Close coordination between requirements and acquisition is 
essential.
                    major weapon system acquisition
    Question. The investment budget for weapon systems has grown 
substantially over the past few years to more than $150 billion per 
year. An increasing share of this investment is being allocated to a 
few very large systems such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Future Combat 
Systems, and Missile Defense.
    Do you believe that the current investment budget for major systems 
is affordable given increasing historic cost growth in major systems, 
costs of current operations, projected increases in end strength, and 
asset recapitalization?
    Answer. I am concerned that it may not be. Moreover, I believe the 
investment budget will be under increasing pressure in the future. If 
confirmed, this is an area I will manage vigorously to ensure we have 
an affordable long-term investment strategy.
    Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to address this issue?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to acquaint myself as quickly as 
possible with the facts of this situation and assist the Secretary and 
Deputy Secretary in addressing it.
    Question. What would be the impact of a decision by the Department 
to reduce purchases of major systems because of affordability issues?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully assess the impact of any 
proposal to reduce purchases of major systems because of affordability, 
including the impact on national security risk, industrial capability, 
as well as international implications.
    Question. Nearly half of DOD's 95 largest acquisition programs have 
exceeded the so-called Nunn-McCurdy cost growth standards established 
in section 2433 of title 10, U.S.C, to identify seriously troubled 
programs. The cost overruns on these major defense acquisition programs 
(MDAPs) now total $295 billion over the original program estimates, 
even though the Department has cut unit quantities and reduced 
performance expectations on many programs in an effort to hold costs 
down.
    What steps, if any, would you take, if confirmed, to address the 
out-of-control cost growth on DOD's MDAPs?
    Answer. We cannot change history. But it is important to assess 
whether programs that have already experienced cost growth are still 
out of control and whether they can still be afforded. Looking forward 
I intend to ensure programs start out right with an appropriate degree 
of practical realism in terms of technical, performance and cost 
expectations. If confirmed, I intend to emphasize realistic overall 
cost estimates and time phased funding profiles. If confirmed, I will 
also work to devise and enforce current and possible new policies to 
discipline the system so that program requirements are well understood 
when programs start, and are stabilized as much as possible over the 
long term to guard against unreasonable future growth in costs.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe that the Department 
should consider taking in the case of MDAPs that exceed the critical 
cost growth thresholds established in the Nunn-McCurdy provision?
    Answer. I believe the current statutory provision provides the 
authority to take appropriate measures, including major restructuring 
or termination.
    Question. Do you believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as currently structured, has 
the organization and resources necessary to effectively oversee the 
management of these MDAPs? If not, how would you address this problem?
    Answer. If confirmed, this is an area I would examine carefully and 
make appropriate recommendations.
    Question. Do you believe that DOD has the systems engineering and 
developmental testing organizations, resources, and capabilities needed 
to ensure that there is a sound basis for key requirements, 
acquisition, and budget decisions on MDAPs? If not, how would you 
address this problem?
    Answer. I believe sound systems engineering and developmental 
testing is a fundamental basis for acquisition decisions, and I am 
concerned about the adequacy of the organizational and human capital 
dimensions of systems engineering in the Department. If confirmed, I 
will review and assess the organizations and capabilities in this area 
and make appropriate recommendations.
    Question. Do you see the need for any changes to the Nunn-McCurdy 
provision?
    Answer. Not at this time, but this is an issue I would intend to 
review if confirmed
    Question. What principles will guide your thinking on whether to 
recommend terminating a program that has experienced ``critical'' cost 
growth under Nunn-McCurdy?
    Answer. The certification criteria in the statute provide a set of 
principles, namely, whether a program is still a high priority to 
national defense, has sound management, the costs are well understood 
moving forward, and that there are no other more cost effective 
alternatives.
    Question. In the budget blueprint that supports the fiscal year 
2010 presidential budget request, the administration committed to 
``setting realistic requirements, sticking to them and incorporating 
`best practices' by not allowing programs to proceed from one stage of 
the acquisition cycle to the next until they have achieved the maturity 
to clearly lower the risk of cost growth and schedule slippage.''
    If confirmed, how would you help ensure that the Department makes 
good on this commitment?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to enforce policies that discipline 
the system so that program requirements are well understood when 
programs start, and are stabilized as much as possible over the long 
term to guard against unreasonable future growth in costs for whatever 
reason.
                         technological maturity
    Question. Over the last several years, the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) has prepared a series of reports for this 
committee comparing DOD approach to the acquisition of major systems 
with the approach taken by best performers in the private sector. GAO 
concluded that private sector programs are more successful because they 
consistently require a high level of maturity for new technologies 
before such technologies are incorporated into product development 
programs. The Department has responded to these findings by adopting 
technological maturity goals in its acquisition policies.
    How important is it, in your view, for the Department to mature its 
technologies with research and development (R&D) funds before these 
technologies are incorporated into product development programs?
    Answer. Launching into a product development program with immature 
technology presents a high risk with respect to cost, schedule, and 
performance. Ideally, technology maturation is accomplished through 
private sector investments, and the Department is able to harvest the 
results of commercial investments in its acquisition programs. However, 
when certain critical technologies are required for achieving mission 
success, and private sector investment is unlikely to be forthcoming or 
adequate, the Department should invest R&D funds to mature those 
technologies.
    Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to ensure 
that the key components and technologies to be incorporated into major 
acquisition programs meet the Department's technological maturity 
goals?
    Answer. Since 2006, the Department has required that all critical 
technologies for major acquisition programs must be rated as Technology 
Readiness Level (TRL) 6 or better at Milestone B, and TRL 7 or better 
at Milestone C. I believe this policy is extremely beneficial, and has 
resulted in numerous cases where acquisition programs have devoted much 
more attention to ensuring technology readiness at key milestones. I am 
in favor of developing policy and approaches that will shine a 
spotlight on technology readiness even earlier in the acquisition cycle 
to ensure that maturation occurs in a timely way.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department should make greater 
use of prototypes, including competitive prototypes, to ensure that 
acquisition programs reach an appropriate level of technological 
maturity, design maturity, and manufacturing readiness before receiving 
Milestone approval?
    Answer. Yes. When judiciously applied, competitive prototyping can 
substantially reduce development risk in acquisition programs. I say 
judiciously because it is not practical to force every program to 
prototype full systems in every case. If confirmed, I will include 
competitive prototyping in acquisition strategy decisions informed by 
technology readiness, systems engineering and integration evaluations, 
and other management factors.
    Question. Section 2366a of title 10, U.S.C., requires the Milestone 
Decision Authority (MDA) for a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) 
to certify that critical technologies have reached an appropriate level 
of maturity before Milestone B approval.
    What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to make sure that 
the DOD complies with the requirements of section 2366a?
    Answer. If confirmed, as chair of the Defense Acquisition Board and 
MDA for Acquisition Authority-1 programs, I will use technology 
readiness assessments submitted to ensure compliance with section 
2366a.
    Question. What steps if any will you take to ensure that the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering is adequately staffed and 
resourced to support decisionmakers in complying with the requirements 
of section 2366a?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect to work with Director, Defense 
Research and Engineering (DDR&E) and DUSD(S&T) and other members of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) staff to evaluate the adequacy 
of resources available to meet the challenges of complying with the 
requirements of section 2366a.
    Question. Are you satisfied that technology readiness assessments 
adequately address systems integration and engineering issues which are 
the cause of many cost overruns and schedule delays in acquisition 
programs?
    Answer. On the basis of the information currently available to me, 
I am not. If confirmed, I will direct the appropriate USD(AT&L) offices 
to ensure that systems integration, systems engineering, and technology 
maturity issues are properly addressed and coordinated
    Question. Do you plan to follow the recommendation of the Defense 
Science Board Task Force on the Manufacturing Technology Program and 
require program managers to make use of the Manufacturing Readiness 
Level tool on all programs?
    Answer. I believe strongly in the importance of manufacturing 
technology as a type of technology deserving DOD fostering just as DOD 
fosters the technologies embedded in the manufactured weapons 
themselves. I also agree that manufacturing readiness should be 
assessed more rigorously before programs pass into production. If 
confirmed, I intend to review the specific recommendations of the DSB 
report and to take actions that reflect the importance of this subject.
    Question. Beyond addressing technological maturity issues in 
acquisition programs, what other steps should the Department take to 
increase accountability and discipline in the acquisition process?
    Answer. There are a great number of factors that contribute to the 
pervasive failure of programs to meet their schedule, cost, and 
performance goals. As Secretary Gates has said, there is no ``silver 
bullet'' that will address all of the factors. They involve all steps 
of the process, from unrealistic requirements and technology immaturity 
at the front end of the process to instability and inefficient 
production runs at the back end, to insufficient systems engineering 
throughout the process, to many other factors. If confirmed, I will be 
committed to addressing all these factors and, where necessary, 
reforming the system to minimize the frequency of these pervasive 
problems.
                       fixed price-type contracts
    Question. Recent congressional and DOD initiatives attempt to 
reduce technical and performance risks associated with developing and 
producing major defense acquisition programs so as to minimize the use 
of cost-reimbursable contracts.
    Do you think that the Department should move towards more fixed 
price-type contracting in developing or procuring major defense 
acquisition programs? Why or why not?
    Answer. I do think that the Department should whenever possible 
consider moving towards the more frequent use of fixed price type 
contracts in developing or procuring major defense acquisition 
programs. Whether a program should have a fixed price or cost type 
contract depends upon several key factors: 1) the stability of the 
requirement; 2) the maturity of the technology employed; 3) the ability 
to estimate accurately the cost of the system to be procured; and 4) 
stable funding. If these key factors are met, then it is appropriate to 
utilize a fixed price type contract for developing and producing major 
defense systems.
                         technology transition
    Question. The Department continues to struggle with the transition 
of new technologies into existing programs of record and major weapons 
systems and platforms. Further, the Department also has struggled with 
moving technologies from DOD programs or other sources rapidly into the 
hands of operational users.
    What impediments to technology transition do you see within the 
Department?
    Answer. There are several impediments to technology transition. One 
is the gap between the results of R&D sponsored in DOD laboratories and 
the engineering and production processes in industry. Another is having 
a rapid enough acquisition system that the technologies it embeds in 
the systems it produces are not out of date by the time they are 
fielded. Another is the gap that sometimes develops between the 
commercial (and largely globalized) technology base and the defense 
technology base.
    Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to enhance 
the effectiveness of technology transition efforts?
    Answer. As a technologist myself, overcoming these impediments will 
be a priority for me and for the DDR&E. If confirmed, I intend, with 
that individual's help, to devise and implement further measures to 
overcome these impediments.
    Question. What can be done from a budget, policy, and 
organizational standpoint to facilitate the transition of technologies 
from S&T programs and other sources, including small businesses, 
venture capital funded companies, and other nontraditional defense 
contractors, into acquisition programs?
    Answer. It is very important that defense tap into these sources, 
which are some of the most innovative in the world, for technology that 
can be applied to weapons systems. R&D and acquisition processes must 
make it easier for such entities to contribute to defense.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department's S&T organizations 
have the ability and the resources to carry technologies to higher 
levels of maturity before handing them off to acquisition programs?
    Answer. The S&T organizations can take technologies to levels 
appropriate to their mission, but going beyond that (e.g., to 
demonstrations in operational environments) would require resources not 
generally resident in S&T organizations.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe the Department should 
take to ensure that research programs are sufficiently funded to reduce 
technical risk in programs so that technological maturity can be 
demonstrated at the appropriate time?
    Answer. To enable research programs to reduce technical risk in 
acquisition programs more effectively, they must have current, detailed 
understanding of the technical approaches in those programs. Visibility 
into acquisition program technical approaches by the research 
enterprise may need to be improved.
    Question. What role do you believe technology readiness levels 
(TRLs) and manufacturing readiness levels (MRLs) should play in the 
Department's efforts to enhance effective technology transition and 
reduce cost and risk in acquisition programs?
    Answer. Together with others, TRLs and MRLs can serve as management 
tools to gauge the maturity of technologies that might be adopted by 
acquisition programs and to estimate the effort required to achieve 
acceptable production capabilities.
    Question. Section 2359a(c) of title 10, U.S.C., requires the 
USD(ATL) to designate a senior official of the Department to support 
the development of policies to facilitate the rapid transition of 
technologies from S&T programs into acquisition programs of DOD.
    If confirmed, would you expect to appoint a single technology 
transition advocate who would be responsible for promoting technology 
transition throughout the Department?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would expect the DDR&E to be responsible 
for promoting technology transition.
    Question. If appointed, where should this official be positioned 
within the Office of the USD(ATL) to most effectively and seamlessly 
transition technologies to acquisition programs from S&T programs and 
other sources and best reflect the needs of both the user and 
technology development communities?
    Answer. See above.
        unrealistic cost, schedule, and performance expectations
    Question. Many acquisition experts attribute the failure of DOD 
acquisition programs to a cultural bias that routinely produces overly 
optimistic cost and schedule estimates and unrealistic performance 
expectations. As Senator Levin explained at a June 2008 hearing, 
``contractors and program offices have every reason to produce 
optimistic cost estimates and unrealistic performance expectations, 
because programs that promise revolutionary change and project lower 
costs are more likely to be approved and funded by senior 
administration officials and by Congress.''
    Do you agree with the assessment that overly optimistic cost and 
schedule estimates and unrealistic performance expectations contribute 
to the failure of major defense acquisition programs?
    Answer. Yes. I believe there are real cultural issues at play in 
this regard. For example, each program is so difficult to start and 
``sell'' within the enterprise and Congress that multiple stakeholders 
are needed, and the tendency is to settle on satisfying everyone's 
wishes. Since few of the parties at this stage face any real penalty 
for making the program do ``a little bit more'', this drives to overly 
ambitious programs with exquisite capabilities. Ultimately this results 
in overpromising and underdelivering.
    Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to ensure 
that the Department's cost, schedule, and performance estimates are 
realistic?
    Answer. There is no one step that will ensure that cost, schedule, 
and performance estimates are realistic. But, if confirmed, I will 
insist on technology maturity and the solicitation and heeding of 
independent cost estimates.
    Question. Do you believe that early communication between the 
acquisition, budget, and requirements communities in DOD can help 
ensure more realistic cost, schedule, and performance expectations?
    Answer. Yes, and if confirmed, I will work hard to break down any 
barriers between these three processes.
    Question. If so, what steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to 
ensure such communication?
    Answer. The key is leadership that is committed in all three 
processes working together. I believe that Secretary Gates and Deputy 
Secretary Lynn expect those who lead the requirements, acquisition, and 
budgeting functions to work as a team. If confirmed, that is my 
intention.
    Question. What is your view of the need for an independent office 
of cost estimating within DOD?
    Answer. The function of independent cost estimation is critical. My 
first Pentagon job in the 1980s was in PA&E, and I am well familiar 
with the capabilities of the CAIG. If confirmed, I will take a careful 
look at the cost estimation capabilities, and more importantly whether 
their results figure in decisionmaking.
    Question. DOD has increasingly turned to incremental acquisition 
and spiral development approaches in an effort to make cost, schedule, 
and performance expectations more realistic and achievable.
    Do you believe that incremental acquisition and spiral development 
can help improve the performance of the Department's major acquisition 
programs?
    Answer. Yes I do, in selected instances. Like other useful 
acquisition concepts, spiral development is not a silver bullet but 
should be in the acquisition system's toolkit.
    Question. In your view, has the Department's approach to 
incremental acquisition and spiral development been successful? Why or 
why not?
    Answer. I think the answer is mixed. My impression is that some of 
the more successful implementations of evolutionary approaches have 
come recently as a result of rapid fielding necessitated by operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if not used wisely, the result can be 
added complexity to systems.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe are needed to ensure 
that the requirements process, budget process, and testing regime can 
accommodate incremental acquisition and spiral development approaches?
    Answer. Each of these requirements, budget, and testing processes 
must be flexible enough to accommodate the possibility, where 
appropriate, of applying these acquisition concepts. If confirmed, I 
will seek to ensure this flexibility.
    Question. How should the Department ensure that the incremental 
acquisition and spiral development programs have appropriate baselines 
against which to measure performance?
    Answer. I see this as no different than any other program. If 
confirmed, I would insist that each increment or evolution of 
capability have a baseline for assessing execution performance.
                   funding and requirements stability
    Question. The poor performance of major defense acquisition 
programs has also been attributed to instability in funding and 
requirements. In the past, DOD has attempted to provide greater funding 
stability through the use of multi-year contracts. More recently, the 
Department has sought greater requirements stability by instituting 
Configuration Steering Boards to exercise control over any changes to 
requirements that would increase program costs.
    Do you support the use of Configuration Steering Boards to increase 
requirements stability on major defense acquisition programs?
    Answer. Yes, I support activities such as Configuration Steering 
Boards that prevent unnecessary changes to program requirements or 
system configuration that could have an adverse impact on program cost 
and/or schedule. In addition, I am aware that Configuration Steering 
Boards are required by section 814 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and are included within the 
recent update to DOD Instruction 5000.02. If confirmed, I will review 
the Department's implementation of Configuration Steering Boards to 
ensure they are contributing to requirements stability as intended.
    Question. What are your views on multi-year procurements? Under 
what circumstances do you believe they should be used?
    Answer. In general, I favor multi-year procurement strategies if 
they provide savings. Frequently, multi-year procurements can offer 
substantial savings through improved economies in production processes, 
better use of industrial facilities, and a reduction in the 
administrative burden in the placement and administration of contracts. 
There are a number of criteria to be considered in deciding whether a 
program should be considered for multi-year procurement. Among them 
are: savings when compared to the annual contracting methods; validity 
and stability of the mission need; stability of the funding; stability 
of the configuration; associated technical risks; degree of confidence 
in estimates of both contract costs and anticipated savings; and 
promotion of national security.
    Question. What is your opinion on the level of cost savings that 
constitute ``substantial savings'' for purposes of the defense multi-
year procurement statute, title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2306b?
    Answer. There has been much debate over the threshold on the level 
of cost savings that constitutes ``substantial savings.'' It has been 
suggested that the Department needs to raise the bar with regard to the 
amount of savings that are achieved through the use of multi-year 
contracts. I agree that we need to ensure that the savings achieved are 
substantial not only in terms of dollars but also substantial in terms 
of the relative difference in price that we would otherwise pay for an 
annual procurement.
    But I also understand that placing an absolute minimum threshold on 
``substantial savings'' could unnecessarily limit the contracting 
options available and should be evaluated based upon the circumstances 
of each particular proposed program being proffered for multi-year 
procurement.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that a 
multi-year contract should be used for procuring weapons systems that 
have unsatisfactory program histories, e.g., displaying poor cost, 
scheduling, or performance outcomes but which might otherwise comply 
with the requirements of the defense multi-year procurement statute, 
title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2306b?
    Answer. Additional analysis and careful review of all information 
should be completed when a multi-year contract is being considered for 
use in procuring weapon systems that have unsatisfactory program 
histories but which otherwise comply with the statutory requirements. 
The Department would need to examine very carefully all risk factors to 
determine if a multi-year procurement would be appropriate.
    Question. How would you analyze and evaluate proposals for multi-
year procurement for such programs?
    Answer. The Department would need to examine all risk factors in 
conjunction with the potential for cost savings to determine if multi-
year procurement would be appropriate for a program with an 
unsatisfactory history. If confirmed, I will analyze and evaluate 
proposals for multi-year procurements in accordance with all statutory 
and regulatory requirements and I will ensure that we fully understand 
the benefit to the warfighter and taxpayer to proceed with a multi-year 
procurement for a program with a checkered history.
    Question. If confirmed, what criteria would you apply in 
determining whether procuring such a system under a multi-year contract 
is appropriate and should be proposed to Congress?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that all of the regulatory and 
statutory requirements are met before proceeding with any multi-year 
procurement.
    Question. Under what circumstances, if any, should DOD ever break a 
multi-year procurement?
    Answer. If the Department has done its job properly, the 
cancellation of a multi-year contract should be a rare event. However, 
there are circumstances under when it could occur. One such event would 
be the failure to fund a program year. Another would be the failure of 
the contractor to perform, which ultimately would lead to a decision to 
terminate for default.
    Question. What other steps if any would you recommend taking to 
increase the funding and requirements stability of major defense 
acquisition programs?
    Answer. I understand the Department has implemented numerous 
initiatives focused on improving funding and requirements stability. 
These include: (1) greater upfront planning implicit in the new 
Material Development Decision; (2) the use of Configuration Steering 
Boards; (3) Program Management Agreements to limit requirements 
changes; and (4) competitive prototyping to inform the Department on 
the realism of requirements. I believe these and other Department 
initiatives are sound and I support them. It will take time to show the 
impact of these policies, but lasting change starts with good common-
sense policies that are measurable, enforceable, and widely accepted as 
good policy. If confirmed, I plan to closely monitor the execution of 
these policies and look for other opportunities to improve funding and 
requirements stability.
                          multi-year contracts
    Question. The statement of managers accompanying Section 811 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 addresses the 
requirements for buying major defense systems under multi-year 
contracts as follows: ``The conferees agree that `substantial savings' 
under section 2306b(a)(1) of title 10, U.S.C., means savings that 
exceed 10 percent of the total costs of carrying out the program 
through annual contracts, except that multi-year contracts for major 
systems providing savings estimated at less than 10 percent should only 
be considered if the Department presents an exceptionally strong case 
that the proposal meets the other requirements of section 2306b(a), as 
amended. The conferees agree with a GAO finding that any major system 
that is at the end of its production line is unlikely to meet these 
standards and therefore would be a poor candidate for a multi-year 
procurement contract.''
    If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, do you anticipate 
that you would support a multi-year contract with expected savings of 
less than 10 percent?
    Answer. Multi-year contracting can provide cost savings, and 
therefore it should be considered as an option to serve the warfighter 
and taxpayer. There has been much debate over the threshold on the 
level of cost savings that constitutes ``substantial savings.'' That 
cost saving can be measured in dollar terms and in price the Department 
would otherwise pay for an annual procurement. If confirmed, I would 
value the flexibility to consider both metrics of cost savings.
    Question. If confirmed, under what circumstances, if any, would you 
support a multi-year contract for a major system at the end of its 
production line?
    Answer. It may be appropriate to consider a program for multi-year 
procurement when it is nearing the end of production. It depends upon 
the circumstances of the particular procurement. Analysis and careful 
review of all information as well as should be completed when a multi-
year contract is being considered.
    continuing competition and organizational conflicts of interest
    Question. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense 
Industrial Structure for Transformation recommended last summer that 
``DOD must increase its use of creative competitive acquisition 
strategies, within limited budgets, in order to ensure long-term 
innovation and cost savings, at both prime and critical sub-tier 
elements. Competition would not be required beyond the competitive 
prototype phase, as long as the current producer continuously improves 
performance and lowers cost--but other contractors should always 
represent a credible option if costs rise or performance is 
unacceptable.''
    Do you agree with this recommendation? Do you believe that 
continuing competition is a viable option on MDAPs?
    Answer. Yes, I believe that DOD must increase its use of creative 
competitive acquisition strategies to ensure long-term innovation and 
cost savings. Harnessing the power of competition in some form should 
be a goal on all MDAPs.
    Question. Do you support the use of competitive prototypes for 
MDAPs?
    Answer. Yes, I support competitive prototyping in our MDAPs.
    Question. In your view, has the consolidation of the defense 
industrial base gone too far and undermined competition for defense 
contracts?
    Answer. I understand it is the Department's policy to oppose 
transactions that reduce or eliminate competition and I would implement 
that policy where necessary. Yes, I am concerned about the loss of 
competition caused by consolidation over the last few decades.
    Question. If so, what steps if any can and should DOD take to 
address this issue?
    Answer. The Department continues to discourage mergers and 
acquisitions among defense materiel suppliers that are anti-competitive 
or injurious to national security. If confirmed, I will work to adjust 
DOD transaction evaluation procedures/criteria as appropriate.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe DOD should take to 
address organizational conflicts of interest in MDAPs?
    Answer. Even the perception of an Organizational Conflict of 
Interest (OCI) may taint the integrity of the competitive procurement 
process. I support the requirement in the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential 
conflicts before contract award.
    Question. What are your views on the lead system integrator 
approach to managing the acquisition of major weapon systems?
    Answer. I do not support the use of lead systems integrators unless 
adequate steps have been taken to ensure that there is no potential for 
conflict of interest. In general, the Department should select 
development contractors to perform substantive development work, rather 
than to perform acquisition functions closely associated with 
inherently governmental functions.
    Question. What are your views on the use of system engineering and 
technical assistance contractors that are affiliated with major defense 
contractors to provide ``independent'' advice to the Department on the 
acquisition of major weapon systems?
    Answer. Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) support 
