Full text of "Nominations before the Senate Armed Services Committee, second session, 104th Congress : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, on nominations of Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, USAF ... January 26; February 1; March 7; June 11; July 9, 31, 1996"

See other formats

S. Hrg. 104-819

NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
SECOND SESSION, I04TH CONGRESS

Y4.AR 5/3: S. HRG. 104-819 ^

RINGS

Koninations Before the Senate Arned. . )re the

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON
NOMINATIONS OF
GEN. JOSEPH W. RALSTON, USAF; ADM. JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, USN; LT.
GEN. HENRY H. SHELTON; LT. GEN. EUGENE E. HABIGER; KENNETH
H. BACON; FRANKLE^ D. KRAMER; ALVIN L. ALM; GEN. JOHN H.
TILELU JR., USA; LT. GEN. WESLEY K. CLARK, USA; LT. GEN. WALTER
KROSS, USAF; ANDREW S. EFFRON; LT. GEN. HOWELL M. ESTES, HI,
USAF; ADM. JAY L. JOHNSON, USN

JANUARY 26; FEBRUARY 1; MARCH 7; JUNE 11; JULY 9, 31, 1996

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

S. Hrg. 104-819

NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
SECOND SESSION, 104TH CONGRESS

HEAEINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON
NOMINATIONS OF
GEN. JOSEPH W. RALSTON, USAF; ADM. JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, USN; LT.
GEN. HENRY H. SHELTON; LT. GEN. EUGENE E. HABIGER; KENNETH
H. BACON; FRANKLIN D. KRAMER; ALVIN L. ALM; GEN. JOHN H.
TILELLI JR., USA; LT. GEN. WESLEY K. CLARK. USA; LT. GEN. WALTER
KROSS, USAF; ANDREW S. EFFRON; LT. GEN. HOWELL M. ESTES, DI,
USAF; ADM. JAY L. JOHNSON, USN

JANUARY 26; FEBRUARY 1; MARCH 7; JUNE 11; JULY 9, 31, 1996

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-225 CC WASHI.NGTON : 1997

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Ot'fice

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-054957-4

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
JOHN W. WARN'ER, Virginia SAM NUNN, Georgia

WILLIAM S. C0HP:N, Maine J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona CARL LEVIN, Michigan

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

DAN COATS. Indiana JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire JOHN GLENN, Ohio

DIRK KEMPTHORNE. Idaho ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas CHARLES S. ROBB. Virginia

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

RICK SANTORUM. Pennsylvania RICHARD H. BRYAN. Nevada

Les Brownlee, SiafT Director
Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)

CONTENTS

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
January 26, 1996

Page

Nomination of Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, to be Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, USN, to be Commander
in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command j

Statements of:

Nunn, Hon. Sam, a U.S Senator from the State of Georgia 2

Stevens, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska 3

Frist, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee 5

Ralston, Gen. Joseph R., U.S. Air Force 6

Prueher, Adm. Joseph W., U.S. Navy 7

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas H

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut 13

Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi 14

Warner, Hon. John W., a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia 18

Inhofe, Hon. James M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma 20

February 1, 1996

Nominations of Lt. Gen. Henry H. Shelton, to be General and Commander
in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command; and Lt. Gen. Eugene E.
Habiger, to be General and Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command . 59

Statements of:

Shelton, Lt. Gen. Henry H., Nominee for Appointment to the Grade of Gen-
eral and to be Vice Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command 60

Habiger, Lt. Gen. Eugene E., Nominee for Appointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command 60

March 7, 1996

Nomination of Kenneth H. Bacon to be Asst. Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs, Franklin D. Kramer to be Asst. Secretary of Defense for Inter-
national Security Affairs, and Alvin L. Aim to be Asst. Secretary of Energy
for Environmental Management 89

Statements of:

Bacon, Kenneth H., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public

Affairs 91

Kramer, Franklin D., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Inter-
national Security Affairs 92

Aim, Alvin L., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environ-
mental Management 94

Warner, Hon. John W., a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia 97

(III)

Page

June 11. 1996

Nominations of Gen. John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA, for Reappointment to the
Grade of General and to be Commander in Chief United Nations Command/
Combined Forces Command/U.S. Forces, Korea; Lt. Gen. Wesley K. Clark,
USA, for Promotion to the Grade of General and to be Commander in
Chief U.S. Southern Command; Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, USAF, for I^-
motion to the Grade of General and to Conrmiander in Chief U.S. Transpor-
tation Command 159

Statements of:

Nunn, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia 160

Tilelli, Gen. John H., Jr., USA, Nominee to be Reappointed to the Grade
of General and to be Commander in Chief, United Nations Command/
Combined Forces Command/United States Forces, Korea 161

Clark, Lt. Gen. Wesley K., USA, Nominee for Promotion to the Grade of

General and to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command 161

Kross, Lt. Gen. Walter, USAF, Nominee for Promotion to the Grade of Gen-
eral and to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command 162

July 9, 1996

Nomination of Andrew S. EfTron to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces 223

Statements of:

Nunn, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia 225

Warner, Hon. John W., a U.S. Senator from the State oi Virginia 227

Robb, Charles S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia 228

Effron, Andrew S., of Virginia, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces 233

July 31, 1996

Nomination of Lt. Gen. Howell M. Estes, III, USAF, for Appointment to
the Grade of General, and to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Com-
mand/Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Cfommand . 245

Statements of:

Nunn, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia 246

Estes, Lt. Gen. Howell M., Ill, USAF, Nominee for Appointment to the
Grade of General and to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command/
Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command 246

July 31, 1996

Nomination of Adm. Jay L. Johnson USN for Reappointment to the Grade

of Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations 271

Statements of:

Nunn, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia 273

Bums, Hon. Conrad, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana 274

Johnson, Adm. Jay Lynn, USN, Nominee for Reappointment to the Grade

of Admiral and to be Chief of Naval Operations 275

APPENDIX 325

NOMINATION OF GEN. JOSEPH W. RALSTON,
USAF, TO BE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AND ADM. JOSEPH
W. PRUEHER, USN, TO BE COMMANDER IN
CHIEF, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

FRroAY, JANUARY 26, 1996

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Strom Thurmond,
chairman of the committee, presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Thurmond, Warner, Lott,
Hutchison, Inhofe, Nunn, Robb, Lieberman, and Bryan.

Other Senators present: Senators Stevens and Frist.

Committee staff members present: Richard L. Reynard, staff di-
rector; George W. Lauffer, deputy staff director; Melinda M.
Koutsoumpas, chief clerk; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, deputy chief
clerk; Donald A. Deline, minority counsel; Ann M. Mittermeyer, as-
sistant counsel; and Christine K Cimko, press secretary.

Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, Romie L.
Brownlee, Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, and Stephen L. Madey, Jr.

Minority staff members present: Andrew S. Eflfron, minority
counsel; Richard D. DeBobes, counsel; Christine E. Cowart, special
assistant; Richard E. Combs, Jr., professional staff member;
Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Patrick T. Henry,
professional staff member; and Julie K Rief, professional staff
member.

Staff assistants present: Pamela L. Farrell, Mickie Jan Grordon,
and Deasy Wagner.

Committee members' assistants present: Robert J. "Duke" Short,
assistant to Senator Thurmond; David J. Gribbin, assistant to Sen-
ator Coats; Glen E. Tait, assistant to Senator Kempthorne; David
W. Davis, assistant to Senator Hutchison; Andrew W. Johnson, as-
sistant to Senator Exon; Richard W. Fieldhouse, assistant to Sen-
ator Levin; David A. Lewis, assistant to Senator Levin; John P.
Stevens, assistant to Senator Glenn; C. Richard D'Amato, assistant
to Senator Byrd; Lisa W. Tuite, assistant to Senator Byrd; William
Owens, assistant to Senator Robb; John F. Lilley, assistant to Sen-
ator Lieberman; and Emil Womble, assistant to Senator Lott.

(1)

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND,

CHAIRMAN

Chairman Thurmond. The committee will come to order.

The committee meets today to receive testimony concerning two
very important nominations. General Joseph Ralston has been
nominated to be vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and for
reappointment to the grade of general. Admiral Joseph Prueher
has been nominated to oe the Commander in Chief, United States
Pacific Command, and for reappointment to the grade of admiral.

We all know both of these nominees very well. General Ralston
is currently the Commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Com-
mand in Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. Admiral Prueher is cur-
rently the Vice Chief of Naval Operations in the Pentagon. I be-
lieve every member of the committee has been given a copy of their
biographies, so there is no need for me to recite their records of
challenging assignments and impressive accomplishments. In the
interest of time I would like to move as quickly as possible to the
questions.