contractors are currently a critical component of the Department's 
acquisition workforce. They provide engineering and analysis services 
in a consulting capacity. However, they must be properly utilized and 
not used to perform any inherently governmental functions. If 
confirmed, I will continue the efforts to increase government and FFRDC 
staff support to reduce the reliance on SETA contractors.
    Question. What lines do you believe the Department should draw 
between those acquisition responsibilities that are inherently 
governmental and those that may be performed by contractors?
    Answer. For acquisition responsibilities, I believe a clear line 
must be drawn such that only government personnel may make value 
judgments that obligate funds and commit the government contractually. 
However, I recognize a number of other important functions within the 
Defense acquisition community must be retained for government-only 
performance. Given the current workforce mix and the level of 
contracted support to acquisition functions, I believe a careful review 
is needed to assess whether the Department has become too dependent on 
contractors in this area. I understand Congress has recently codified a 
definition of inherently governmental functions and required a review 
by the Department. I believe this review provides a mechanism to 
address this important question.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure 
that defense contractors do not misuse their access to sensitive and 
proprietary information of DOD and other defense contractors?
    Answer. It is my understanding that USD(AT&L) has issued guidance 
to information assurance and acquisition personnel to ensure strong 
measures are in place at the individual contract level. Because this 
issue is potentially so serious, I intend to review it, if confirmed.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure 
that defense contractors do not unnecessarily limit competition for 
subcontracts in a manner that would disadvantage the government or 
potential competitors in the private sector?
    Answer. This is an unacceptable practice, and if confirmed, I will 
review the Department's safeguards against it.
               defense acquisition transformation report
    Question. In February 2007, the Secretary of Defense submitted a 
report to Congress titled: ``Defense Acquisition Transformation Report 
to Congress''.
    If confirmed, to what extent would you support and continue 
implementation of the defense acquisition reform initiatives set forth 
in that report?
    Answer. Acquisition reform will be a priority for me, if I am 
confirmed. In general, I support the majority of the acquisition reform 
initiatives identified in the Report. If confirmed, I will support the 
implementation activities which are already underway and evaluate 
additional ways and means to improve the effectiveness and efficiency 
of the system.
    Question. In particular, please discuss your views regarding the 
following aspects of transformation:
    Portfolio Management.
    Answer. In general, I support the Capability Portfolio Management 
(CPM) Initiative which was is intended to provide an enterprise-level, 
horizontal (cross-component) view of the Department to better balance 
and harmonize joint warfighter capability needs with capability 
development efforts. If confirmed, I will review the CPM construct to 
ensure it enables better-integrated and balanced advice across the full 
spectrum of capability needs to DOD senior leadership.
    Question. Tri-Chair Concept Decision
    Answer. In general, I strongly support efforts that harmonize the 
major Department processes for requirements, resources, and acquisition 
and, if confirmed, will pursue management mechanisms that ensure 
harmonization.
    Question. Time-Defined Acquisitions
    Answer. Time should be a critical element in DOD acquisition 
decisionmaking since in many programs ``time is money,'' and 
emphasizing time forces consideration of material alternatives and 
technologies that can be fielded consistent with user need.
    Question. Investment Balance Reviews
    Answer. The Department should take a holistic approach, assessing 
the opportunities and threats across all the Services, to determine 
where to best focus investment and energy. Investment Balance Reviews 
(IBRs) provide the Defense Acquisition Executive with the opportunity 
to make course corrections during the life cycle of the portfolio of 
capabilities, systems, and programs. If confirmed, I will review this 
initiative for any additional support or direction needed.
    Question. Risk-Based Source Selection
    Answer. The Risk-Based Source Selection concept is intended to 
identify and quantify risk, inform requirements development and cost 
estimation, and improve available information to assess contractor 
proposals. Risk-Based Source Selection techniques enhance the quality 
of requests for proposal by improving technical criteria and making DOD 
a ``smarter'' buyer. It is my understanding that the Department has 
implemented of a series of policy initiatives including: (1) the 
issuance of policy describing the proper use of award fees; (2) the 
establishment of competitive prototyping as the underlying strategy for 
demonstrating the technical maturity of key technologies; (3) the 
requirement to do Preliminary Design Reviews before MSB when consistent 
with the Technology Development Strategy; (4) the requirement to 
conduct peer reviews of source selections to ensure requirements 
traceability and effective source selections; (5) the requirement for 
offerors to substantiate claims of technology maturity as part of their 
proposals for Engineering and Manufacturing Development contracts; and 
(6) a new MDA decision point titled the Post Critical Design Review 
Assessment to assess design maturity. If confirmed, I will review these 
efforts to ascertain whether they can be further strengthened.
    Question. Acquisition of Services Policy
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has recently 
issued new policy guidance regarding the Acquisition of Services. It is 
my understanding that this new policy imposes significant changes in 
the way the Department manages and reviews the performance of service 
contracts. If confirmed, I intend to assess such initiatives and 
related policy and make any adjustments necessary to implement the 
President's direction to carry out robust and thorough management and 
oversight of contracts.
    Question. Systems Engineering Excellence
    Answer. Systems engineering is a practice that is critical 
throughout the lifetime of a program and especially in its early 
stages, as recent testimony before this committee has attested. If 
confirmed, I will continue to strengthen early and informed systems 
engineering in both new and current acquisition programs as a clearly 
demonstrated best practice, augmented with a revitalized systems 
engineering workforce to strengthen program management organizations.
    Question. Award Fee and Incentive Policy
    Answer. I support the efforts currently underway to link award fee 
and incentive payments to acquisition outcomes such as cost, schedule, 
and technical performance. If confirmed, I intend to assess such 
initiatives and related policy and make any adjustments necessary to 
ensure that their intended purposes are being met.
    Question. Open, transparent, and common shared data resources with 
Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR)
    Answer. DAMIR currently provides enterprise visibility to 
acquisition program information. If confirmed, I intend to evaluate 
current initiatives focusing on implementation of open, transparent, 
and common shared data resources.
    Question. Restructured Defense Acquisition Executive Summary 
Reviews
    Answer. The Defense Acquisition Executive Summary reviews provide a 
forum for OSD to work with the Services and agencies to evaluate 
progress in program execution. In general, I support this initiative 
which is designed to improve decisionmaking, communication, and trust 
between OSD, the Joint Staff, and the Services. If confirmed, I will 
review this initiative for any additional support or direction.
    Question. Policy on Excessive Pass-Through Charges
    Answer. I support the full implementation of section 852 to ensure 
that pass-through charges on contracts or subcontracts that are entered 
into for or on behalf of DOD are not excessive in relation to the cost 
of work performed by the relevant contractor or subcontractor.
    Question. Are there other initiatives or tools discussed in the 
Defense Acquisition Transformation Report that you view as particularly 
likely, or unlikely, to be productive in achieving acquisition reform?
    Answer. I am aware that the final Defense Acquisition 
Transformation Report was recently submitted. The report has identified 
numerous initiatives. If confirmed, I will study all of the report's 
acquisition reform initiatives to determine additional ways and means 
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.
              operation of the defense acquisition system
    Question. On December 2, 2008, the Department promulgated a new 
version of DOD Instruction 5000.02, the key guidance on the 
Department's acquisition of major weapon systems. The revised 
instruction restructured the management framework for translating 
capability needs and technology opportunities into stable, affordable, 
and well-managed defense acquisition programs.
    What is your assessment of the new version of this instruction and 
the extent of its implementation to date?
    Answer. The new instruction is a constructive step, and if 
confirmed, I will ensure that it is effectively implemented and seek to 
improve upon it.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to continue 
implementation of the new version of DOD Instruction 5000.2 and improve 
upon it?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to monitor the implementation and 
effectiveness of the new policies. If necessary, I will alter these or 
introduce additional policies to ensure that our programs achieve cost, 
schedule, and performance objectives.
                        contracting for services
    Question. Over the past 8 years, DOD's spending on contract 
services has more than doubled, with the estimated number of contractor 
employees working for the Department increasing from an estimated 
730,000 in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated 1,550,000 in fiscal year 
2007. As a result, the Department now spends more for the purchase of 
services than it does for products (including major weapon systems).
    Do you believe that DOD can continue to support this rate of growth 
in its spending on contract services?
    Answer. I am very concerned about this trend. If confirmed, I 
intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Department's senior 
leadership to address the underlying question about whether the Defense 
Department is adequately staffed, quantitatively and qualitatively, to 
carry out its responsibilities. If the Department continues to utilize 
contracted service providers to such a large extent, it is absolutely 
essential we have a sufficient amount of qualified government, 
civilian, or military personnel dedicated to perform meaningful 
oversight of contractor activities.
    Question. Do you believe that the current balance between 
government employees (military and civilian) and contractor employees 
is in the best interests of DOD?
    Answer. DOD requires some mix of Federal employees and contractors 
to carry out its mission effectively, but that mix might be out of 
balance. If confirmed, I would support efforts to help ensure the 
appropriate balance.
    Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to 
control the Department's spending on contract services?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the 
Department's senior leadership to assess the amount of spending on 
contracted services, consistent with President Obama's March 4, 2009, 
memorandum on Government Contracting which emphasizes the need to 
ensure best value for the taxpayers.
    Question. At the request of the committee, GAO has compared DOD's 
practices for the management of services contracts to the practices of 
best performers in the private sector. GAO concluded that leading 
companies have achieved significant savings by insisting upon greater 
visibility and management over their services contracts and by 
conducting so-called ``spend'' analyses to find more efficient ways to 
manage their service contractors. Section 801 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 required DOD to move in this 
direction. Sections 807 and 808 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 built on this provision by requiring 
inventories and management reviews of contracts for services.
    Do you believe the Department is providing appropriate stewardship 
over service contracts?
    Answer. I am concerned that in some instances it might not be. I 
understand the Department has recently instituted policy and processes, 
such as peer reviews of significant service acquisitions, to ensure 
taxpayer funds are spent wisely when acquiring contracted services. If 
confirmed, I intend to assess these policies and procedures and make 
any necessary adjustments.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department has appropriate 
management structures in place to oversee the expenditure of more than 
$150 billion a year for contract services?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to assess the current 
management structures that are in place, but if confirmed, I will make 
the necessary adjustments to implement President Obama's direction to 
carry out robust and thorough management and oversight of contracts.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department should conduct a 
comprehensive analysis of its spending on contract services, as 
recommended by GAO?
    Answer. Although I am not familiar with the specific GAO 
recommendations regarding a comprehensive spend analysis, I agree with 
its intent. It is also my understanding that the office of the Director 
of Defense Procurement and Strategic Sourcing has completed an 
extensive spend analysis of the Department's spending on services. If 
confirmed, I intend to review this analysis to ensure that the 
Department is effectively implementing cost saving strategies in the 
procurement of services.
    Question. Do you support the use of management reviews, or peer 
reviews, of major service contracts to identify ``best practices'' and 
develop lessons learned?
    Answer. I fully support the use of management reviews and peer 
reviews of major service contracts to identify ``best practices'' and 
develop lessons learned. If confirmed, I will work with the 
Department's senior leadership to further institutionalize this 
practice and make any necessary adjustments.
    Question. If confirmed, will you fully comply with the requirement 
of section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008, to develop an inventory of services performed by contractors 
comparable to the inventories of services performed by Federal 
employees that are already prepared pursuant to the Federal Acquisition 
Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will be committed to actively pursuing the 
continued implementation of section 807 as this legislation establishes 
a solid post-award review process and increased transparency of 
services contracts to Congress, the public, and internally within the 
Department.
    Question. What additional steps if any would you take, if 
confirmed, to improve the Department's management of its contracts for 
services?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will take steps to ensure leaders at all 
levels of the Department understand and appreciate the vital role they 
must play in diligently managing service contracts in a way that 
maximizes the benefit to the warfighter and the taxpayer.
       contractor performance of critical governmental functions
    Question. Over the last decade, the Department has become 
progressively more reliant upon contractors to perform functions that 
were once performed exclusively by government employees. As a result, 
contractors now play an integral role in areas as diverse as the 
management and oversight of weapons programs, the development of 
personnel policies, and the collection and analysis of intelligence. In 
many cases, contractor employees work in the same offices, serve on the 
same projects and task forces, and perform many of the same functions 
as DOD employees.
    In your view, has DOD become too reliant on contractors to support 
the basic functions of the Department?
    Answer. I am concerned that it may be.
    Question. Do you believe that the current extensive use of personal 
services contracts is in the best interest of DOD?
    Answer. While I am not specifically aware of the use of personal 
services contracts within the Department, I do know that there are 
statutory restrictions that govern the use of personal services 
contracts. If confirmed, I will ensure that if personal services 
contracts are being used in a manner that is inappropriate, that 
practice is ended immediately.
    Question. What is your view of the appropriate applicability of 
personal conflict of interest standards and other ethics requirements 
to contractor employees who perform functions similar to those 
performed by government employees?
    Answer. I believe that contractor employees who directly support 
government employees, and may have access to similar business sensitive 
or source selection sensitive information, should be subject to similar 
ethical standards as the government employees they support, and should 
not be allowed to profit personally from the information that may be 
available to them because of their performance under a DOD contract.
    Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq have relied on 
contractor support to a greater degree than any previous U.S. military 
operations. According to widely published reports, the number of U.S. 
contractor employees in Iraq exceeds the number of U.S. military 
deployed in that country.
    Do you believe that DOD has become too dependent on contractor 
support for military operations?
    Answer. Secretary Gates has tasked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff to oversee a Department-wide review of contractor roles and 
missions. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and Chairman 
Mullen in this review and implement recommendations where appropriate 
and, if necessary, work with Congress to institutionalize reforms.
    Question. What risks do you see in the Department's reliance on 
such contractor support?
    Answer. I see two risks: (1) Fraud, waste, or abuse if there is 
insufficient oversight; and (2) the possibility that contractors could 
choose to leave the mission because it became dangerous or for some 
other reason.
    Question. What steps do you believe the Department should take to 
mitigate such risk?
    Answer. The first step is to have a thorough understanding of any 
risks we have with the current workforce mix of military, civilian, and 
contractors. As mentioned earlier, the study being led by the Joint 
Staff will provide insight into this important issue. Next would be the 
development of a robust capability to provide oversight and management 
of contractor performance and restrictions.
    Question. Do you believe the Department is appropriately organized 
and staffed to effectively manage contractors on the battlefield?
    Answer. It is my understanding that there have been shortcomings in 
recent years, and if confirmed, I intend to learn more about them.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe the Department should 
take to improve its management of contractors on the battlefield?
    Answer. If confirmed, I intend to review this subject and recommend 
stops to ensure that shortcomings are not repeated.
                      private security contractors
    Question. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 
(SIGIR) recently reported that Federal agencies including DOD have 
spent more than $5 billion for private security contractors (PSCs) in 
Iraq since 2003. Over this period, there have been numerous reports of 
abuses by PSCs, including allegations of contractors shooting 
recklessly at civilians as they have driven down the streets of Baghdad 
and other Iraqi cities. In September 2007, employees of Blackwater 
allegedly opened fire on Iraqis at Nisour Square in downtown Baghdad, 
killing more than a dozen Iraqis and wounding many more.
    Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely upon 
contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be 
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public 
areas in an area of combat operations?
    Answer. I cannot directly comment on the Blackwater incident as I 
have not had access to information about this case, and in any event I 
understand that it is a State Department issue, presently in the 
Federal courts. But I believe that the use of PSCs, and more generally 
the use of contractors in wartime, deserves careful review.
    As a practical matter, DOD must use the total force (military 
forces, Department civilians, and contractors) to resource the full 
spectrum of requirements. DOD's recent ongoing efforts to perform more 
detailed contractor support planning for all operational plans can 
ensure that the use of PSCs is based upon careful planning and 
assessment and not simply on general assumptions and, if confirmed, I 
will review these plans. If contractor personnel cannot be used 
appropriately, there will be force structure implications which will 
require consideration by Congress.
    Question. In your view, has the U.S. reliance upon PSCs to perform 
such functions risked undermining our defense and foreign policy 
objectives in Iraq?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to acquaint myself with the 
facts of this situation, nor to discuss it with DOD leadership, 
military commanders or diplomatic observers. But it is clear that 
appropriate conduct of Americans in the theater, including contractors, 
is important to overall progress in achieving our aims.
    Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to ensure 
that any PSCs who may continue to operate in an area of combat 
operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with U.S. defense 
and foreign policy objectives?
    Answer. We have learned two important lessons from the current 
operations: First, the use of PSCs in any area of combat operations 
must be fully coordinated. There must be unified and consistent 
procedures for all such contractors, regardless of which U.S. agency 
hires them. Our commanders on the ground must have authority to 
restrict or redirect their operations as the situation requires. 
Second, there must be assured legal accountability for the actions of 
PSCs. If confirmed, I will review further steps that can be taken.
    Question. How do you believe the ongoing operations of PSCs in Iraq 
are likely to be affected by the new Status of Forces Agreement between 
the United States and Iraq?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to acquaint myself with all 
the facts bearing on this situation, but if confirmed, I would intend 
to do so. I do understand that since January 1 of this year, U.S. 
Government contractors no longer have immunity from host nation law.
    If confirmed, I would seek to ensure that the loss of contractor 
immunity in Iraq does not diminish the effectiveness of operations.
    Question. Do you support the extension of the Military 
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to PSCs of all Federal agencies?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to acquaint myself with the 
practical and legal dimensions of the issue. It is my understanding 
that DOD has consistently supported unambiguous application of the 
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to all U.S. Government PSCs 
operating in contingency areas.
    Question. What is your view of the appropriate application of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice to employees of PSCs operating in an 
area of combat operations?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to acquaint myself with all 
the practical and legal dimensions of this issue. There must be assured 
legal accountability for the actions of all contractors deployed to an 
area of combat operations. The application of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice is one tool to do this.
    Question. OMB Circular A-76 defines ``inherently governmental 
functions'' to include ``discretionary functions'' that could 
``significantly affect the life, liberty, or property of private 
persons.''
    In your view, is the performance of security functions that may 
reasonably be expected to require the use of deadly force in highly 
hazardous public areas in an area of combat operations an inherently 
governmental function?
    Answer. My understanding is that DOD's decision to use PSCs 
(including subcontractors) is in compliance with current U.S. 
Government policy and regulations. It clearly raises issues of 
appropriateness, and if confirmed, I would intend to participate in 
shaping policies regarding the appropriate use of contractors.
    Question. In your view, is the interrogation of enemy prisoners of 
war and other detainees during and in the aftermath of hostilities an 
inherently governmental function?
    Answer. The role of DOD contractors raises issues of 
appropriateness, and if confirmed, I would intend to participate in 
shaping policies regarding the appropriate use of contractors.
    Question. Do you see a need for a comprehensive reevaluation of 
these issues now?
    Answer. I do, and I understand that the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, is already 
conducting a thorough examination of the use of DOD contractors in 
support of current military operations as well as a review of the range 
and depth of contractor capabilities necessary to support the Joint 
Force of the future.
    Question. In October 2008, DOD announced a plan to award contracts 
in excess of $300 million to U.S. contractors to conduct ``information 
operations'' through the Iraqi media.
    In your view, is DOD's use of private contractors to conduct 
information operations through the Iraqi media appropriate?
    Answer. I have not had the opportunity to have access to 
information regarding this matter.
                     government contracting reform
    Question. In a memorandum to the heads of all Federal agencies, the 
President on March 4, 2009, directed a government-wide review of 
contracting procedures and stated that ``executive agencies shall not 
engage in noncompetitive contracts, except in those circumstances where 
their use can be fully justified and where appropriate safeguards have 
been put in place to protect the taxpayer.''
    If confirmed, how would you determine whether the use of 
noncompetitive contracts could be fully justified?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize the importance 
of competition and review the Department's competition practices. At 
present, it is my understanding that DOD Competition Advocates 
participate in acquisition strategy sessions and are engaged in the 
review of noncompetitive contracts. All noncompetitive contracts must 
be supported by a justification and determination and approved by the 
procuring activity Competition Advocate if over $550,000; the head of 
the procuring activity if over $11.5 million; and the senior 
procurement executive of the agency if over $78.5 million. The DOD 
Competition Advocate submits an annual report on the Department's 
competition achievements to the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. If confirmed, I 
intend to review these practices to ascertain if adjustments are needed 
pursuant to the President's guidance.
    Question. In your opinion, how would the direction in this memo 
affect the use of single-award and multiple-award Indefinite Delivery/
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts?
    Answer. I support the direction in the memo emphasizing competition 
and appropriate use of various contract types. An IDIQ contract is 
appropriate for use when the government cannot predetermine the precise 
quantities of supplies or services it will require and it is 
inadvisable to commit the government beyond the more than a minimum 
quantity. The Federal Acquisition Regulation establishes the preference 
for multiple awards when an IDIQ contract is awarded and requires 
approval of the agency head for a single-award IDIQ contract estimated 
to exceed $100 million. It is my understanding that the Department does 
not support the use of single-award IDIQ contracts unless they are 
absolutely necessary. If confirmed, I intend to review these practices 
pursuant to the President's guidance.
                          contracting methods
    Question. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy and DOD have 
long agreed that Federal agencies could achieve significant savings and 
improved performance by moving to performance-based services 
contracting (PBSC). Most recently, the Army Environmental Program 
informed the committee that it has achieved average savings of 27 
percent over a period of several years as a result of moving to fixed-
price, performance-based contracts for environmental remediation. 
Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2002, as amended, established performance goals for increasing the use 
of PBSC in DOD service contracts.
    What is the status of the Department's efforts to increase the use 
of PBSC in its service contracts?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the preferred approach to 
services contracting within the Department is already to utilize fixed 
price performance based contracts whenever it has well-defined 
statements of work that have clear performance objectives which can be 
measured objectively. The Department continues to emphasize the use of 
this type of contract whenever possible.
    Question. What additional steps if any do you believe the 
Department needs to take to increase the use of PBSC and meet the goals 
established in section 802?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that a fundamental element of 
our strategic sourcing approach to services contracts will be the 
increased use of performance based fixed price contracts.
    Question. In recent years, DOD has relied heavily on time-and-
materials (T&M) contracts for the acquisition of services. Under such a 
contract, the Department pays a set rate per hour for contractor 
services, rather than paying for specific tasks to be performed. In 
some cases, contractors have substituted less expensive labor under T&M 
contracts, while continuing to charge Federal agencies the same hourly 
rates, resulting in effective contractor profits of 25 percent or more.
    What is your view of the appropriate use of T&M contracts by DOD?
    Answer. T&M contracts, regardless of dollar value, are the least 
preferred contract type and should only be used if no other contract 
type is appropriate. They are a very costly and ineffective method of 
contracting for services. If confirmed, I will ensure appropriate 
determinations are made to only use T&M contracts when no other 
contract will satisfy the requirement.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe the Department should 
take to minimize the abuse of T&M contracts?
    Answer. I understand the Department has taken several steps to 
minimize the abuse of T&M contracts. The Panel on Contracting Integrity 
is reviewing the appropriate approval levels for determinations made by 
contracting officers for use of a T&M contract. Additionally, the 
OUSD(AT&L) requested the military departments and other defense 
agencies review their use of T&M contracts for services and identify 
contracting activities that have executed more than 10 percent of their 
obligations using T&M. DPAP continues to monitor the inappropriate use 
of T&M contract types for services. If confirmed, I will review the 
various initiatives for any additional support or direction needed.
    Question. Section 852 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 requires DOD to promulgate 
regulations prohibiting excessive ``pass-through'' charges on DOD 
contracts. Pass-through charges are charges added by a contractor for 
overhead and profit on work performed by one of its subcontractors, to 
which the contractor provided no added value. In some cases, pass-
through charges have more than doubled the cost of services provided to 
DOD.
    What is your view of the regulations promulgated by DOD to 
implement the requirements of section 852?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Department issued an 
interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement to implement Section 852 to ensure that pass-through charges 
on contracts or subcontracts that are entered into for or on behalf of 
DOD are not excessive in relation to the cost of work performed by the 
relevant contractor or subcontractor. The rule provides a list of 
functions that are considered to be value-added. If the contractor does 
not perform the demonstrated functions or does not add value, the rule 
makes the excessive pass-through charges unallowable and provides for 
recoupment of the excessive pass-through charges consistent with the 
legislation. While I have not had the opportunity to analyze this 
matter sufficiently in order to form an opinion, if confirmed, I will 
be receptive to suggested refinements as the case makes its way through 
the Federal rulemaking process.
    Question. What additional steps if any do you believe the 
Department should take to address the problem of excessive pass-through 
charges?
    Answer. Beyond finalization of the DFARS rule and associated 
updates that should be made to Defense Acquisition University training 
curriculum, I understand the Department has incorporated this issue as 
an element to be addressed in Peer Reviews in accordance with Section 
808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
                        interagency contracting
    Question. GAO recently placed interagency contracting--the use by 
one agency of contracts awarded by other agencies--on its list of high-
risk programs and operations. While interagency contracts provide a 
much-needed simplified method for procuring commonly used goods and 
services, GAO has found that the dramatic growth of interagency 
contracts, the failure to clearly allocate responsibility between 
agencies, and the incentives created by fee-for-services arrangements, 
have combined to expose DOD and other Federal agencies to the risk of 
significant abuse and mismanagement. The DOD Inspector General and the 
GSA Inspector General have identified a long series of problems with 
interagency contracts, including lack of acquisition planning, 
inadequate competition, excessive use of time and materials contracts, 
improper use of expired funds, inappropriate expenditures, and failure 
to monitor contractor performance. DOD, in conjunction with the General 
Services Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, is 
taking a number of actions to improve training and guidance on the use 
of this contract approach.
    If confirmed, what steps if any will you take to monitor and 
evaluate the effectiveness of the actions currently underway or planned 
regarding DOD's use of other agencies' contracts?
    Answer. Interagency contracting is a necessity at times to achieve 
``whole of government'' efforts to address complex contemporary 
security challenges, but it must be done in a way that gives best value 
to the taxpayer. If confirmed, I will review the efforts outlined in 
the January 2005 policy on the ``Proper Use of Non-DOD Contracts'' and 
subsequent policy updates. In addition, I understand that as part of 
the Department's strategic spending analysis, DOD is collecting 
adequate data to know what non-DOD agencies are acquiring on behalf of 
DOD and which organizations they are supporting.
    Question. Do you believe additional authority or measures are 
needed to hold DOD or other agency personnel accountable for their use 
of inter-agency contracts?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review and evaluate these authorities.
    Question. Do you believe contractors have any responsibility for 
assuring that the work requested by DOD personnel is within the scope 
of their contract?
    Answer. The primary responsibility for ensuring work is within the 
scope of the contract rests with the contracting officer. I believe 
that if a contractor is uncertain whether or not supplies or services 
ordered are within scope of their contract they should consult with the 
contracting officer.
    Question. Do you believe that DOD's continued heavy reliance on 
outside agencies to award and manage contracts on its behalf is a sign 
that the Department has failed to adequately staff its own acquisition 
system?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will examine whether or not the Department 
is adequately staffed to manage and execute these efforts. However, the 
Department should continue to utilize the expertise of non-DOD agencies 
operating under congressional authority to acquire supplies and 
services in the most efficient and effective way possible.
                 acquisition of information technology
    Question. Most of the Department's Major Automated Information 
System (MAIS) acquisitions are substantially over budget and behind 
schedule. In particular, the Department has run into unanticipated 
difficulties with virtually every new business system it has tried to 
field in the last 10 years.
    Do you believe that unique problems in the acquisition of business 
systems require different acquisition strategies or approaches?
    Answer. Yes. The problems suggest the need to move away from large 
business information technology development projects to smaller, more 
incremental business systems developments, utilizing commercial 
applications whenever possible. Existing DOD hardware development 
processes do not always translate effectively in the software 
development world. Finally, DOD frequently needs to do business process 
re-engineering prior to software development so that new development is 
not imposed on legacy systems and processes.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe DOD should take to 
address these problems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Chief Information 
Officer and Chief Management Officer to create a set of processes that 
are used in industry to develop, test, and deploy software within DOD's 
regulatory and statutory framework. For example, I would use 
incremental development and limited deployments to get capability out 
to users as well as feedback from users to guide future increments of 
capability.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Chief 
Information Officer of DOD to take these steps?
    Answer. I would partner with the Chief Information Officer and 
Chief Management Officer to develop best practices for DOD.
    Question. Problems with computer software have caused significant 
delays and cost overruns in a number of major defense programs. Section 
804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 
required DOD to establish a program to improve the software acquisition 
process.
    What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to address delays 
and cost overruns associated with problems in the development of 
software for major weapon systems?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would consider three steps. First, I would 
consider directing that weapon systems use incremental software 
development to minimize risk. Second, I would ensure that software 
embedded in weapon systems be mature before being integrated in 
platforms. Third, I would seek to use independent assessment teams of 
software experts to guide and advise weapon system program managers.
    Question. What role, if any, do you believe that the Chief 
Information Officer of DOD should play with regard to the acquisition 
of information technology that is embedded in weapon systems?
    Answer. The Chief Information Officer would be a key advisor to me 
and the Department in assessing program risk and acquisition strategies 
for development and procurement of embedded information technology.
                         acquisition workforce
    Question. Over the last 15 years, DOD has reduced the size of its 
acquisition workforce by almost half, without undertaking any 
systematic planning or analysis to ensure that it would have the 
specific skills and competencies needed to meet DOD's current and 
future needs. Since September 11, 2001, moreover, the demands placed on 
that workforce have substantially increased. While DOD has started the 
process of planning its long-term workforce needs, the Department does 
not yet have a comprehensive strategic workforce plan needed to guide 
its efforts.
    Do you believe that DOD's workforce is large enough and has the 
skills needed to perform the tasks assigned to it?
    Answer. I don't believe it is. A number of studies and analyses, 
including by this committee, have pointed in the direction of 
increasing the size of the DOD acquisition workforce and have 
identified certain skill sets that need to be built up.
    Question. In your view, what are the critical skills, capabilities, 
and tools that DOD's workforce needs for the future?
    Answer. Program management, risk management, and leadership are 
critical skills, as are systems engineering and financial management. 
Contracting officers need business acumen and understanding of how to 
formulate, negotiate, and oversee contracts.
    Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that 
the workforce will, in fact, possess them?
    Answer. We need to attract talented people to government service, 
specifically into the acquisition workforce, give them challenging work 
to do, retain the best of them, and be sure all of them are fully 
trained and qualified for the jobs we give them. If confirmed, I will 
want to ensure that the Department has the right infrastructure and 
resources in place to do all that and to improve where we should.
    Question. Do you agree that the Department needs a comprehensive 
human capital plan, including a gap analysis and specific recruiting, 
retention, and training goals, to guide the development of its 
acquisition workforce?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What steps if any do you think are necessary to ensure 
that the Department has the ability it needs to attract and retain 
qualified employees to the acquisition workforce?
    Answer. Personally, I can think of nothing more inherently 
rewarding than serving one's country as the men and women of our Armed 
Forces and our civilian employees do. These are dynamic times and the 
approach we take now may be different from what we did in the past or 
may need to do in the future. I'm told that the largest numbers of 
people in the acquisition workforce are engineering, scientific, and 
technical professionals, followed by business-oriented people, such as 
contracting officers. Also, they are largely civilians. They will have 
to be change oriented, because as national strategy evolves, what we 
buy and how we buy will change. To attract and retain them we need to 
provide challenging and rewarding work and a competitive rate of 
compensation. If confirmed, I will do all I can to ensure we have a 
properly sized, highly qualified, professional acquisition workforce.
    Question. What are your views regarding assertions that the 
acquisition workforce is losing its technical and management expertise 
and is beginning to rely too much on support contractors, FFRDCs, and, 
in some cases, prime contractors for this expertise?
    Answer. A number of reports have pointed to this conclusion, and it 
is a disturbing trend. As a policy matter, it is vital that inherently 
governmental functions be performed by government, that is, in this 
instance, by civilian and military members of the DOD acquisition 
workforce. As a practical matter, program formulation, management, and 
contract oversight cannot be done effectively in the interests of both 
the warfighter and the taxpayer unless competent, trained, and 
dedicated government professionals do it. If we have let some of this 
slip away, say in areas like systems engineering and contracting, then 
it is time to reverse the trend, not to the point of eliminating all 
support contractors, but to achieve the proper balance. The first step 
is to understand how many support contractors we have, what they are 
doing, and at what cost. FFRDCs are in a different category since they 
are specifically chartered to assist government professionals and in 
many cases have done so effectively for many years.
    Question. What is the appropriate tenure for program managers and 
program executive officers to ensure continuity in major programs?
    Answer. Program managers and program executive officers need to be 
in their jobs long enough to be accountable for their decisions. These 
jobs are not training grounds or stepping stones to higher levels. 
Those who take them on must be fully qualified experts. I am aware that 
there are statutory tenure minima prescribed for these and other key 
leadership positions, which I support. I believe this may be more an 
issue of compliance than new policy, but it is something I would look 
at, if confirmed.
    Question. Section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 established an Acquisition Workforce Development Fund 
to help DOD address shortcomings in its acquisition workforce. The fund 
would provide a minimum of $3 billion over 6 years for this purpose.
    Do you believe that the Acquisition Workforce Development Fund is 
needed to ensure that DOD has the right number of employees with the 
right skills to run its acquisition programs in the most cost effective 
manner for the taxpayers?
    Answer. Yes, it provides necessary resources to recruit, train, and 
retain the people we need in the acquisition workforce and the 
resources to increase the size of that workforce as appropriate.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps if any will you ensure that the 
money made available through the Acquisition Workforce Fund is spent in 
a manner that best meets the needs of DOD and its acquisition 
workforce?
    Answer. First, I would review the processes in place to allocate 
that money to the highest needs and I would review the execution of 
funding that has been allocated so far. I cannot say at this point 
what, if any, systemic changes may be needed, but an initiative of this 
magnitude would certainly have my personal attention, and I would 
welcome a continuing dialog with this committee on the matter, if I am 
confirmed.
   procurement fraud, integrity and contractor responsibility issues
    Question. Recent Air Force acquisition scandals have raised 
concerns about the adequacy of existing mechanisms to uphold 
procurement integrity and prevent contract fraud.
    What is your view of the adequacy of the tools and authorities 
available to DOD to ensure that its contractors are responsible and 
have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics?
    Answer. I believe that integrity in contracting is an absolute 
obligation to the taxpayer, and confidence in the integrity of DOD 
contracting must be re-established. If confirmed, I intend to assess 
the adequacy of the existing tools and authorities and make any 
necessary adjustments.
    Question. In your view, are current ``revolving door'' statutes 
effective?
    Answer. I understand an interim rule was published in the Federal 
Register in January of this year to strengthen regulatory language 
regarding DOD personnel who accept positions with Defense contractors. 
It is important that the taxpayer have confidence in these practices. 
If confirmed, I will assess the effectiveness of the applicable 
statutes.
    Question. What tools other than law enforcement measures could we 
use to help prevent procurement fraud and ethical misconduct?
    Answer. I understand the Office of the Inspector General and the 
Defense Acquisition University continue to offer additional training 
and awareness presentations on procurement fraud indicators. If 
confirmed, I would seek to identify further tools.
    Question. Are there sufficient enforcement mechanisms to ensure 
compliance with laws and regulations?
    Answer. Under existing laws and regulations, a contractor may be 
suspended or debarred for failure to timely disclose a known violation 
of Federal criminal law in connection with the award or performance of 
any government contract performed by the contractor or a subcontract. 
If confirmed, I will assess the existing enforcement mechanisms to 
determine areas for improvement.
                            ``buy america''
    Question. ``Buy America'' issues have been the source of 
considerable controversy in recent years. As a result, there have been 
a number of legislative efforts to place restrictions on the purchase 
of defense products from foreign sources.
    What benefits do you believe the Department obtains from 
international participation in the defense industrial base?
    Answer. I believe international participation in the defense 
industrial base serves to promote the interoperability, 
standardization, and rationalization of the conventional defense 
equipment used by the Armed Forces of the United States and its allies 
and other friendly governments. It also helps to avoid or reduce 
duplication in research and development initiatives. These attributes 
can lead to savings in terms of the time and money needed to develop, 
produce, support, and sustain the materiel needed and used by our 
warfighters. It also helps the Department to achieve the advantages of 
competition in contracting, which includes the ability to obtain world 
class, best value products for our warfighters. Further, international 
participation in the defense industrial base encourages development of 
mutually beneficial industrial linkages that enhance U.S. industry's 
access to global markets and exposes U.S. industry to international 
competition, helping to ensure that U.S. firms remain innovative and 
efficient.
    Question. Under what conditions, if any, would you support the 
imposition of domestic source restrictions for a particular product?
    Answer. In certain instances involving national security or the 
preservation of a key defense technology or production capability, 
domestic source restrictions may be necessary. The Department has (and, 
I understand, has exercised) the authority to ``self-impose'' such 
domestic source restrictions.
    Question. Section 831 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 requires the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that the United States firms and United States 
employment in the defense sector are not disadvantaged by unilateral 
procurement practices by foreign governments, such as the imposition of 
offset agreements in a manner that undermines the United States 
industrial base.
    What steps if any do you believe the Department should take to 
implement this requirement?
    Answer. Section 831 requires the Secretary of Defense to make every 
effort to ensure that the policies and practices of the Department 
reflect the goal of establishing an equitable trading relationship 
between the United States and its foreign defense trade partners. I 
understand an interagency team composed of the Departments of Defense, 
Labor, Commerce, and State and the U.S. Trade Representative was 
established to consult with other nations about limiting the adverse 
effects of offsets. If confirmed, I would decide on the need for any 
steps to be taken by the Department based on information the team 
provides.
    Question. The Defense Science Board Task Force on ``Defense 
Industrial Structure for Transformation'' found in July 2008 that U.S. 
policy regarding ``Buy America'' and the ``Berry Amendment'' inhibits 
the Nation from gaining the security and economic benefits that could 
be realized from the global marketplace.
    What is your opinion of ``Buy America'' legislation and the ``Berry 
Amendment''?
    Answer. Such restrictions may impede the Department's ability to 
procure world class products and capabilities on a ``best value'' basis 
for our warfighters, and they may impair effective defense cooperation 
with our allies and other friendly governments. For example, such 
restrictions can be inconsistent with supply chain management practices 
of commercial enterprises. This would impede efforts to promote civil-
military integration and to achieve greater reliance on commercial 
solutions to the Department's requirements. It would be a preferable 
alternative to allow the Department to rely on its ability, under 
existing law, to impose source restrictions when necessary. I 
understand that the Department also has authority to restrict 
procurements to domestic sources when it determines that a particular 
domestic industrial capability must be protected. This means the 
Department has the ability to sustain endangered industrial 
capabilities when necessary to protect national security interests and 
to remove the restrictions when no longer needed, thus returning to the 
benefits of competition.
                      the defense industrial base
    Question. What is your view of the current state of the U.S. 
defense industry?
    Answer. The defense industry is a vital partner to defense, since 
most defense products and services are provided by the private sector. 
Generally, my viewpoint is that our Nation's defense and technology 
industrial base remains the most innovative, reliable, and cost-
effective in the world.
    Question. Do you support further consolidation of the U.S. defense 
industry?
    Answer. I support the Department's overall policy to review each 
proposed merger, acquisition, and teaming arrangement on its particular 
merits in the context of the individual market and the changing 
dynamics of that market. I have some concern about the loss of 
competition caused by significant industry consolidation over the last 
decade. If confirmed, I would work with Department leadership to 
evaluate options to address continued consolidation and the flux of the 
competitive environment.
    Question. What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S. 
defense sector?
    Answer. Generally, I support foreign investment in the defense 
sector. Foreign firms enhance competition which can lower costs of 
specific defense systems as well as provide for them leading edge 
technologies which were developed abroad. In addition, such investment 
in the long-run will increase interoperability between the United 
States and its allies. To be sure, we must ensure that foreign 
investment in the defense sector does not create risks to national 
security.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe DOD should take to 
ensure the continued health of the U.S. defense industry?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would support the Department's strategy to 
rely on market forces to the maximum extent possible to create, shape, 
and sustain the industrial and technological capabilities needed to 
provide for the Nation's defense. However, I think it is also important 
to recognize that the Department (through its budget, acquisition, and 
logistics processes) can create market forces capable of harnessing the 
innovation potential in the industrial/technological base. In addition, 
when it becomes necessary to intervene in the marketplace, the 
Department has tools available which help to focus industry attention 
on critical technology development, accelerate technology insertion 
into manufacturing processes, create or expand critical production 
facilities, and direct production capacity towards meeting the most 
urgent warfighter needs.
                          manufacturing issues
    Question. The recent Defense Science Board (DSB) study on the 
Manufacturing Technology Program made a number of findings and 
recommendations related to the role of manufacturing research and 
capabilities in the development and acquisition of defense systems.
    Have you reviewed the findings of the DSB Task Force on the 
Manufacturing Technology Program?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. What recommendations from the Task Force do you plan to 
implement?
    Answer. The overarching recommendation of the DSB report was to 
give ``leadership emphasis'' to manufacturing technology. I believe 
strongly in the importance of manufacturing technology as a type of 
technology deserving DOD fostering just as DOD fosters the technologies 
embedded in the manufactured weapons themselves. I also agree that 
manufacturing readiness should be assessed more rigorously before 
programs pass into production.
    Question. What incentives do you plan to use to enhance industry's 
incorporation and utilization of advanced manufacturing processes 
developed under the manufacturing technology program?
    Answer. The Department's competitive solicitation process must 
adequately identify and reward proposers who plan to employ advanced 
manufacturing processes in response to DOD requests for proposals and 
where manufacturing processes are mature and do not present excessive 
risk.
                         science and technology
    Question. What, in your view, is the role and value of S&T programs 
in meeting the Department's transformation goals and in confronting 
irregular, catastrophic, traditional, and disruptive threats?
    Answer. I believe S&T plays a large role in shaping the future 
direction of DOD as the Department takes on the challenge of 
accomplishing an expanded range of missions. The content of a S&T 
program needed to address these future challenges is likely different 
than in the past. The threats to our national security have expanded to 
cyberspace as well as physical space. Just as S&T gave us the world's 
most capable military at the end of the Cold War, we need S&T to 
provide answers for tomorrow's fight.
    Question. If confirmed, what direction will you provide regarding 
funding targets and priorities for the Department's long-term research 
efforts?
    Answer. I am aware that Secretary Gates has made, in particular, 
basic research a priority--increasing funding by about $300 million in 
fiscal year 2009. If confirmed, I will carefully review all funding 
portfolios; then assess the relative merits and targets.
    Question. What specific metrics would you use, if confirmed, to 
assess whether the Department is making adequate investments in its 
basic research programs?
    Answer. There are a number of metrics to assess whether the 
Department is making an adequate investment in basic research. None of 
these provide a binary yes or no answer. By definition, basic research 
is long-term, and not measureable credibly with short-term metrics. The 
Department needs to assess a number of factors, to include growth or 
decline in real dollars of the basic research program; change in number 
of projects; proportion of DOD-funded researchers in key science 
disciplines; and number of students supported by the basic research 
program investments. While these metrics offer insight, if confirmed, I 
will need to work closely with the Director, Defense Research and 
Engineering before defining specific metrics.
    Question. Do you feel that there is sufficient coordination between 
and among the S&T programs of the Military Services and defense 
agencies?
    Answer. I am aware that there are coordination mechanisms in place 
for the Department's S&T program. If confirmed, I would look at this 
issue more closely to determine if current coordination is adequate.
    Question. What is the Department's role and responsibility in 
addressing national issues related to science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) education and workforce development?
    Answer. The Department must take a pro-active role in ensuring that 
the Nation has an adequate STEM workforce. In addition to encouraging 
STEM workforce development through its research investments and 
education outreach efforts, I believe DOD needs to work closely with 
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science 
Foundation, and other Federal components involved in national security, 
to generate a ``whole of government'' approach to workforce 
development.
    Question. What steps if any would you take to support efforts to 
ensure that the Nation has the scientific and technical workforce 
needed for its national security technological and industrial base?
    Answer. I am aware of several activities within DOD, such as the 
National Defense Education Program and the National Security Science 
and Engineering Fellows program, that aim to expand the pool of 
scientists and engineers able to contribute to the national security 
technological and industrial base. If confirmed, one of the first steps 
I would take would be to direct the DDR&E to determine how well these 
programs and others like them meet the Department's S&T workforce 
needs.
    Question. How would you use S&T programs to better reduce technical 
risk and therefore potentially reduce costs and schedule problems that 
accrue in large acquisition programs?
    Answer. S&T programs, particularly in Budget Activities 2 (Applied 
Research) and 3 (Advanced Development) can have substantial impact on 
improving technology readiness, and thereby reduce technical risk. I 
believe there is an opportunity to expand the ties from BA2 and BA3 
programs to large acquisition programs, particularly between Milestones 
A and B.
    Question. Do you feel that the S&T programs of DOD are too near-
term focus and have over emphasized technology transition efforts over 
investing in revolutionary and innovative research programs?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will look at the balance of near- and far-
term innovative research. The DOD S&T program should be balanced so 
there are opportunities for both capabilities pull, responding to the 
warfighter's needs, and technology push, responding to the promise of 
new technology. The Under Secretary for AT&L has the responsibility of 
helping to shape and focus the portfolio, and if confirmed, I will rely 
on the DDR&E to advise me on how to discharge this responsibility.
    Question. Are you satisfied that the Department has a well 
articulated and actionable S&T strategic plan?
    Answer. I know the Department has a recent Research and Engineering 
Strategic Plan, published in 2007, and that each of the military 
Services and agencies that conduct research publish strategic plans 
that are harmonized with the DDR&E plan. If confirmed, I will ensure 
the plans have clear and actionable guidance.
    Question. Do you see a need for changes in areas such as hiring 
authority, personnel systems, financial disclosure and ethics 
requirements, to ensure that the Department can recruit and retain the 
highest quality scientific and technical workforce possible?
    Answer. I believe any modern enterprise needs effective tools, to 
shape the workforce and attract the most capable people. This principle 
holds true for the Department. Various recent studies indicate that the 
Department has difficulty competing with the private sector for 
technically capable staff. I will take all possible steps to ensure the 
Department is competitive.
    Question. The DDR&E has been designated as the Chief Technology 
Officer of DOD.
    In your view, what is the appropriate role of the Chief Technology 
Officer of DOD?
    Answer. The role of the Chief Technology Officer of the Department 
is defined in the DDR&E charter. The charter defines the role of the 
DDR&E as the Principal Staff Assistant to the Under Secretary (AT&L) 
and the Secretary on all technical matters. The DDR&E should provide 
guidance to shape the DOD S&T program and develop technology options 
for the Department. The CTO should also contribute significantly to 
ensuring that major acquisition programs are conducted with acceptable 
technological risk
    Question. What authority should the DDR&E have over the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)?
    Answer. As the Department's primary corporate research activity, 
DARPA reports to DDR&E. The DDR&E should have all authorities necessary 
to ensure DARPA is effective in meeting its mission, including 
budgetary authority and authority over selection of agency leadership.
    Question. What authority should the DDR&E have over other Service 
and agency S&T efforts?
    Answer. The DDR&E should provide oversight responsibilities of the 
Service and agency programs, consistent with the DDR&E charter.
    Question. Do you see the need for any changes in organizational 
structure, workforce, or availability of resources to improve the 
effectiveness of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and 
Engineering?
    Answer. I believe S&T is critical to maintaining military 
superiority across a broad range of crises and military operations. 
Ensuring the technological superiority of our Armed Forces will require 
a strong DDR&E. If confirmed, I will take any steps I determine 
necessary for a strong DDR&E.
                          defense laboratories
    Question. What is your view on the quality of the DOD laboratories 
as compared to the DOE national laboratories, Federal laboratories, 
academic laboratories, and other peer institutions?
    Answer. The DOD laboratories employ a talented and mission-oriented 
workforce, and constitute an important departmental resource for the 
Nation's national security. That said, I am certain they can be 
improved. If confirmed, I will place priority in examining the 
capabilities and long-term requirements of the DOD laboratories, and 
develop, with the Services, a plan to address the role of the DOD 
laboratories.
    Question. What metrics will you use, if confirmed, to evaluate the 
effectiveness, competitiveness, and scientific vitality of the DOD 
laboratories?
    Answer. The effectiveness, competitiveness, and scientific vitality 
of the DOD laboratories are gauged by a combination of factors, 
including external review of their research programs and the Service 
parent organizations' assessment of their effectiveness in meeting 
Service requirements and other needs. These in turn are influenced by 
the ability to attract and retain a talented workforce, and the 
adequacy and robustness of their physical infrastructure. I believe 
collaboration with universities, industry, and other laboratories also 
constitute an important contributor and measure of our laboratories' 
effectiveness in fostering and recognizing world class research and 
development.
    Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to 
increase the mission effectiveness and productivity of the DOD 
laboratories?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the DDR&E to ensure that DOD 
labs operate at maximum effectiveness and productivity.