Before I yield to Senator Nunn I would like to recognize the fam-
ily members who are here today. General Ralston, I understand
your wife Diane is here. Would you please raise your hand, Ms.
Diane? Are any other members of your family here?

Mrs. Ralston. My father.

General Ralston. My father-in-law. Senator, Gen. Russ Dough-
erty.

Chairman Thurmond. Mrs. Ralston, if you will raise your hand,
and Mrs. Suzanne, would you raise your hand? We are very
pleased to have you all here. I want to welcome each of you here
today. I am glaa that you could be part of this important experi-
ence.

I would like to yield to Senator Nunn for any opening comments
he may wish to make at this time. Senator Nunn.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM NUNN

Senator Nunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join you
in congratulating both General Ralston and Admiral Prueher on
their nominations by President Clinton to serve in these important
positions, and I welcome the members of their families, and Jim
Daugherty, it is great to see you here. You served so many years
with such distinction, and it is great to see you back in this room.

I also welcome Senator Stevens and Senator Frist for being here
and introducing the nominees.

Mr. Chairman, as you and members of the committee well know,
the positions of Vice Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the
second-most senior military position in our Armed Forces, and the
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command is the largest
combatant command in terms of area. Both of these are extremely
important and challenging assignments.

The Vice Chairman is the alter ego of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The Vice Chairman is the acting JCS Chairman
during the absence or disability of the Chairman, and he serves as
the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, whose
mission is to review the needs and requirements of the services and
the combatant commanders to reduce the redundancies and ensure

interoperability. That council is becoming very, very active and
very, very important under Admiral Owens. These are indeed
broad and challenging responsibilities.

The Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, is responsible
for an area of the world that is extremely important to the United
States. One need only refer to some of the countries in the Pacific
Command area of responsibility to appreciate this fact, and in al-
phabetical order I will list just a few of them to indicate the impor-
tance of the Admiral's new assignment, assuming confirmation;
Australia, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, North Korea,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Russia — parts of Russia, Thailand,
South Korea, and Vietnam. That is quite an area of responsibility.
It is also the area of the world that is growing most rapidly eco-
nomically and in trade with the United States.

I would point out that one of the responsibilities of the Chairman
and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to serve as
spokesmen for the commanders of the combatant commands, espe-
cially on the operational requirements, and that the President has
directed, as provided for in the Goldwater-Nichols legislation, that
communications between the President or the Secretary of Defense
and the combatant commanders be transmitted through the Chair-
man. Thus, there is a need for constant contact and a flow of infor-
mation between the combatant commanders and the Chairman and
the Vice Chairman. Greneral Ralston and Admiral Prueher will
thus be working very closely together if confirmed for these impor-
tant positions.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take advantage of the oppor-
tunity provided by this hearing to note that Col. Tom Gioconda, the
Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
who has accompanied our nominees to this hearing, is on the Air
Force Brigadier Greneral list that has been forwarded to the Senate
by the President for confirmation. Colonel Gioconda has been in his
present assignment for more than 4 years, and has been very, very
helpful to this committee and our staff during that period, and I
congratulate him. I think all the members of our committee would
want to congratulate him for his selection to this next important
step in his career, and thank him for the service to the committee
and the Senate and the country.

I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing from Senator Stevens
and Senator Frist, and from our nominees.

Chairman Thurmond. I want to welcome Senator Stevens and
Senator Frist to the committee this morning. Senator Stevens will
introduce General Ralston, and Senator Frist will introduce Admi-
ral Prueher.

Senator Stevens, we will be pleased to hear from you at this
time.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
thank you and the members of the committee for moving so rap-
idly, not only on the position of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
but also on the nomination of Admiral Prueher to be the new Com-
mander in Chief of the Pacific Command. It is very important to
our region that that post be filled.

It is a great personal pleasure to be able to be here this morning
with my good friend Joe Ralston. He is the nominee, as you said,
to be the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and as you also re-
marked, I am not alone in this room in referring to General Ral-
ston as a personal friend. He has worked closely with members of
this committee and members of our committee for many years, and
also has had very significant assignments throughout the world.

It brings great personal satisfaction to me as an Alaskan to be
here with Joe Ralston. He has a great following in my State be-
cause of his assignment as Commander of the 11th Air Force and
of the Alaska Command, and I wish I had time to tell you some
of the things that I know personally of how General Ralston carried
out his responsibilities there. His experience there has made him,
I think, an excellent choice for this job. His understanding of joint
operations and joint command is superb; I think he has that ability
better than any person I know in the armed services today. He has
learned his skills in the field, particularly the Alaska assignment
demonstrates that.

We had a better chance of finding an Air Force General out in
the field with the Army in terms of joint operations than finding
one in the cockpit of his F-15E. He really followed through on the
integration of the armed services in training in our State. Nowhere,
I think, is it carried out better anywhere in the world for the
Armed Forces of the United States than in Alaska now, primarily
because of Joe Ralston's ability to integrate that training and bring
about new concepts, new standards for team operation between the
services. It is really, I think, important that the Vice Chairman un-
derstand that relationship, and General Ralston brings to this job
now and will bring to it a great capability as a leader of a joint
force. It is most important to us that that be carried forward.

I am particularly here because of the skills he used in dealing
with citizens in trying to keep them informed of why the Military
does what it does. He has really played a role with our society in
Alaska, and I think it is going to carry him on out not only in the
National scene and the international scene. He possesses a great
capability to resolve conflicts between civilian and military oper-
ations, and I think he will raise the level of the military civilian
relationships here in Washington, throughout the country and
throughout the world to the highest level it has ever been.

There is no question that this committee should support this
nomination, and I hope you will report it quickly. I come here not
just as a Senator, but as a fishing companion, as someone who has
spent time on the rivers with the General, and I know him. I can
recommend him to you without qualification as being the finest of-
ficer I know to take this position in the United States Military.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Kempthorne follows:]

Preparkd Statemknt by Sknator Dirk Kkmjtiiorne

General Ralston, I would like lo express my extreme thanks for testifying before
this committee on such a short notice. Your nomination by the President to serve
as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is most deserving. Your distinguished
military career including over 30 years of service is commendaole and inspiring. As
commander of the Air Combat Command headquarter at I^ngley, Air Force Base,

you are directly responsible for the readiness and deployability of aircrews and air-
craft on a moments notice to regional "hot spot."

Additionally, you have almost 17 years of service in the Washington, DC, area and
are no stranger to the intricacies and operations of the Joint Chiefs. I welcome your
nomination and can think of no officer more qualified to assume the position and
responsibility of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I have enjoyed working with you as ACC Commander and, based upon that his-
tory, I expect you to do great service to the Nation as the Vice Chairman of the
joint Chieis of Staff.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you very much.

Senator Frist, we welcome you here. We are very honored to
have you here. You are not only an able Senator but an able doctor,
and we are honored to have you in the Senate. We are glad to hear
from you.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL FRIST

Senator Frist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is my honor and pleasure to have the opportunity to
introduce to this committee a fellow Tennessean, a fellow
Nashvilian, an alumnus of the high school that we both attended,
Montgomery Bell Academy, and a personal friend, Adm. Joseph
Prueher. An F-14 fighter pilot who has logged more than 5500
hours in 52 different types of aircraft, the Admiral has served his
country with distinction in peace and in war for more than 35
years.

Throughout that time, Mr. Chairman, Admiral Prueher has
shown himself to be an outstanding pilot and a brave officer, who
has demonstrated valor in the face of battle. Most importantly, he
has exhibited the highest quality of integrity and leadership, a
deep and abiding concern for the men and women under his com-
mand. In his varied and impressive career, Mr. Chairman, Admiral
Prueher has been given the hard jobs and performed well above
and beyond the call of duty.

A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in 1964, he returned
there in 1989 to serve as the 73rd Commandant of Midshipmen. He
commanded two carrier air wings and served in four attack squad-
rons. In 1984 he was assigned to start and command the Naval
Strike Warfare Center in Nevada, before going on to command the
U.S. 6th Fleet in NATO's Naval Striking and Support Forces
Southern Europe.

Currently the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Prueher
has, in the course of his distinguished career, received dozens of
medals and decorations, including the Defense Distinguished Serv-
ice Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and
numerous other citations for his valor and outstanding service to
this country. Mr. Chairman, lest those high honors remain abstrac-
tions, let us recall at least one instance when Admiral Prueher was
tested in the heart of battle.