    Question. Do you see value in enhancing the level of technical 
collaboration between the DOD laboratories and academic, other Federal 
and industrial scientific organizations?
    Answer. Yes. The effectiveness and competitiveness of our 
laboratories can only be helped by enhanced technical collaboration 
with other research and development organizations.
    Question. Do you feel that past investments in research equipment; 
sustainment, repair and modernization; and facility construction at the 
DOD laboratories have been sufficient to maintain their mission 
effectiveness and their standing as world class science and engineering 
institutions?
    Answer. I believe that in some S&T areas that are key to defense, 
DOD laboratories are at the cutting edge. If confirmed, I will assess 
what they need to retain this standing.
                                 darpa
    Question. What is the relationship between the DARPA and the DDR&E?
    Answer. DDR&E is the Department's Chief Technology Officer 
responsible for ensuring the technological strength that undergirds our 
defense and overseeing all of the Department's technical activities. 
DARPA is the Department's primary corporate research agency, fulfilling 
a crucial role complementary with the Military Services' and agencies' 
research efforts. The DARPA director reports to the DDR&E.
    Question. Has DARPA struck an appropriate balance between 
investments in near-term technology programs that are tied to current 
battlefield needs and investments in longer term, higher risk, and 
revolutionary capability development?
    Answer. Since its inception in the late 1950s, DARPA has led the 
Department and this Nation in long-term, high-risk/high-payoff 
research, resulting in numerous revolutionary force-multiplier 
advantages for our warfighters. I am strongly committed to ensuring 
that DARPA maintains and enhances the leadership role it has 
established over decades, and that it strikes the right balance between 
near-term and far-term efforts.
    Question. Do you feel that DARPA has adequately invested in the 
academic research community?
    Answer. Many, if not most, of the revolutionary S&T advances of the 
future will likely arise from academic research conducted in America's 
outstanding universities, and from the spin-off companies that 
universities often foster. It is important for DOD's entire S&T 
enterprise, including DARPA, to nurture and encourage academic 
research.
    Question. What are the major issues related to DARPA investments, 
management, and research outcomes that you will seek to address?
    Answer. I believe that it is important for DARPA to pursue a 
portfolio of research investments that offer promise of future 
revolutionary warfighting advantage. DARPA must hire the most 
technologically advanced, creative, and innovative staff that our 
Nation can offer. DARPA must empower its workforce to think ``out-of-
the-box,'' to engage energetically with the brightest minds in the 
United States and abroad, regardless of nationality.
                          test and evaluation
    Question. The Department has, on occasion, been criticized for 
failing to adequately test its major weapon systems before these 
systems are put into production.
    What are your views about the degree of independence needed by the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in ensuring the success of 
the Department's acquisition programs?
    Answer. In general, I believe an independent Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation provides a valuable perspective on 
whether the Department's weapon systems are operationally effective and 
suitable. The Operational Evaluation, a validation of the developed 
system's ability to improve the warfighter's capability, is an 
essential input to any decisions on investing in the full production of 
new systems. It is however often too late in the acquisition cycle to 
influence design and development. That's the role of the systems 
engineers and developmental testers. Developmental testing is the 
verification half of systems engineering. If confirmed, I also intend 
to examine the independence and resourcing of developmental testing.
    Question. Are you concerned with the level of test and evaluation 
conducted by the contractors who are developing the systems to be 
tested?
    Answer. In general, I believe contractors are an important and 
integral part of the test and evaluation process during system 
development. In the past era of acquisition reform the Department may 
have delegated too much of the early developmental test and evaluations 
to the contractors without adequate government participation or 
oversight. If confirmed, my emphasis will be on integrating contractor 
and government test efforts.
    Question. What is the impact of rapid fielding requirements on the 
standard testing process?
    Answer. Rapid fielding requirements require rapid performance from 
the entire acquisition team, including the test and evaluation 
community. With a rapid fielding requirement, it is necessary to adjust 
the scope and amount of testing to address the key issues and risks 
that affect the system's use in combat and gain early insights into the 
capabilities and limitations of the system being acquired. In rapid 
fielding, particularly of commercial items, the focus needs to be on 
understanding what we're buying, not whether the system meets a set of 
rigid requirements. If confirmed, I will work with all stakeholders to 
ensure testing processes support rapid fielding without delaying our 
response to these urgent requirements.
    Question. If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that all 
equipment and technology that is deployed to warfighters is subject to 
appropriate operational testing?
    Answer. All equipment and technology acquired by the Department 
should be subject to robust Systems Engineering, comprehensive 
Developmental Test and Evaluation, and realistic Operational Test and 
Evaluation. If confirmed, I would enforce existing acquisition policies 
regarding these processes and where necessary amend them.
    Question. Do you believe that the developmental testing 
organizations in DOD and the Military Services are adequate to ensure 
an appropriate level of developmental testing, and testing oversight, 
on major defense acquisition programs?
    Answer. I believe the Department needs to improve the adequacy of 
the developmental testing organizations in DOD and the Services. If 
confirmed, I will look at the entire acquisition organization, 
including Developmental Test and Evaluation and make changes as 
necessary to best accomplish the mission.
    Question. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 
Year 2003 included several provisions to improve the management of DOD 
test and evaluation facilities.
    Are you satisfied with the manner in which these provisions have 
been implemented?
    Answer. Yes. The language in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2003 led to 
the establishment of the Defense Test Resource Management Center 
(TRMC). The TRMC's mission is to plan for and assess the adequacy of 
the Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB). Two key provisions of 
that legislation included the TRMC's requirement to develop the 
Department's Strategic Plan for T&E Resources and to certify the 
adequacy of Service and Agency Test and Evaluation budgets. If 
confirmed, I will review the adequacy of the Department's responses to 
these mandates.
    Question. Do you believe that the Department should take any 
additional steps to improve the management of its test and evaluation 
facilities?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review this matter and make changes 
where necessary and in consultation with Congress.
    Question. As systems grow more sophisticated, networked, and 
software-intensive, DOD's ability to test and evaluate them becomes 
more difficult. Some systems-of-systems cannot be tested as a whole 
until they are already bought and fielded.
    Are you concerned with DOD's ability to test these new types of 
systems?
    Answer. Absolutely, testing and developing software-intensive 
programs in a net-centric, systems-of-systems (SoS) environment is 
indeed a challenge.
                       ballistic missile defense
    Question. When it was created in 2002, the Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) was exempted from normal acquisition rules and processes in order 
to field an initial set of missile defense capabilities on an expedited 
basis. That fielding has now taken place, although numerous upgrades 
and corrections are being implemented. Each of the elements of the 
Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) would normally meet the 
criteria for an MDAP, but none of them has been managed as an MDAP. 
Furthermore, for most of MDA's existence, all its programs were funded 
with Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds, even 
for non-RDT&E activities.
    What management and acquisition changes or improvements if any do 
you believe are warranted for the ballistic missile defense programs?
    Answer. I expect missile defense to be addressed as part of the 
upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review as well as the congressionally-
mandated Ballistic Missile Defense Policy and Strategy review. In 
concert with those policy reviews and if confirmed, I will review 
existing DOD acquisition policies and procedures related to developing 
and fielding ballistic missile defense capabilities to ensure 
appropriate acquisition processes are in place.
    Question. Do you believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics should have the same 
responsibilities relative to the ballistic missile defense acquisition 
programs as for all other MDAPs?
    Answer. I believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, as the Department's senior 
acquisition executive, should have the same responsibilities, within 
the current departmental guidance, for all MDAPs, regardless of the 
capability being acquired.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you plan to take to 
ensure that the ballistic missile defense programs of DOD follow sound 
acquisition and management practices and processes?
    Answer. I understand that the Missile Defense Executive Board 
(MDEB) has been the forum for the last 2 years for senior departmental 
review of MDA activity. If confirmed, I would review within the MDEB, 
efforts to maintain regular oversight of the MDA acquisition and 
management practices.
    Question. For many years, DOD and Congress have agreed on the 
principle that major weapon systems should be operationally effective, 
suitable, survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a 
credible threat.
    Do you agree that any ballistic missile defense systems that we 
deploy operationally must be operationally effective, suitable, 
survivable, cost-effective, affordable, and should address a credible 
threat?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure 
that the BMDS and each of its elements meet these criteria?
    Answer. Rigorous and realistic testing of missile defenses is 
imperative. I understand that the MDA presently is executing a plan 
which includes the use of a Development/Operational Testing approach 
that allows the U.S. Strategic Command warfighter community (which 
includes all combatant commanders) and all the Service Operational Test 
Agencies to be integral parts of the test program. If confirmed, I 
would need to review these plans and the proposed test activities to 
determine whether additional steps or other emphases are necessary or 
appropriate.
    Question. Today, there are many hundreds of short- and medium-range 
ballistic missiles that can reach forward-deployed U.S. military 
forces, allies, and other friendly nations. A Joint Staff study, the 
Joint Capabilities Mix study, has repeatedly concluded that the United 
States needs about twice as many Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) and Terminal 
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors just to achieve the 
minimum inventory needs of regional combatant commanders to defend 
against such threats.
    Do you agree that U.S. missile defense efforts should be 
prioritized on providing effective defenses against existing ballistic 
missile threats, especially the many hundreds of short- and medium-
range ballistic missiles that are currently within range of our 
forward-based forces, allies, and other friendly nations?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will review the balance among the elements 
of the ballistic missile defense program.
    Question. What do you believe should be the appropriate role of the 
combatant commanders and the military in determining requirements, 
force structure, and inventory levels for ballistic missile defense 
forces?
    Answer. Combatant commanders are the ultimate employers of the 
capabilities that the acquisition community delivers. As such, they 
should have a voice in determining their priorities for requirements, 
force structure, and necessary inventory levels. Title 10 provides for 
the military departments to have responsibility to organize, train, and 
equip the forces employed by the COCOMs. MDA serves as the materiel 
developer for ballistic missile defenses and as such has a role in 
determining what capabilities are achievable and what inventory 
quantities are feasible at what cost. These three roles are 
interdependent. If confirmed, I will review existing policies and 
procedures to ensure they are transparent and provide the capabilities 
required at the best value to the taxpayer.
    Question. For many years, Congress and DOD have agreed on the 
principle of ``fly before you buy,'' namely demonstrating that a weapon 
system will work in an operationally effective, suitable, and 
survivable manner before deciding to acquire and deploy such systems. 
This demonstration requires rigorous, operationally realistic testing, 
including independent Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), to 
provide an accurate assessment of how weapon systems will perform in 
combat conditions. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
(DOT&E) has expressed concerns that the testing of the Ground-based 
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system has not been sufficient to provide 
confidence in its operational capability.
    Do you agree that ballistic missile defense testing needs to be 
operationally realistic, and should include OT&E, in order to assess 
operational capabilities and limitations of ballistic missile defense 
systems, prior to making decisions to deploy such systems?
    Answer. I agree that operationally realistic testing is imperative, 
and if confirmed, I will review MDA's test plans and practices to 
ensure that they satisfy this imperative.
    Question. If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to ensure 
that the BMDS, and each of its elements, undergoes independent OT&E?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the MDA and the DOT&E to see 
what testing is planned and eliminate any shortcomings.
    Question. The MDA has developed ballistic missile defense systems 
and capabilities and procured the initial inventories of missile 
defense element weapon systems. However, the military departments are 
notionally intended to procure, operate, and sustain these missile 
defense systems.
    What do you believe is the appropriate role for the military 
departments in the procurement, operation, and sustainment of ballistic 
missile defense systems, and at what point do you believe these systems 
should be transitioned and transferred to the military departments?
    Answer. I understand the MDA and the military departments are in 
the process of preparing overarching and element-specific Memorandum of 
Agreements to define responsibilities and relationships in preparation 
for Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) operations and deployment. 
If confirmed, I will work with the MDA and the military departments to 
ensure processes and policies are in place to accomplish the transition 
and transfer in a timely manner and within budget.
                        nuclear weapons council
    Question. If confirmed as USD(ATL), you will chair the Nuclear 
Weapons Council (NWC).
    In your view, what are, or should be, the highest priorities of the 
NWC?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will carry out all of the NWC 
responsibilities listed under section 179, title 10, U.S.C. In my view, 
the highest priority of the NWC is to ensure the safety, security, and 
reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile.
    Question. What improvements, if any, do you believe should be made 
to the operations of the NWC?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense, 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense, as well as members of the NWC, to 
identify improvements, if any, that would further the goals of the NWC. 
These may include recommendations from the recent Schlesinger 
Commission report.
    Question. What role do you expect to play, if confirmed, in the 
development of the Nuclear Posture Review?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will be closely involved, along with the 
appropriate agencies and departments, in both the development and the 
review of the NPR.
                        logistics and readiness
    Question. If confirmed as USD(ATL), what steps if any would you 
take to ensure that life cycle maintenance requirements and sustainment 
support are considered in the acquisition process for new DOD systems?
    Answer. Reliability, availability, and maintainability must be 
designed in early-on in the acquisition process for our weapon systems 
to provide the best value to the warfighter and taxpayer. DOD is 
pursuing several acquisition reforms to ensure the acquisition process 
maintains a life cycle management perspective, maximizes materiel 
availability for the warfighter, and controls operations and support 
costs. If confirmed, I will review and if necessary adjust these reform 
measures.
    Question. Section 332 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009 requires DOD to conduct life-cycle cost analysis for 
new capabilities including the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) 
during the analysis and evaluation of alternatives in the acquisition 
program design trades.
    Do you believe that the FBCF is an appropriate factor for the 
Department to consider in the evaluation of acquisition alternatives?
    Answer. Absolutely yes. The FBCF serves as a means to address 
future systems energy demand within the Department's key business 
processes (force planning, requirements development, and acquisition). 
By properly valuing the ``burden'' of fuel delivery in systems 
development, the FBCF allows a more realistic examination of 
departmental costs in terms of operational effectiveness, force 
structure, and operating budget.
    Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to ensure 
that the DOD complies with the requirements of section 332?
    Answer. My understanding is that work associated with 
institutionalizing the FBCF factor is underway within the Department. 
If confirmed, I will review this work and institute appropriate 
improvements.
    Question. With persistent combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and around the globe, combat service support units are constantly at 
risk when transporting supplies.
    What role do you believe the USD(ATL) should play in developing 
strategies to reduce the logistical footprint of deployed units 
operating in hostile environments?
    Answer. Logistics footprint is a multifaceted issue which is based 
on the mission, the force structure, the environment, the weapons 
systems deployed, and the capacity and security of our lines of 
communication. If confirmed, my office, in conjunction with U.S. 
Transportation Command, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Joint Staff, 
and the military Services should continue to focus on managing the 
logistics footprint required to sustain the force in any theater of 
operation. In the long-term, we must ensure the best possible 
sustainability, maintainability, reliability, and fuel efficiency of 
our weapon systems in the acquisition process as a way of lowering the 
footprint needed to maintain those systems.
    Question. Sections 333 and 334 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 direct DOD to conduct studies on 
renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and on the 
reduction of life-cycle emissions of alternative and synthetic fuels.
    What is your view of the role that the USD(ATL) should play in 
developing and pursuing alternative energy sources for DOD?
    Answer. Since sections 333 and 334 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 direct DOD to conduct studies on 
renewable energy sources and the reduction of life cycle emissions on 
alternative and synthetic fuels, I believe it prudent to determine the 
status of those studies before formulating a specific approach. I do 
believe the goals and intents of energy efficiency and renewable 
sources of energy may be consistent with operational effectiveness. If 
so, and if confirmed, I will ensure we establish the right research, 
prototyping, acquisition, and sustainment for a stable energy program.
    Question. What steps if any will you take, if confirmed, to makes 
sure that DOD complies with the requirements of sections 333 and 334?
    Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Office of the USD(AT&L) to 
comply with statutory requirements. I will investigate the process we 
have in place to track progress against all statutory requirements, to 
include sections 333 and 334.
    Question. Do you foresee a significant role for the use of solar 
and wind energy systems with deployed units operating in remote 
environments?
    Answer. I think it is too early to determine if renewable energy 
systems will play a significant role in meeting deployed unit 
requirements. What I am comfortable in committing to is within the 
roles and responsibilities of the office for which I am nominated, to 
reduce the risk to deployed American forces and systems. If solar and 
wind energy can help meet that goal, we will do what can to accelerate 
their fielding.
                     base realignments and closures
    Question. GAO released a report in January 2009 regarding DOD's 
implementation of the decisions contained in the 2005 Defense Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. In the report, GAO described 
several significant challenges which may impact the Department's 
ability to complete BRAC implementation by the statutory deadline of 
September 15, 2011.
    If confirmed, will you be committed to meet the statutory goal for 
BRAC implementation?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. In your opinion, what measures will you need to undertake 
to assist the Services to complete their BRAC actions on time?
    Answer. The Department will need detailed business plans with cost 
and savings estimates to govern BRAC implementation and will need to 
apply the necessary resources to meet the statutory BRAC implementation 
deadline. If confirmed, I will do so to ensure that the statutory 
deadline can be met.
    Question. Regarding policies related to the disposal of property at 
closed installations, currently, the Department is encouraged to obtain 
fair market value for excess property not required by the Federal 
Government. Funds obtained for this property are used to augment 
appropriated funds for the environmental clean-up of other DOD property 
to be disposed. DOD is also authorized to convey property to local 
redevelopment agencies for little or no consideration in order to 
facilitate economic recovery and development.
    In light of current economic conditions, do you see a need for the 
Department to reassess its policy on the need to seek fair market value 
in all cases? If so, what changes would you propose to this policy?
    Answer. I understand that the Department has a broad range of 
authorities under which it may convey surplus property at closed 
installations, and I believe this flexibility is important. These 
authorities give the Department the flexibility to address the wide 
range of circumstances encountered at communities that have hosted 
closing installations. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department 
properly considers all relevant factors when selecting the appropriate 
property disposal method.
    Question. In your opinion, does the current BRAC law authorize the 
Department to carry out property disposals for no consideration or 
consideration at less than fair market value? If not, what changes 
would you propose to the BRAC law?
    Answer. Current BRAC law authorizes the Department to dispose of 
property using a variety of conveyance methods. Some of those 
conveyance methods involve payment of consideration, and some may be at 
no-cost. These conveyance authorities provide flexibility to address 
the wide range of circumstances encountered at communities that have 
hosted closing installations. If confirmed, I will ensure the 
Department properly considers all relevant factors when selecting the 
appropriate property disposal method.
    Question. Many communities around the country affected by 
significant increases in populations at military bases have asked for 
financial assistance from the Federal Government to fund improvements 
or construction of local schools, transportation, utilities, ports, and 
other infrastructure.
    What is your opinion about using funds appropriated to the DOD to 
pay for these types of projects in local communities?
    Answer. Law and executive order direct the domestic Federal 
agencies to work with DOD and support a program of economic adjustment 
assistance for affected communities, workers, and businesses. If 
confirmed, I will review what can be done to ensure our cognizant 
Federal partners [U.S. Departments of Commerce (Economic Development 
Administration), Labor (Employment and Training Administration), 
Education, Transportation, and Agriculture (Rural Development 
Administration)] are supporting these efforts as intended. At the same 
time, I will review the status of these efforts, including the possible 
use of DOD appropriated funds beyond the State and local organizing and 
planning activities these funds have supported to date.
    Question. If confirmed, how would you propose working with local 
communities to address their concerns about adequate support for 
military members and their families?
    Answer. Across the Department, numerous components have 
responsibilities for working with and assisting these areas, including 
the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA). If confirmed, I would review 
these interfaces to ensure we are appropriately structured for 
assisting these needs and optimizing our resources. This effort would 
take OEA's efforts to date with these affected States, communities, 
installations, and servicemembers into account. Additionally, I would 
work within the administration to effectively implement the statutory 
and executive order direction for the cognizant Federal agencies to 
afford priority consideration to requests from Defense-affected 
communities for Federal technical assistance and financial resources.
                         environmental security
    Question. If confirmed, you will be responsible for environmental 
security for DOD.
    What do you see as the most significant challenges facing the 
Department in the area of environmental security?
    Answer. Environmental issues are an area of great importance to the 
Department. One of the Department's challenges is environmental 
sustainability, evident in the energy, environment, safety, and 
occupational health issues in its operations. The Department must also 
address these issues in a fiscally responsible manner.
    Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans if any do you have 
for addressing these challenges?
    Answer. To address these challenges, if confirmed, I will ensure 
collaboration among DOD, State and local governments, non-governmental 
organizations, other Federal agencies, industry, and academia to 
provide better tools and policies for life-cycle cost and 
sustainability analyses. I will promote decisions that are based on the 
best science available at the time, while recognizing that the 
Department must adapt to changing events, technology, and emerging 
requirements.
    Question. The Department of Justice recently concluded that the DOD 
must comply with clean-up orders from the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA).
    What steps if any do you plan to take, if confirmed, in response to 
this determination?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has responded 
that it will comply with these orders and EPA and DOD have agreed to 
finalize interagency agreements required under the main cleanup law, 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability 
Act, to replace these orders. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOD 
continues to keep its primary focus on the Department's responsibility 
to ensure cleanup actions are promptly and cost effectively taken to 
protect human health and the environment.
    Question. Unexploded ordnance (UXO) remains a problem at many 
current and former DOD sites. Sections 311 and 313 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and section 313 of the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
required DOD to develop and implement plans for the remediation of UXO 
at such sites. However, the Department has yet to develop comprehensive 
plans and request adequate funding to comply with these requirements.
    If confirmed, what steps if any would you take to address the UXO 
issue?
    Answer. The Department has made significant efforts with all 
stakeholders to update the inventory of the Munitions Response Sites 
(MRSs), prioritize all the MRSs in the inventory with stakeholder input 
and measure progress though established performance goals and metrics. 
I will look into it further, if I am confirmed.
    Question. What steps if any do you believe are needed to ensure 
that the UXO program receives adequate funding and makes meaningful 
progress in the detection and clearance of UXO?
    Answer. The first step is to refine estimates for remediation of 
MRSs, including estimation of future costs and activities. This will be 
the key for both planning and execution for MRS remediation and will 
enable the Department to implement the predictable funding levels 
required for effective program execution in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
                        congressional oversight
    Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight 
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other 
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony, 
briefings, and other communications of information.
    Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before 
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this 
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide 
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, 
with respect to your responsibilities as the USD(ATL)?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and 
other communications of information are provided to this committee and 
its staff and other appropriate committees?
    Answer. Yes.
    Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of 
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by 
a duly constituted committee, or to consult with the committee 
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing 
such documents?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                                 darfur
    1. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, in 2007 Congress passed the Sudan 
Accountability and Divestment Act. An important provision of this act 
prohibits companies engaged in restricted business operations in Sudan 
from contracting with the U.S. Government. Recently, it has been 
learned that certain prohibited companies have been contracting with 
the Government, particularly with the Department of Defense (DOD). What 
steps will you take to ensure that DOD is not negotiating contracts 
with these prohibited companies?
    Dr. Carter. I understand the Government implemented the Sudan 
Accountability and Divestment Act as an interim rule in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation on June 12, 2008. Effective that date, this rule 
requires each solicitation for the acquisition of products or services 
(other than commercial items) must include a provision that requires 
each offeror to certify that it does not conduct any restricted 
business operations in Sudan. Upon the determination of a false 
certification, the contracting officer may terminate the contract; the 
suspending official may suspend the contractor; and the debarring 
official may debar the contractor for a period not to exceed 3 years. 
The President may waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis if the 
President determines and certifies in writing to the appropriate 
congressional committees that it is in the national interest to do so. 
I am unaware of any violations of this law and its implementing 
regulations, but if confirmed, I would be pleased to review any alleged 
violations brought to my attention and ensure that appropriate remedial 
action is taken and any weaknesses in practices by the Department are 
resolved.

                              shipbuilding
    2. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, the Navy is at a critical juncture 
regarding its shipbuilding strategy and execution. During the last 
budget cycle, Congress was asked to consider a major change in the plan 
for building destroyers. Moreover, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 
program costs continue to escalate, and the Navy's plan for the future 
cruiser pushed further into the future. These issues, both in planning 
and execution, cause Congress to call into question the quality of the 
Navy's analysis and decision processes. Given the purview of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
(USD(AT&L)), how do you plan to get some control over this process, 
exert the necessary acquisition oversight, and leverage the nearly $20 
billion invested in new combatant technologies and capabilities?
    Dr. Carter. I agree that the Navy shipbuilding effort is at a 
critical juncture. The Defense Acquisition System provides the 
mechanisms for the USD(AT&L) to control the process and exert the 
necessary acquisition oversight. I believe additional emphasis is 
needed to ensure programs are well-matured before proceeding to the 
next phase of acquisition. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy to 
ensure that its future acquisition planning efforts are well integrated 
and that the significant investments made in the past are considered as 
Department and national priorities change over time.

                         acquisition strategies
    3. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, many studies have shown that the 
implementation of Open Architecture enables competition and that 
despite defense industry consolidation, that competition is essential 
to innovation and cost containment. Can you please comment on how the 
implementation of these recommendations would positively impact 
programs such as the Aegis Weapons System, that have been sole-sourced 
for decades, and how the Services can rapidly implement these changes 
to achieve maximum benefits?
    Dr. Carter. I agree that Open Architecture is an important step 
forward across the broad acquisition portfolio. While I do not have 
complete acquaintance with the specifics of the Navy's plans for Open 
Architecture for the Aegis Weapons System, I believe it would be 
important for the Navy to define its objective combat systems 
architecture and to then conduct the developmental work and systems 
engineering necessary to evolve it into a standards-based modular 
architecture. I believe this would enhance innovation and allow 
qualified vendors to compete for and contribute to the overall Navy 
combat systems product line for the future. The quicker this could be 
done, the sooner the benefits could be achieved.