In the spring of 1968, flying over North Vietnam on a single-air-
craft mission to bomb a strategic power plant. Lieutenant Prueher's
plane received heavy ground fire, including the surface-to-air mis-
siles that brought so many of his comrades crashing through the
jungle canopy below. For overcoming this deadly opposition and
successfully completing his dangerous mission. Lieutenant Prueher
was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Mr. Chairman, in 1990 Joseph Prueher was serving the Navy as
a captain, a rank where many distinguished and honorable careers
end. That year he was selected rear admiral lower half, and now,
just 6 years later, his diligence and professionalism, his leadership
and integrity, has brought him before you as an admirable admiral
to be confirmed as Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command.
Admiral Prueher, a grateful Nation asks you to leave the relatively
calm banks of the Potomac River and return to the high seas with
the Pacific Fleet, where service men and women will benefit im-
mensely from the exemplary leadership you have consistently dem-
onstrated throughout your career.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the honor of appearing before this
committee to present this outstanding Naval officer from the great
State of Tennessee, Admiral Joseph Prueher.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Frist, Senator Stevens, we thank
you both for your appearances. You are welcome to stay on if you
wish to, and if not, you are excused.

Senator Warnp:r. Mr. Chairman, if I could say one thing to Sen-
ator Stevens, of course he is chairman of the Defense Appropria-
tions Subcommittee, and a recognized expert here in the Senate. I
think you were very praiseworthy of the General's work in the
Alaskan Command, but I think it is important that we recognize
that you created that command, and over many years came to the
Congress and explained the strategic importance of the geographic
location there of the Armed Forces and the requirement to have a
four-star officer in place. Would you give just a little bit of that
record for us?

Senator Stevens. Well, I do think it is very important to realize
the strategic location of my State, but also the ability to use the
vast land mass of Alaska in joint training operations. I think Gren-
eral Ralston and his predecessor General Mclnemy have recog-
nized that, and changed our system in Alaska to the point where
almost everything that is done up there is done on a basis of joint
tactical operations.

In particular, few people realize we not only have Brimfrost,
which I have personally visited when it was 45 below, to observe
operations going on in the wintertime, but we have a vast desert
in Alaska that provides an opportunity for summer training with
vast acreage, millions of acres of unoccupied land that gives us the
opportunity for training on a grand scale. General Ralston has per-
fected that. I think that his knowledge gained from those maneu-
vers and exercises will really benefit the Nation now as he takes
this new role.

Thank you very much.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you very much.

General Ralston, if you have any opening remarks, we will give
you the opportunity to address the committee now. Admiral
Prueher, we will offer you the same opportunity following General
Ralston's remarks.

STATEMENT OF GEN. JOSEPH R. RALSTON, U.S. AIR FORCE

General RAii^TON. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
the committee, I am honored to appear before you today, and I

thank the senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, for his
kind words of introduction.

Mr. Chairman, I have worked with this committee, individual
members and staff, for the past 19 years. One of the things I am
very proud of is the relationship that we have established over the
years. Many times I have had to bring to both you, individually,
and the committee bad news. Many times I have had to give you
my views, which were not necessarily politically popular at the
time. I believe it is my responsibility to be very candid and forth-
right with you. If confirmed I promise you that I will retain that
same candor that I have exercised for the past 19 years.

I would like to thank at this time General Shalikashvili, Chair-
man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary Perry, for their rec-
ommendation for me for this post and to the President for the nom-
ination, and I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Admiral.

STATEMENT OF ADM. JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, U.S. NAVY

Admiral Prueher. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to appear be-
fore the committee. I, too, am honored to be nominated with the
support of General Shalikashvili, Mr. Perry and the President for
the position of CINCPAC. I have been out of Washington a good
bit of my career, passing through only for fairly short periods, and
I pride myself on a candid approach to everything. I pledge that to
the committee, and I pledge that to my job, and I am looking for-
ward to the hearing, sir, and welcome your questions.

Chairman Thurmond. The committee asked General Ralston and
Admiral Prueher to respond to a series of advanced policy ques-
tions. They have both responded to those questions. Without objec-
tion, I will make the questions and the responses part of the
record.

We will now proceed with questions. I have several questions we
ask of every nominee who appears before the committee. If each of
you will respond to each question, then we can move on to policy
questions.

Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest?

General Ralston. Yes, sir.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Have you assumed or undertaken any ac-
tions which would impair or presume the outcome of the nomina-
tion process?

Admiral Prueher. No, sir.

General Ralston. No, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. A question for General Ralston. General
Ralston, over the past years the Joint Staff has assumed a much
more prominent role in the management of operations and resource
allocations. Many of these functions may duplicate or reduce the
demands on the operations staff of the services. In your experience,
has there been a parallel reduction of the service staffs and the
Joint Staff assuming a greater role? If not, why not?

General Rai^ton. Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience that
we have had a significant reduction within the Air Force staff, that
I am familiar with, and with intervening Headquarters staffs. We

have, as you know, put a much greater emphasis on putting our
very best officers in those positions, and I beheve we have seen a
corresponding reduction in the service staff headquarters.

Chairman Thurmond. Admiral Prueher, last year the committee
was briefed on exercises that, among other objectives, were des-
ignated to evaluate the sufficiency and allocation of sealift and war
plans. It appeared at the time that there were a number of plan-
ning details yet to be worked out between CINCCENT, CINCPAC,
Commander U.S. Forces Korea, and the Joint Staff. What progress
has been made? Please provide similar insights on the adequacy of
our mine warfare forces to satisfy the war-fighting requirements.

Admiral Pruehkr. Mr. Chairman, with regard to sealift and air-
lift, we have been working hard in the last 8 months, working
through the Transportation Command (TRANSCOM), to meet the
sealift bottom-up review requirements, and the projection is we will
meet those requirements in the year 2001 with the shipbuilding
program.

There are some delays in a couple of ships in the roll-on/roll-off
ships, in that procurement which we are working with Transpor-
tation Command (TRANSCOM). There are 5-month delays in the
Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) program to meet
that, but we are working with TRANSCOM, and we have a plan
in place where we will meet our sealift requirements by 2001.

With respect to mine warfare, it is one of the most challenging
areas we have to face, and one of the things for putting power pro-
jection ashore with which we must grapple. We have programs in
place, not solutions in place, to work our countermine warfare. The
new Mine Warfare Center in Ingleside, Texas is addressing those
particular challenges. In addition, in putting our Marines ashore
we are trying to bypass the minefields with the V-22 program, the
Advanced Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAAV), and the Landing
Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) programs.

Chairman Thurmond. General Ralston, in your prepared answer
to the question of the adequacy of procurement accounts you say
you believe that you must work with Congress to clearly articulate
the Armed Forces' most pressing needs. Here is a chance to work
with Congress to come to a mutually acceptable solution. Would
you agree with me that the authorization conference report soon to
De considered by the Senate goes a long way to meet the pressing
needs of the Armed Forces by increasing badly depleted procure-
ment accounts?

General Rai^ton. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my prepared state-
ment, we have to work a very careful balance between force struc-
ture size, the readiness of our forces to do the missions they may
be tasked to do today, and the future readiness of our forces. I be-
lieve that we have tried hard to reach that balance, but if we are
on the thin side, the margin is in the modernization account. I be-
lieve that the bill that is pending before the Senate, while it sup-
ported much of what was in the President's budget, did add some
things to the modernization account, and if the Nation can afford
that and if that is approved by the President, then I certainly be-
lieve that will go a long way towards making a good balance.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you very much.

Senator Nunn.

Senator NUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like tx> get
General Ralston's view of the Joint Requirements Council. As you
go into it, I am sure you have already looked at what the Admiral
has done in the job that you are about to take. What is your view
of the approach that is now being taken in the Joint Requirements?
We have gone a long way in terms of jointness in operations, but
we have a long way to go in terms of looking at jointness in re-
quirements and procurement and research and so forth, so how do
you see it?

General Ralston. Senator Nunn, I have watched the JROC, the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and its predecessor, the
Joint Requirements Management Board, the JRMB, since 1984. In
1984, as you know, it was not a formal structure. There was not
a Vice Chairman at that time. The role of the Chairman rotated
every 90 days among the Vice Chiefs of the Services. I then
watched the JROC function under Admiral Jeremiah when he was
the Vice Chairman, and then my previous assignments in the Pen-
tagon as Air Force operation requirements and the Air Force Oper-
ations Deputy, I worked with the JROC under Admiral Owens.

I will have to tell you that it is in a different universe today than
what it was 10 years ago, and all for the better. I think Admiral
Owens has done a magnificent job in making the JROC step up to
the very, very tough issues, the tough joint requirements, and the
prioritization of the programs to fulfill those requirements. I can
only tell you that if confirmed I would try very hard to keep the
same thrust on the JROC that Admiral Owens has placed on it.