    4. Senator Reed. Dr. Carter, the Navy's future surface combatant 
plan unveiled in 2001 stated that the massive investment in DDG-1000 
technologies, including automation, would be used on the ``family of 
ships,'' which included LCS, DDG-1000, and CG(X). The Navy has proposed 
deviating from this plan and now proposes to truncate DDG-1000, restart 
DDG 51 production, push out CG(X) for nearly a decade, and insert 
something called Future Surface Combatant in the interim. Please 
explain how you would direct the Navy to leverage the investments 
already made.
    Dr. Carter. The Navy has learned a great deal from DDG-1000 
research and development and I agree that it makes sense to insert 
proven technologies in future ship designs wherever possible. I 
understand there are 10 critical technology advancements associated 
with DDG-1000 and that 8 of the 10 critical technologies could have 
application to CG(X). One critical technology, the Advanced Gun System, 
is currently not planned for any platform other than DDG-1000. The Navy 
should continue to evaluate the utility of the DDG-1000 hull form in 
future applications. The Dual Band Radar is already planned for 
installation in the CVN 78 aircraft carrier. In addition, technologies 
such as Autonomic Fire Suppression System and the Total Ship Computing 
Environment would have utility for incorporation in future surface ship 
and carrier designs.
                                 ______
                                 
                Questions Submitted by Senator Evan Bayh
                     electronics in defense systems
    5. Senator Bayh. Dr. Carter, what are your plans for ensuring that 
DOD procures safe and trusted electronics and printed circuit boards 
for use in defense systems?
    Dr. Carter. Section 254 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2009 requires the Department of Defense to conduct 
assessments of acquisition programs to identify vulnerabilities in the 
supply chain associated with electronics and information technology 
systems. I understand that the Department is developing recommended 
practices for managing supply chain risk that are effective and can be 
implemented considering cost and schedule impact; and collaborating 
with industry to identify standards and best practices that recognize 
security challenges in commercial global sourcing. If confirmed, my 
intention is to review the results of these assessments, evaluate the 
effectiveness of existing directives and instructions related to the 
acquisition of critical electronic hardware and software, and adjust 
procurement policy and strategy as needed.