Senator Nunn. That is good.

Mr. Chairman, I normally do not do anything but ask questions,
but I do want to make a statement on an important subject here
and ask for Admiral Prueher's reaction if there is time. This relates
to the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea is at a critical crossroads. It can continue its pat-
tern of isolation and economic deterioration which will eventually
lead to its economic collapse, or it can comply with its commit-
ments, resume a dialog with the South Koreans, and begin partici-
pating in the world economy. If North Korea chooses the path of
engagement, the United States and South Korea should be pre-
pared, I think, to respond with a coordinated plan, just as we have
coordinated our military defense and deterrence over the years,
and I would include Japan in that equation.

South Korea and the United States pose no threat to North
Korea. The risk of conflict is ever present, however, given North
Korea's offensive position. Our defensive position remains very
strong. Any North Korean attack on the South, I believe, is doomed
to catastrophic failure, and I hope they understand that. Con-
frontation between North and South Korea can be eased and peace-
fully resolved by engagement.

Mr. Chairman, the meeting that is taking place in Hawaii right
now between the United States and Japan and South Korea is of
enormous importance. It is important for us to work together. The
outcome of this meeting should include, I think, not simply a re-
sponse to the emergency food situation in North Korea that may
exist now, but also an economic approach, a broad approach, to

North Korea although food assistance may be part of a long-range
overall plan.

The North Korean food problem, as I view it, is primarily a struc-
tural problem, made worse by the tragic flood of 1995. It will not
be cured by emergency food shipments. They may ease the pain,
but it is not going to cure the underlying problem. It is likely to
continue as long as the North Koreans continue their current eco-
nomic approach.

The United States, South Korea, and Japan, I believe, should
make it clear that economic engagement should be conditioned on
North Korea's willingness to begin traveling down the path of re-
ducing dangers and tensions on the Korean Peninsula. They have
started down that path with the nuclear agreement, they appear
to be in compliance with what they have agreed to on that, they
have not started the North-South dialog which they committed to
over and over again.

The people of the United States and South Korea are compas-
sionate, and I think want to help innocent hungry people. But they
also expect North Korea to change its military posture, which
threatens the lives of tens of thousands of South Koreans and
Americans, and also its vilification of South Korea's leaders which
takes place on almost a daily basis. In other words, I think the
American people and the people in South Korea and Japan expect
North Korea to engage in a good-faith dialog with South Korea.

I believe our three countries should make it clear to North Korea
that we stand ready to work with them on economic engagement
and on reducing the danger of conflict through implementation of
mutual confidence-building measures with full reciprocity.

Among the confidence-building measures that could be discussed
to help ease some of the constant dangers on that border, number
one is exchange of defense information on force structure and budg-
ets.

Number two is notification of military exercises and large troop
movements near the border.

Number three is exchange of observers in military exercises, so
no one will be taken by surprise or overreact.

Number four is establishment of risk-reduction centers and crisis
prevention centers.

Number five is ending provocative actions in border areas.

Number six is military equipment limitation in forward areas,
particularly artillery; number seven, reduction in the size of mili-
tary forces; and agreements not only on nuclear weapons but on
chemical and biological weapons.

That is a long agenda, and we cannot solve them all at once, but
it is important that there be a beginning.

Economic assistance to North Korea, including Government-to-
Govemment food assistance, will be difficult to sell to the American
people and to the Congress, and I assume this is probably also true
in Japan and South Korea, unless we see clear signs that North
Korea is prepared to travel down the path of reducing tensions and
dangers and engaging in meaningful dialog with South Korea.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a critical time, and this may be one
of the most critical problems that the Admiral will have when he
is confirmed in this job.

Admiral, would you like to make any comments on what you now
feel about the situation in Korea?

Admiral PRUEH^:R. Yes, sir. Senator, I would. One, I acknowledge
you have a leg up from your recent trip, and the statements that
you have made, though, certainly agree with all of the information
I have. Participation and the engagement with North Korea needs
to take place on the political, military, and economic fronts. North
Korea fits into the mosaic of Asia as a piece of that engagement.
The U.S., the Republic of South Korea, and Japan, I think, are the
primary actors in dealing with North Korea; in fact, the original
members of the Energy Development Organization for North
Korea.

It appears to us that the North Koreans are abiding by the
agreed framework with respect to the nuclear power plant, and I
think we are on a long path, not a short solution. The issue of
North Korea, I believe, is the foremost military challenge that we
may face in the theater in the near term. It is something that
needs to be monitored very closely. The issue of trying to get the
dialog going and opening tne communications with North Korea is
the pivotal part to trying to get to a long-term solution, sir.

Senator NUNN. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I know I have used up my time, and I will have
other questions as we come back.

Thank you.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Hutchison.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Prueher, you have said and we have said that Japan
has been among the most gracious host nations where we have for-
eign bases. But that relationship has been severely disrupted in the
last few weeks. I would like to know your thoughts are on how we
can add the diplomatic element to your job that I think is going to
be very important for our future there, and what you think we
ought to be doing to reassure the Japanese Government that we
are going to be a team, and that we will have a better handle on
our situation there in the future?

Admiral Prueher. Thank you. Senator Hutchison.

The alliance and the relationship between the U.S. and Japan I
think is probably the most important relationship that exists in
East Asia. The things we can do with Japan, we have stressed that
relationship on a personal level lately, but the Japanese, I believe,
very much want us to be there to be a balance in the area. I know
that Ambassador Mondale is working full time with that.

One of my highest priorities, if I am confirmed, will be to go to
Japan very early on to stress our continuing commitment, which I
think is felt by the Japanese. There are those who report stresses
and strains on that, but I think it is felt by the Japanese Govern-
ment. The new administration in Japan with Mr. Hashimoto will
be a factor with which we must deal. It is very high on the priority
list, and I think we need to do everything we can with Japan to
emphasize our continuing commitment, which has really been un-
wavering for 50 years, that we are there to protect that relation-
ship andpromote stability, as well as our interests in the area.

Senator Hutchison. Admiral Prueher, you are going to a place
where we have recently experienced, I think, a great embarrass-
ment. Now, there is a report just out today that there is another
charge of rape in that area by a member of the Armed Forces.

I am mortified by this. I am sure you are. I know you are. We
have talked about it. I know everyone on this committee is, and ev-
eryone in our Government is.

The fact of the matter is, you are going into that area. What can
you say to us and to our friends in Japan about this situation and
what we are doing to try to make sure that everything possible will
be done to instill the values that we cherish in your young people
that are serving?

We have been a beacon in this country for what is right. We have
been looked up to in every foreign country where we have been in-
volved in a conflict. Our young men have, as well as our young
women. I do not want to lose that leadership. I know you do not.
What are you doing? What are you thinking about to try to correct
that situation, not only where you are going but — of course Greneral
Ralston I would like your answer to this as well — throughout the
Military. We have to address it.

Admiral Prueher. All of the military services are keenly aware
of this issue. We are also keenly aware that we need to work at
a very high standard because we are entrusted with not only the
commitment of lives of our citizens and our young men and women,
but also a tremendous amount of our national treasure. So it is a
very important issue to us that we comport ourselves with a stand-
ard where we can maintain that trust.

As a matter of fact, all of the Navy flag officers, absent a few,
are meeting today here in Washington. Not only the indoctrination
part, but also the continuing leadership issue in the Navy. I hope
to bring that flavor to the Pacific Command through the subordi-
nate commanders, through General Lorber, PACAF, General Luck
CINCCFK, and Admiral Zladiber, CINCPACFLT, or at least en-
hance that flavor in the command out there. We need to transmit
that to our Japanese hosts, who are very gracious.

Senator Hutchison. I wanted to hear from General Ralston, but
I just want to say. Admiral Prueher, that I, of course, have talked
to many in the Navy leadership, including Secretary Dalton and
Admiral Boorda. I know they are trying to do everything they can.
They are bringing women into the councils to get advice, and I ap-
preciate that. I would just like to say that I know you are making
the efforts, but we must be vigilant until we have every assurance
by the cessation of incidents, for example, that we have gotten
through at the very basic first levels. I know you are working on
it. I am not here to put you on the spot, but it is a problem we
all want addressed and we all want to solve.

General Ralston.

General Ralston. Senator Hutchison, it is a very serious issue,
and it is one that the senior leadership of all the military is com-
mitted to working very hard. I can speak from my parent service
in the Air Force. We have put a great deal of emphasis on putting
together seminars that go from the very senior officer all the way
down to the voungest airman that we have got. We have got to in-
still a set of values that goes along with the military profession,

and all I can do is tell you that if confirmed in the new position
I will continue that same emphasis on all the services at all levels
to make sure that we do adhere to those traditional values.