    6. Senator Bayh. Dr. Carter, will these plans include changing how 
DOD imports these products?
    Dr. Carter. DOD must be able to both trust its electronic systems 
and preserve access to leading edge industrial capabilities from the 
global marketplace. Where trust is a paramount concern, such as to 
protect critical information, sensitive communications, and mission 
critical weapon system capabilities, the Department has programs in 
place like the DOD Trusted Foundry and Supplier Program for acquiring 
military unique or customized devices. If confirmed, I will continue 
working to ensure that procurement policies and processes are put in 
place to raise awareness of supply chain risks, and empower acquirers 
with the tools necessary to mitigate risk for these critical 
applications in our defense systems. For the vast majority of hardware 
and software it acquires, I think the Department's focus should be to 
work with industry to encourage use of standards, verification methods, 
and procurement practices that will preserve product trust, prevent 
tampering, malicious code insertion, and counterfeit substitution.

                          defense laboratories
    7. Senator Bayh. Dr. Carter, I am concerned that DOD laboratories 
are losing technical stature with respect to Department of Energy (DOE) 
labs, industry labs, and other peers. Do you have plans on improving 
this situation?
    Dr. Carter. If confirmed, I will work with Director, Defense 
Research & Engineering (DDR&E) to review the contribution of the DOD 
labs with an eye to ensuring that they operate at maximum effectiveness 
and productivity. I am certain the labs can be improved, and I will 
place priority in examining the capabilities and long-term requirements 
of the DOD laboratories, and develop, with the Services, a plan to 
address the role of the labs.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Udall
                        service level agreements
    8. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, as the top acquisition official 
within DOD at a time when we are facing many different budget 
pressures, you will be faced with many difficult decisions. In this 
fiscally constrained environment, I believe you will need to look for 
new and innovative ways to acquire capability for our Armed Forces. A 
good example of an innovative and flexible acquisition model is 
NextView Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that exist between commercial 
satellite imagery providers and the National Geospatial-Intelligence 
Agency (NGA). It is my understanding that this relationship has yielded 
substantial improvements to supporting NGA's geospatial and military 
mission, while delivering cost-cutting solutions to the taxpayer. It 
has recently come to my attention that one of the SLAs is set to expire 
at the end of July, but there are plans to extend this through the end 
of the year. While I am pleased to hear this, I am especially 
interested in your future plans for ensuring continued and assured 
access to innovative and cost-effective commercial services such as 
those provided by the commercial satellite imagery industry. Are you 
aware of this commercial government relationship and the imagery 
products the commercial satellite industry is currently providing to 
the warfighter and Intelligence Community?
    Dr. Carter. I am aware in general terms but, as a nominee, I have 
not had access to detailed information. From what I understand, the NGA 
recognizes that mid-resolution, geospatially accurate, commercial 
imagery and imagery derived products are valuable sources of 
geospatial-intelligence (GEOINT) and a key element in support of 
multiple U.S. Government initiatives. As such, they entered into a cost 
sharing arrangement for the development of imagery satellites. This has 
proven especially useful in support of emergencies, disasters, and 
humanitarian efforts both domestic and international. I will, if 
confirmed, continue to look for innovative and cost-effective ways of 
acquiring commercially available imagery that support a multitude of 
needs.