Senator Hutchison. We must be vigilant.

My time is up, and I thank you.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Lieberman.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN

Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning
General Ralston and Admiral Prueher. I would just identify myself
with the last line of questioning by Senator Hutchison, and I am
sure she speaks for all members of the committee of both parties.
I appreciate your reactions to it, for this goes both to the conduct
of people in uniform in relationship to civilians in areas where they
are serving, and also to the specific question of relations between
the sexes and the way in which women are treated in their new
and increasing status within our armed services.

I appreciated the tone and the tenor of the exchange here, be-
cause there is a lot of talk about this around Washington these
days. The President, I believe, spoke eloquently to the whole ques-
tion of values in our society. We have always looked to the military
not only to protect our national security, but, within the code that
is part of the life of people in uniform, to not only establish but to
meet the highest standards of personal conduct. In my service on
this committee, as I have gotten more into that code, I have been
increasingly impressed.

Obviously, we humans are an imperfect species, so we do not al-
ways live up to our highest hope for ourselves. But I appreciate in
this particular way how important it is for the military, as a repos-
itory of our traditional values to make sure that they are applied
in the most demanding way to the nontraditional, to the unconven-
tional, to the modern circumstances that our forces face where they
serve, and also within themselves. Thus, I appreciate the tenor of
your answers to the questions Senator Hutchison raised.

I just have a couple of general policy questions in this round of
questioning. General Ralston, let me draw you out a bit on the
'*big" question that perplexes this committee and people in the Pen-
tagon, which is the question of how, with limited resources, we can
balance the various demands on those resources. This committee
has been particularly concerned about how to balance the need for
longer-term modernization with the shorter-term needs that we
have.

Your predecessor, Admiral Owens, has played an extraordinary
role, as you indicated, in taking us all into the battlefield of the fu-
ture, and I just want to invite you to speak generally on how you
see your role in dealing with the allocation of our limited resources
to face short and long-term needs.

General Rai^ton. Senator Lieberman, I see that. If confirmed as
the chairman of the JROC that we talked about, the Joint Require-
ments Oversight Council, it is very important to create an atmos-
phere where the services, all four services, can come together to
work the joint requirements. Now, that is easy to say, and some-
times more difficult to do in times of very limited resources. And
again, I commend Admiral Owens for establishing that climate.

But I believe that there is a recognition across all the services
now that they are in a far better position if they work together to
try to come up with, no kidding, the right military answer to the
problem, and then present that to our civilian leadership within
the Department and to the Congress. And I believe that the serv-
ices recognize that. I will do everything I can to encourage that at-
mosphere of cooperation and let us solve the problem at that level.

Senator Likbp:rman. Thank you.

Admiral Prueher, before my time is up let me ask you this base-
line question, which in a way we should not have to ask, but it is
good to ask these questions occasionally, particularly in a context
of kind of the neoisolationism that we hear around here. Why
should we have the substantial presence that America has in the
Pacific today? What is the return for the billions of dollars that we
are spending on that presence?

Admiral Prukher. That is a great question to ask, Senator. One,
I think as Senator Nunn pointed out, we have about 37 percent of
all of our trade with the Asia-Pacific region. There is not a consist-
ent balance of power and stability without the United States there.
There are tensions between several major powers in that area.
Were it not for the U.S. presence, we do not know what the out-
come of what those tensions might be with China-Japan, Korea-
Japan, and Korea and China, all the combinations and permuta-
tions of those could be — we do not know that outcome.

The nations there are prospering economically. They are doing
well. Indonesia is prospering economically. I think it is in the inter-
est of the United States to engage politically and militarily and eco-
nomically in a balance to keep that balance in the area, because
it is such an important part of our trade and our economy. I think
there is a guide pro quo in that relationship.

Senator Lieberman. How do you assess the capabilities of the
Pacific Fleet to meet the challenges that you have just described?

Admiral Prueher. Well, the Pacific Fleet specifically is, I think,
adequate to meet the challenge. In the Pacific Command there are
now about 313,000 people, and about 500,000 people if we were to
apportion for a major regional contingency out there. The forces are
adequate to meet the challenge and to continue an adequate pres-
ence in the area.

Senator Lieberman. Thank you.

My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Lott.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TRENT LOTT

Senator LoiT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Prueher and General Ralston, congratulations, and good
luck in your new positions. Both of you have been selected to serve
in obviously very critical jobs, and I have reviewed your records
briefiy, your background papers, and you have outstanding careers
and experience, and you should be able to perform the task ahead
of you.

I do want to take the opportunity to impress upon both of you
the importance of your role in the defense of our country. We have
talked a lot about the importance of military leadership, but the
positions you have are certainly very, very critical, and I hope that

you will always, when you come before this committee, give us your
best view as a military man without political pressure. I am sure
that you will do that.

Admiral Prueher, of course, the Pacific theater is not only a
growing economic region of great importance to the United States,
it is also one that has emerging military powers that we have to
keep a very close watch on, and we will be looking forward to get-
ting reports from you in that regard.

General Ralston, you have to make some sense out of Washing-
ton. You are following a former Vice Chairman I thought did a good
job, was innovative. You have got to forget, in many respects, the
color of your uniform, and, you know, look at the needs of our mili-
tary services as a whole rather than just the parts, and I know
that is always a challenging assignment.

Let me just ask a couple of questions of you, if I could. Admiral,
the new Minister of Japan recently promised to reduce the U.S.
military presence on Okinawa. And since over half of the 47,000
American troops in Japan are stationed in Okinawa, what is your
view on that situation? What will be your stance on that proposal?

Admiral Prueher. Well, sir, it is one of the things that I would
like, if I am confirmed, that I will get into very early on. The Min-
ister did not necessarily propose any specific ways to do that. I
think the other point that he made, as I understand his statement,
was that he did not intend to seek to reduce the forces in Japan
overall. I am not sufficiently informed to really answer the question
on the reallocation of the forces in Okinawa. I would like to get
back to the committee on that subject, sir.

[The information referred to follows]

The United States Gk)vernment and the Government of Japan are working to-
gether within the Special Action Committee for Okinawa (SACO) to reduce the bur-
den of U.S. force presence on the Okinawans, while maintaining current combat ca-
pabilities. We do not expect any significant changes in the total number of U.S. mili-
tary personnel stationed in Japan as a result of this process.

SACO objectives are to realign, consolidate, and reduce U.S. facilities on Okinawa;
to resolve problems related to the activities of U.S. forces; and to address other mu-
tual issues. SACO has already identified the various planning factors impacting
these efforts, and is now studying number of proposals.

Senator Lott. I know that the Navy is proposing to build an ar-
senal ship, and it is envisioned that the hull would be built largely
to merchant or commercial standards and would be also a floating,
if you will, missile battery carrying a lot of firepower. The Navy
would benefit from this capability, and our shipyards could use this
effort as a springboard to be competitive in this new $150 billion
market over the next 5 years. Do you think the Navy could ever
break the paradigm and build a ship like this outside the current
Naval Sea Systems Command structure to get the cost down using
commercial practices?

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir, I do. In addressing the issues ad-
dressed to General Ralston today on how to balance current readi-
ness and future readiness or modernization, we need to look at
some different ways of doing business. We are looking not so much
at just reorganizing, but also at a great deal of privatization, and
for the ideas to shorten the procurement cycle. The arsenal ship is
one candidate to increase firepower at a relatively low cost.

Senator LoTT. General, Admiral Owens, as I said, was an inno-
vative thinker, and he was a big supporter of the Mobile Offshore
Basing concept, airships and a few others. He often was sometimes
criticized for his approach to problems. Personally, I think he was
in many respects a breath of fresh air. Will you continue his efforts
to identify innovative solutions to some of our more difficult expen-
sive and challenging problems, both on the procurement side and
operational side?

General Ralston. Senator Lott, I share your view of Admiral
Owens. He really has provided a vision for where our forces need
to go into the future. He will leave very big shoes to fill. I can only
promise you that I certainly believe in the thrust of what he is
doing, and I will do everything within my power to make sure that
we look at innovative solutions to solve the tough problems facing
us.

Senator Lott. Just one last question, and I guess I will address
it to you. General. The situation in China with regard to Taiwan
is a little tense right now, with some threats going back and forth,
and some say that it is just trying to influence the election in Tai-
wan. But comment briefly on what you think the real situation
there is, and what are our military commitments to Taiwan?

Admiral Prueher. Shall I take that, sir?

Senator Lott. If you prefer.

Admiral Prueher. One, the U.S. policy, of course, toward China
is a one China policy, which has worked well for the last few years.
The frictions right now between Taiwan and China are due to the
elections coming up in March, the sale of F-16's to Taiwan and
their delivery this summer; and the visit of the Taiwanese Presi-
dent to the U.S., I think our relationship is at something of a low
ebb right now.

Our relationship with China is a very delicate one. I had a
chance to spend some time discussing this balance with Ambas-
sador Sasser yesterday prior to his going out there. It is something
that requires steady work. It also requires a balanced approach on
the part of the United States with the PRC to deal firmly and yet
not make the PRC feel cornered.

Our general thought is that Taiwan will comport themselves in
a manner, or is likely to comport themselves in a manner to main-
tain that balance, though they may well push the envelope a little
bit.

Senator Lott. Under current law, what are our military commit-
ments to Taiwan?

Admiral Prueher. I will have to provide that for the record, sir.

Senator LoTT. I would like to get that.

[The information referred to follows]

The applicable paragraph in Ihe Taiwan Relations Act requires the President to
inform Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic sys-
tem of the people of Taiwan and if there is any danger to the interests of the United
States. The I*resident and the Congress then determine the appropriate action in
response to any such danger.

Senator LoTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thurmond. Thank you.

Admiral Prueher, I have a question I want to ask you that might
be considered rather delicate, but it is an important question for
its answer.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. You were the Commandant of Mid-
shipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in 1989 when an incident oc-
curred in which a female Midshipman was handcuffed to a urinal
by several Midshipmen. In your role as Commandant you were in-
volved in the review of the investigation of the incident, and in the
actions taken by officials of the Navy following the incident. Addi-
tionally, there have been allegations raised about your handling
the photographs of the incident and your discussions with the par-
ents of the female Midshipman involved about the photographs.

Your involvement in this matter has been reviewed prior to your
three previous confirmations; however, the treatment of women in
the service remains a matter of concern. Would you please respond
to the following three questions? First, what were your responsibil-
ities at the time of the incident and in the Academy's response to
the incident.

Admiral Prueher. All right, sir. I thank you for asking this so
that I can provide a response for the record. It has been something,
as you mentioned, that has been under discussion for awhile.

First-off, I, the Naval Academy, and the Navy, very much regret
the incident that occurred. The Commandant of Midshipmen is re-
sponsible for the discipline, the training, and the military edu-
cation of all the Midshipmen, male and female, of whom there are
about 4,500, diminishing to 4,000 now.

The incident occurred. My responsibilities were to initiate an in-
vestigation on it. I closely monitored the investigation, subse-
quently initiated a hearing on the subject and monitored that, and
then approved the outcome of that hearing and implemented it.

I would like to say that in the course of a person's life you have
experiences that really impact on you and change the way you
think about things. This particular incident that occurred at the
Naval Academy is something that has been such an incident in my
life. It really helped me realize the nature and the hazards of sex-
ual harassment. I think I took that away from the experience at
the Naval Academy, as well as some considerable callousness over
the incident. I have tried to take the lessons on the unfortunate in-
cident to my subsequent tours. These lessons have had an impact
on my subsequent tours and on the Navy in bringing forward our
inculcation and our treatment of women in the Navy.

Subsequent to that, the combat exclusion has been lifted. Women
really have equal opportunity in the naval service, and in all the
services, to participate. One of the impacts of this event was to
make me a person who understood better some of these issues
through the school of hard knocks. I have had more impact on the
Navy in this regard.

With respect to the particular question of photos, there were
some two or three photos made of the incident. In one of my con-
versations with the Midshipman's father, he was quite upset, right-
ly so, and concerned about the wellbeing of his daughter. In an ef-
fort to reassure him that she was all right, I told him that she did

not seem to be distressed. In fact she was smiling in one of the
photos. My complete intent was to reassure him of that fact.

It was a very emotional event for him, and for me for that mat-
ter, and certainly for a lot of people involved. He interpreted my
comments as a threat to distribute the photos. That was not my in-
tent. I have thought about it many times. I cannot think of any-
thing that I said that would have made that seem to be a threat.
The photos were destroyed a few days later and have never ap-
peared anywhere to my knowledge. One of my lasting regrets out
of this is that I think the father of the Midshipman has harbored
this feeling of having been threatened. My regret is a
miscommunication on that part, and I hope it is something we can
solve in the future, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Admiral, in looking back on this incident,
do you feel that you did all that was necessary under the cir-
cumstances?

Admiral Prueher. We did the best we could under the cir-
cumstances. In light of hindsight, 7 years or several years back, I
think I would handle the situation differently now. I have a dif-
ferent outlook than I had in 1989. I learned from the incident. I
think we tried to handle it in a balanced way that was fair to the
people involved. The outcome of that is arguable. There are people
that will argue both sides; we did too much, we did too little. We
tried to do it in a balanced way. I think I would implement it dif-
ferently now, if I had a chance to do it again, sir.

Chairman THintMONi). I believe Senator Warner was here ear-
lier, so I now call on Senator Warner.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN W. WARNER

Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend the President for selecting these two out-
standing nominees for very important positions. Indeed, I have
known both of you, and examined your records carefully. It appears
to me at this point, subject to what we learned in this hearing, that
both of you are eminently qualified for the position to which you
have been appointed, subject to confirmation.

Admiral, I am going to direct a question to both officers. I would
like to return to the important question raised by my colleague on
Taiwan. Admiral, I went back and read the pertinent law, and I
would like to read it to you.

The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any
threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people
of Taiwan, and any danger to the interests of the United States
arising therefrom. The President and Congress shall determine, in
accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the
United States in response to any such danger.

Now, Admiral, that is the law, and I am sure you are familiar
with that.

Admiral Prueher. I am now, sir. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. Well, that is a very key part of your respon-
sibility, and it is one that is in the very forefront of contingency sit-
uations in the region that you will have supervision as the senior
U.S. military officer. I would like to have your views as to how you
propose to monitor this situation. What contingencies would you

view of such seriousness as to personally contact the President and
give him your best advice on a situation?

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir. Through my briefings with the Pa-
cific Command and talking to them, the situation is very closely
monitored with our various systems for listening and looking. I
think the political actions which create acts by Taiwan and reac-
tions by the PRC have the potential to create more situations than
just military movement. In a closed hearing I could talk a little bit
more about what we see in the terms of military movement and
how that reconciles with the rhetoric that goes on. Sometimes they
are not in consonance.

Senator Warner. This is based on previous experience you have
had as a professional, and your knowledge?

Admiral Prueher. It is based on intelligence reports within the
last several weeks that I have been privy to my own monitoring of
the activities, and my own analysis.

Senator Warner. Well, I will want to examine very carefully the
response to Senator Lott's question, and indeed the followup on my
own question, because I must say I have to reserve my final deci-
sion based on how you respond to this particular question.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. I view this as perhaps parallel with the seri-
ousness of North Korea and the instability in that region. It's rel-
evant to the circumstances under which our country might be
asked by a President at some future date to intervene in either a
potential conflict or an actual conflict between China and Taiwan.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir. I did not mean to mislead. If I were
confirmed, any events I observe through the monitoring systems
and through other intelligence systems, or just by open sources, I
would certainly pass back and notify the President.

Senator Warner. General Ralston, I would like to put the same
question to vou. You will be the Vice Chairman, who would come
directly to the JCS such that they in turn could advise the Presi-
dent. I would like to have your views on that very important ques-
tion.

General Ralston. Senator Warner, as the Vice Chairman, I will
be required to stay in very constant contact with our unified com-
manders around the world. Admiral Prueher at CINCPAC obvi-
ously will be key in that process. We have had a long personal rela-
tionship in the past, and I look forward, if confirmed, to working
with him in the future. So I would depend very heavily on him to
keep me advised of this, as well as all of the other available intel-
ligence that we have.

Senator Warner. I do not doubt that vou are going to be kept
advised, but I view that situation as really a hair-trigger one, and
we had better begin to do some very careful thinking and planning
at this time and not awaken some morning and have to work with
the President to make a quick policy decision.

I hope that planning is underway, because that situation is ever-
changing between those two nations, and we have got to be pre-
pared. I am not sure what is the course of action, but we have got
to be prepared to evaluate all options, and then decide on the
course of action that is directly in the security interests of this
country. That is the bottom line.

General Ralston. Senator, if I may just add, I understand that,
and if confirmed that is something that I will pay personal atten-
tion to in the position of Vice Chairman.

Admiral Prueher. Senator, I could not agree more with that
comment. I know that in military planning there are branches and
sequels, and for various events that might occur there are contin-
gency plans in place and proposed courses of action to come to the
Joint Chiefs, the Secretary, and to the President. They are some-
thing that I am sure in the Pacific Command are now currently
being refined frequently and will be in the future.