    9. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, what steps will you take in your role 
as Under Secretary to see that NGA is able to leverage private sector 
investments to increase access to available services at a greater 
value?
    Dr. Carter. If confirmed, I will ensure that we fully enable the 
Director of NGA, in his role as the GEOINT functional manager, to 
leverage private sector investments to increase access to available 
geospatial services at the best value for the U.S. Government. As 
commercial remote sensing capabilities evolve, we should continue to 
ascertain when private sector investments for GEOINT applications and 
services are a cost effective way of supporting the needs of the U.S. 
Government.

                       small business contracting
    10. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, in 2006, the Small Business 
Administration gave DOD a red rating for not meeting mandated small 
business goals. DOD has historically been significantly below the 
statutory small business contracting requirement of 23 percent. For 
example, the Air Force only issued 15-17 percent of their contract 
dollars to small businesses, and their small business contract dollar 
percentages have actually been declining in recent years rather than 
increasing. In your role as DOD's top acquisition official, what do you 
intend to do to improve the small business contracting record across 
all of the Services to meet these statutory small business contracting 
requirements?
    Dr. Carter. If confirmed, I will work with the DOD Office of Small 
Business Programs (OSBP) to analyze the existing data in order to 
determine what DOD is spending its contract dollars on and from what 
types of businesses. This will allow for identifying opportunities to 
maximize small business participation in DOD contracting. Additionally, 
I will work with the OSBP to ensure that organization has the tools 
necessary, and uses those tools, to improve the small business 
contracting record.

                    director for operational energy
    11. Senator Udall. Dr. Carter, section 902 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 establishes a new position 
within DOD for a Director for Operational Energy. I understand that the 
Department is undertaking an analysis of options for implementing the 
provision, including resourcing and the office's placement within 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Section 902 specifies that 
the Director is the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and may communicate views ``directly to the 
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense without 
obtaining the approval or concurrence of any other official within 
DOD.'' Are any of the options being considered for the Director's 
placement within OSD subordinate to any official in DOD other than the 
Secretary or Deputy Secretary? If so, under whom, and how does the 
Department reconcile that placement as consistent with the cross-
cutting responsibilities assigned to the Director and the direct line 
of communication with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary specified by 
section 902?
    Dr. Carter. I strongly believe that energy security is an important 
part of national security. DOD, through its activities, programs, and 
technology, can play a positive role in strengthening energy security. 
It appears to me that the establishment of the Director of Operational 
Energy in DOD can help the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to realize 
this potential. As a nominee, I have no insight or input into 
organizational matters, so I do not know the Department's intentions in 
this regard.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
                         acquisition challenges
    12. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, what do you believe are the 
biggest challenges facing the DOD acquisition workforce?
    Dr. Carter. I would cite capacity and capability as two of the 
biggest challenges facing the DOD acquisition workforce at this time. 
In the 1990s the workforce in acquisition organizations was cut 
substantially, and since 2001 workload has increased dramatically, but 
the size of the workforce has not kept pace. I believe we must reset 
DOD's multi-sector acquisition workforce with the right size and skill 
mix required to successfully provide proper oversight and management of 
contracts. DOD is also dealing with the dynamics of impending losses of 
an experienced and aging workforce. We must integrate and develop our 
younger generations into an experienced and successful future 
acquisition workforce. These challenges have increased the risk of 
successfully achieving desired acquisition outcomes.

    13. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, what do you believe should be done 
to address these challenges?
    Dr. Carter. I fully support the Secretary of Defense's new 
strategic direction to restore the acquisition workforce. It is 
essential to effectively achieving the objective of the President's 
March 4, 2009 memo to have the capacity and ability to develop, manage, 
and oversee acquisitions appropriately. The Secretary announced the DOD 
fiscal year 2010 budget objective to significantly grow the acquisition 
workforce by 15 percent--20,000 by 2015. It involves converting 11,000 
contractors to full-time government employees, and hiring 9,000 more 
government acquisition professionals. The growth strategy will increase 
the contracting and oversight workforce, to include the Defense 
Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. It 
will enable DOD to have a strong capability in systems engineering, 
cost estimating, and other acquisition functions critical to successful 
acquisition outcomes. This is a very significant step to strengthen the 
acquisition workforce and I look forward, if confirmed, to supporting 
the President, the Secretary, and Congress in this urgent endeavor.

    14. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, Secretary Gates has made recent 
comments about several future major acquisition projects, including the 
Boeing F-22 Air Force fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin multiservice F-
35 attack plane, the Boeing Future Combat System ground vehicle under 
development for the Army, and the Virginia-class attack submarine built 
by General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman. Can you please comment on 
your plans for evaluating each of these projects?
    Dr. Carter. On April 6, Secretary Gates announced his key decisions 
with respect to the fiscal year 2010 budget. As a nominee, I was not a 
party to the evaluations or discussions that went into the 
recommendations he has made to the President and cannot comment on the 
specific programs you mention. The recommendations appear to me to be 
fully consistent with Secretary Gates' statement that his 
recommendations are the product of a holistic assessment of 
capabilities, requirements, risks and needs for the purpose of shifting 
the Department in a different strategic direction.
    Changes to top-level strategies, as Secretary Gates announced, or 
resource constraints may drive changes to the specific programs the 
Department pursues. Accordingly, each of the Department's acquisition 
programs must be evaluated in the context of how changes to strategy 
impact the need for the program and, conversely, how resource 
constraints affect strategy as well as individual programs the Nation 
pursues. If confirmed, I will evaluate acquisition programs consistent 
with these considerations.

                           u.s. shipbuilding
    15. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, Chairman Skelton of the House 
Armed Services Committee recently expressed his concern about the 
United States' maritime posture, noting that since the Cold War ended, 
the United States ``. . . forgot that we are a maritime nation. We 
forgot that lesson of history that only the nations with powerful 
navies are able to exert power and influence, and when a navy 
disappears so does that nation's power.'' I agree with Chairman 
Skelton's sentiments and believe that we need a strong Navy to meet the 
dynamic challenges of current and emerging threats. As a maritime 
nation, we must maintain our superior maritime edge in the world in 
order to meet our security, energy, and transportation needs. Not only 
is shipbuilding crucial to our national defense, but it preserves 
thousands of engineering and production jobs for the country and is a 
large contributor to the U.S. economy. If you are confirmed, what steps 
will you take to ensure that the United States maintains its worldwide 
naval dominance?
    Dr. Carter. As Secretary Gates outlined in his recent budget 
statement, the United States maintains a distinct maritime advantage in 
most areas. While I am committed to ensuring the United States 
maintains its worldwide naval dominance, I am open to considering the 
appropriate numbers and types of ships that deliver naval capabilities.

    16. Senator Collins. Dr. Carter, what changes do you think can be 
made in order to create a more stable shipbuilding industrial base?
    Dr. Carter. Stability in the shipbuilding industrial base is 
clearly a function of stability in the Navy's shipbuilding plan. But 
beyond that there are a few initiatives that could be worked with the 
shipbuilding industry to mitigate workload fluctuations within the 
shipyards to maintain a stable and skilled workforce. These include:

         Level loading of ship procurements would help to sustain 
        minimum employment levels and skill retention.
         Reducing the types and models of ships, maximizing the reuse 
        of ship designs and components, and implementing open 
        architectures for software and hardware systems.
         Mitigating workload peaks and valleys through work share 
        opportunities and regional outsourcing to level load production 
        facilities.
         Moving towards sustaining procurement rates would contribute 
        to reducing the magnitude of annual funding variations and 
        provide a more stable demand signal to the shipbuilding 
        industry as a whole.

    If confirmed, I look forward to working on this important issue.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The nomination reference of Dr. Ashton B. Carter follows:]
                    Nomination Reference and Report
                           As In Executive Session,
                               Senate of the United States,
                                                    March 18, 2009.
    Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee 
on Armed Services:
    Ashton B. Carter, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, vice John J. Young, 
Jr.
                                 ______
                                 
    [The biographical sketch of Dr. Ashton B. Carter, which was 
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was 
referred, follows:]
              Biographical Sketch of Dr. Ashton B. Carter
    Professor Ashton Carter is chair of the International and Global 
Affairs faculty at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He is also 
Co-Director (with former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry) of the 
Preventive Defense Project, a research collaboration of Harvard and 
Stanford Universities.
    Dr. Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
International Security Policy during President Clinton's first term. 
His Pentagon responsibilities encompassed: countering weapons of mass 
destruction worldwide, oversight of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and 
missile defense programs, policy regarding the collapse of the former 
Soviet Union (including its nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass 
destruction), control over sensitive U.S. exports, and chairmanship of 
NATO's High Level Group. He oversaw military planning during the 1994 
crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons program; was instrumental in 
removing all nuclear weapons from the territories of Ukraine, 
Kazakstan, and Belarus; oversaw the establishment of defense and 
intelligence relationships with the countries of the former Soviet 
Union when the Cold War ended; and participated in the negotiations 
that led to the deployment of Russian troops as part of the Bosnia 
Peace Plan Implementation Force. Dr. Carter managed the multi-billion 
dollar Cooperative Threat Reduction (Nunn-Lugar) program to support 
elimination of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of the former 
Soviet Union, including the secret removal of 600 kilograms of highly 
enriched uranium from Kazakstan in the operation code-named Project 
Sapphire. Dr. Carter also directed the Nuclear Posture Review and 
oversaw the Department of Defense's (DOD) Counterproliferation 
Initiative. He directed the reform of DOD's national security export 
controls. His arms control responsibilities included the agreement 
freezing North Korea's nuclear weapons program, the extension of the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the negotiation of the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty, and matters involving the START II, ABM, CFE, and 
other arms control treaties.
    Dr. Carter was twice awarded the Department of Defense 
Distinguished Service Medal, the highest award given by the Department 
For his contributions to intelligence, he was awarded the Defense 
Intelligence Medal. In 1987 Carter was named 1 of 10 Outstanding Young 
Americans by the United States Jaycees. He received the American 
Physical Society's Forum Award for his contributions to physics and 
public policy.
    Dr. Carter continues to advise the U.S. Government as Co-Chair of 
the Rev