Senator Warner. But bear in mind this is a statute which is
most unusual, it relates only to one situation, and says the Presi-
dent is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to
the security or the social or economic system of the people of Tai-
wan. Now, that is most unusual. I do not know of a parallel situa-
tion. That indicates that we, the Congress, are going to have a
partnership with the President, this one or a future one, in connec-
tion with that contingency situation.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir, I understand.

Senator Warner. I see that my time is up. I would just like
quickly to ask one last question: We awakened this moining to
news of another allegation of criminality with a service person in
the sexual harassment area, although this time I think an Amer-
ican citizen was also involved. I do not understand what is going
on out there, and that will be within your jurisdiction, Admiral
Prueher. Do you have any comment on that case at this time, and
why we should see a repetition, given the tragedy of the previous
case, in that military command of a second incident?

General Rai^ton. Senator, I saw the same newspaper report you
did. I have no additional facts at this time. The matter is under
investigation. Let me just say from a policy point of view, as we
talked earlier in the hearing, this is a very, very serious issue.

Senator Warner. It is not only serious from the effect of the vic-
tim and so forth, but it also directly impacts on the ability of this
country to keep forward-deployed elements of our Armed Forces in
that critical geographic area of the world, and somebody had better
get out there and take charge of that situation and put an end to
it. Chairman Thurmond: Senator Inhofe.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. IPmOFE

Senator Inhop^e. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Prueher and General Ralston, I would like to get a re-
sponse from you. I did not bring the New York Times article with
me, but I made a talk on the fioor yesterday about it and I am sure
you remember a couple of days ago the article that talked about
the very subject that Senator Warner is concerned with and we are
all concerned with.

A credible Chinese source was quoted as saying that the United
States would very likely not take a strong position in their defense
of Taipei because they would be much more concerned about San
Francisco. That is not exactly the words that they used, but words
to that effect. I would like to know from each one of you how you
interpret that.

Admiral Prueher. I will go first. I think there are two possible
interpretations. The interpretation of the article was that it in-
ferred or it implied that there would be a nuclear attack on San
Francisco or Los Angeles, I think was one implication. The other
was we might have been concerned with internal affairs. I think we
have to consider the more serious of those two, as we consider this
very delicate issue of China and Taiwan. First we should make
sure our facts are straight, and then try to form opinions based on
the more serious of those two threats.

General Rai^ton. I agree.

Senator Inhofe. General Ralston, I was reading something here
that apparently in an interview you had on November 2nd you
were talking about the fact that the Air Force has no attrition re-
serve for the F-15E dual role fighter. In addition, the Air Force
will be short 120 F-15 multirole fighters by the year 2010 unless
we take corrective action. I agree with that.

The other day, from the administration, a statement came down
that some of the activity would be funded that is taking place right
now in some of these humanitarian missions around the world by
the $7 billion that was appropriated over and above the rec-
ommendation by the White House or by the Pentagon. A lot of that
would be in these tactical fighters. Do you share my concern that
some may want to pull those programs down?

General Ralston. Senator, first of all, I did in fact make a state-
ment that based on our force structure today, our F-15E's, we do
not have attrition reserve. Based on the fact that our F-16 should
last us until the year 2010 when it would be replaced, based on our
projected accident rate, the best that we have ever had in history,
we would in fact be short the airplanes that you mentioned.

The Department has a lot of priorities, as you understand. But
I can tell you that I have personally made the argument to the
Deputy Secretary that this is a situation, and I am sure that the
Department will make a considered decision as they go through
that.

Senator Inhofe. During the State of the Union message one of
the statements that was made by the President that concerned me
was what I interpreted to be a changing role in our military, when
he said the role from defense to peace-making, words to that effect.
As we continue these humanitarian missions around the world,
which I interpreted he has every intention of doing, in your judge-
ment what impact do these operations have on our ability to react
to a real crisis, if one should come up?

I look around the world today and I see what is happening in
Iraq and I see the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the devel-
opment of missile technology to deliver those warheads, and I have
a great deal of concern. What impact on our ability do you think
this change in the role that was articulated by the President in the
State of the Union message would have?

General Ralston. Well, without going into detail on that, let me
tell you one of the concerns that we have worked across all of the
services. As we are involved in the contingency operations that we
have around the world, there is a possibility that if not addressed,
our readiness could be impacted.

For example, if you are flying aiT^Dlanes over Northern Iraq, for
example, every day, your training is going to suffer over an ex-
tended period of time. So we have tried to address that, for exam-
ple, by having more frequent rotation of our crews. You do not
leave the same set of crews there for an extended period of time.
You get them back to their base where they can get on their instru-
mentation range and they can do the tactics development and the
tactics practicing that they need to do.

So it is something that I believe all the services are working now,
because we have to address the situation to make sure that, in fact,
if something happens around the world we are ready to respond
immediately. Today I can tell you I feel reasonably confident that
we can do that. But I must tell you that we do go to sometimes
extraordinary lengths to make sure that our readiness does not get
adversely impacted while we are on one of these contingency oper-
ations.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir. Obviously we cannot do everything.
So the number of contingency operations or peacekeeping oper-
ations which we understand, the Nation must pick those. I agree
with General Ralston, from my experience in my last job and from
what I see of the work of the Joint Staff. I think our forces are
ready now to undertake a major operation. It requires a great deal
of care, and we are not in extremis at this point. It requires a lot
of extraordinary scheduling and extraordinary effort to make us be
ready at this point.

Senator Inhofe. Well, I would just say in his statement, and I
think I speak in behalf of several members of this committee, that
we are very much concerned, and I am not saying this critically at
all of you folks, because you are as concerned about readiness as
we are. I see the threats that exist around the world today as I am
one of those who feels that there is a greater threat out there today
than there was during the Cold War. At least then we could iden-
tify who was out there. It is very expensive, and it does consume
our military assets to go into these humanitarian exercises. It
deeply concerns me and several other members of this committee.

Chairman THURMOND. Senator Hutchison.

Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow
along that line, I am pleased that, Admiral Prueher, you are here,
because I think the real security threats to the United States are
going to occur where you are going. I think clearly North Korea is
probably the largest national security risk we have right now.

I agree with Senator Warner completely that we must have early
policy decisions on how we are going to react if there is an eruption
between China and Taiwan, and do everything possible to try to
keep that from happening. But your position is going to be crucial,
and I think the rearming of Japan is going to be something we
must watch, as well, because of their concerns for North Korea and
China.

So I think where you are going is the crucial area of the world,
and I hope very much that your early intelligence gathering will
be a big part of what you see as your responsibilities there. Several
of us serve on the Intelligence Committee as well as Armed Serv-
ices, and I think that is going to be an area where you are going

to need some increased help, and we are going to be willing to give
it to you if you will let us know what your needs are.

I would like to just ask one more question of General Ralston,
and it is in the context of the downsizing of our military budget.
How can we best use our dollars? I would like to know how you
feel about the privatization potential in and the use of our defense
dollars in a more efficient manner by the increased use of competi-
tion in the private sector working with the military. That is some-
thing that we are going to have to face in the near future. I had
hoped we would have faced it earlier, but I think if we are going
to have the bottom-up review results drive our strategy, certainly
we are going to have to look at the best ways we can meet our
needs on our repair and maintenance efforts.

How do you feel about privatization and the need for reform of
the 60-40 rule?

General Ralston. Senator, if I may, let me address that in two
different ways, first with regard to privatization. I can tell you
from past experience, and perhaps if you will bear with me I will
tell you a little of that. When I was in Alaska we had three remote
bases in Alaska, Galena, King Salmon, and Shemya. We had 300
uniformed personnel at Galena, 300 at King Salmon, 550 at
Shemya. Their mission was to keep the runway clean, keep the
barrier up in operation, keep the command post alive, keep the din-
ing hall up, and the billeting operation up.

Now, we put that out for contract when I was there. And today,
instead of having 300 uniformed personnel at Galena, we have 47
contract employees. That is a tremendous savings for the taxpayer.

Now, you might ask the question how could the Air Force be so
incompetent that it took 300 people to do what 47 contractors do.
Well, as we send the magnificent young Americans to Galena, one
of the things that you expect us to do is provide them three meals
a day when they are there. You expect us to provide them a place
to sleep and live. It is a remote assignment. You would expect me
to have some kind of a Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) ac-
tivity for them there. Every time I add MWR people I have got to
add more cooks. If I add more cooks I have got to add more
billeting personnel, and pretty soon I am at 300 people.

Well, if we contract that out, I do not need to provide them three
meals a day. They eat on the economy downtown. I do not need to
provide them a place to sleep. They can sleep on the economy
downtown. I do not have to give them an MWR activitv, because
they are there of their own free will in the area. We did the same
thing at King Salmon a year later, and today at Shemya, instead
of having 550 uniformed personnel, we are doing it with 120 con-
tract employees. So I am a personal believer that there are func-
tions that you can do within the military, you can do them more
economically by contracting out.

I also understand the issue of the 60-40 rule that we have, and
I know that there are strongly held positions on both sides of that
issue. As I understand the authorization language that will be pre-
sented to the Senate today, there is direction to the Secretary of
Defense to come back with a policy statement, with good analytical
work that talks about the core requirements that must be done
within the public sector, and that will give us a basis for making

decision on where we go with the 60-40 rule. And I certainly sup-
port that, and look forward to working with the Department as
that policy is formulated.

Senator Hutchison. I think from what you have said of your ex-
perience there is a win-win situation here for the communities in-
volved in privitization efforts in that there is continued economic
aid in a community. I do not mean aid as if it is not earned, but
if the people are being employed and they are renting places in
town and they are eating in town, maybe it should not scare people
in depot cities so much as it seems to when you can have economic
activity that may not be on the base, but nevertheless is continued
economic activity. Perhaps we could look at, when you do the re-
port on 60-40, the economic benefits that are there in privatiza-
tion, regardless of whether it is actual work done on the base.
Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you.

As President pro tempore of the Senate, I have got to go and
open the Senate. I am going to ask Senator Warner to take over.
I would like to announce that the first item of business is the de-
fense bill, the defense authorization bill. If you recall, the President
vetoed the first bill. We have got another bill now. It is important
that we pass it, and I hope all members will be present and sup-
port this bill.

Senator Warner, if you will take over.

Senator Warner [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr.
Chairman, we thank you for the hard work you have done on that
bill in the past 10 days. You were a conferee, together with myself.
Senator Lott, and Senator Cohen, and we were able to get that bill
resurrected, through conference, and back on the floor today. I
think we should note that the House passed that bill.

Chairman Thurmond. Yesterday.

Senator Wajwer. Yesterday. So the Senate should act promptly
on it today. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, I would like to turn now to a very important ques-
tion, first asked by our distinguished colleague from Texas here.
Senator Hutchison, about the growing importance of the trade rela-
tionships between the United States and expanding areas in Indo-
nesia, Malaysia, and that particular sector. Admiral, therefore the
question comes will that require additional U.S. forces to provide
the necessary security to this very important trading area for the
United States? In my review yesterday with your jurisdiction, it
goes up beyond Diego Garcia, so you are all through that littoral.

Admiral Prup:her. Yes, sir. The short answer is no, we will not
require additional security forces. Indonesia, Malaysia particularly,
and the countries there, and this could be a mixed blessing, are fi-
nancially solvent enough to be arming themselves to some extent.
I think the forces we have that work particularly in the
archipelagic regions there will be adequate for the presence and en-
gagement that we need, sir.

Senator Warner. It will not require additional forces. But I
would presume. Admiral, it would require additional presence in
the terms of port visits and the like.

Admiral Prueher. Already, we are doing presence missions with
port visits. There is a Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training
(CARAT) exercise that CINCPAC Fleet takes on that works a se-
ries of bilateral exercises with Indonesia, Malaysia, and all of the
countries there, particularly the archipelagic countries. It will take
additional presence, but we have the forces to do it. It is a realloca-
tion rather than an addition, sir.

Senator Warner. What would you view as the potential sources
of instability in that region?

Admiral Prueher. In Malaysia?

Senator Warner. In Malaysia and Indonesia, and along the lit-
toral there.

Admiral Prueher. In Cambodia, with the Khmer Rouge, that is
an issue; in Burma with sort of a military dictatorship there, as
well as some dissident regions; and Indonesia, the largest Muslim
population is relatively steady except for the situation in East
Timor, where it has been unstable but is abating a little bit now.
I look forward to learning more about that if I am confirmed and
it will be something that I will get into more.

Malaysia and on down to Singapore seem to be working on a
pretty stable mode right now, sir.

Senator Warner. What other nations provide military presence
in that region?

Admiral Prueher. Japan does to some extent. They do exercises
and they participate in exercises.

Senator Warner. I will return to that, but that is with what they
call their home force, is it not?

Admiral Prueher. That is right, their home force, the defensive
force for Japan. They participate in RIMPAC exercises that we
work in the Eastern Pacific, and they work with the forces of those
nations.

In addition, Australia, to the south, of course, our strong ally
down there, works with forces in that area.

In addition, France sends a few forces out that way, as does the
UK.

Senator Warner. But from what you say, the burden would fall
again on the United States.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. Very clearly.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. And there are parallel interests that we have
economically, as well as strategic security.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. What do vou view as the current direction in
which Japan is now going witn regard to its armed forces? I think
it is important for you to point out that while we hear about their
budget figure, it is a very significant part of their national commit-
ment, that expenditure on their forces, and I would appreciate it
if you would recite those figures.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir. In Japan they spend about $5 billion
on the U.S. presence of the 47,000 U.S. soldiers, marines, sailors,
and airmen that are in Japan. It is a huge point. They provide our
bases, they provide housing, they provide piers for our ships; they
make a tremendous investment in that.

In addition, they have drawn down the numbers of their forces
shghtly, but at the same time they have brought them to a higher
technological level.

Senator Warner. The quality of their equipment has improved
considerably.

Admiral Prukhkr. Yes, sir. It has.

Senator Warner. Now, a very significant part of their GNP goes
into supporting those forces each year.

Admiral Prueher. It does. I will have to provide that for the
record. I do not know the exact figure.

[The information referred to follows]

According to the Government of Japan, the fiscal year 1995 budget allotted 0.959
percent (4.7236 trillion Yen) of the Japanese' Gross National Product to defense
spending.

Senator Warner. Well, it is significant in comparison to other
nations as to the amount they budget.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir, it is.

Senator Warn1':r. Would you regard, then, their current direction
of strategic commitment as being sort of flat or on the increase in
terms of their development of the armed forces? You mentioned the
drawdown, perhaps, in personnel, but a compensatory increase in
capability through equipment and modernization.

Admiral Prueher. Our assessment is that the amount that
Japan is spending and what they are doing with their defense is
about right. I would characterize it to the best of my knowledge as
about flat. There has been some diminution in some areas and in-
creases in others, and they have made a commitment to the U.S.
forces which has been difficult for them to meet, but they have met
it in each year for our support there.

Senator Warner. I turn to both witnesses in the subject of North
Korea, and I will lead off with you. General. This Senator is grave-
ly concerned about the situation in the Korean Peninsula, and de-
spite the agreed framework with North Korea, that nation is not
required to dismantle any of its nuclear weapon capabilities for al-
most a decade. In the meantime. North Korea continues its aggres-
sive stance toward our ally South Korea. The conventional military
buildup in North Korea continues unabated, and North Korea con-
tinues to amass its military along the DMZ. How do you plan to
deal with this formidable military situation?

General Rai^ton. Senator, as you well know. North Korea is of
great concern to all of the senior leadership. It is one of our major
regional contingencies that we plan for. I can tell you from personal
experience within Air Combat Command today, I have numerous
squadrons that in a very short period of time will be headed to
Korea to reinforce our forces there. So we pay a great deal of atten-
tion to it, and I must say that personally I share your concern.

Senator Warner. Admiral?

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir. Under CINCCFK we have 37,000
people in Korea.

Senator WARNER. Now, that is uniformed.

Admiral Prueher. Uniformed.

Senator Warner. I think you should add also the additional civil-
ian, because when you say people, I want this hearing to clearly

indicate that it is a very significant number of civilians and de-
pendents.

Admiral Pruehp:r. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. So what is the total figure of U.S. Americans
present there?

Admiral Pruehp:r. I will have to provide the total number for the
record.

[The information referred to follows]

There are approximately 63,000 U.S. personnel in the Republic of Korea. U.S. ci-
vilians comprise about 26,000 of the total. The civilians are military dependents, ci-
vilian employees, or Department of Defense civilian dependents. The remaining
37,000 are uniformed U.S. military personnel.

Senator Warner. But it is nearly double the military.

Admiral Prueher. It is about 26,000. But in addition to that, the
forces that we have talked about, we have our forward-deployed
aircraft carrier and the Marines in Okinawa in addition to the divi-
sion there. By being forward-based in Japan, it decreases their clo-
sure to North Korea about 7 to 10 days. General Luck works daily,
hourly, on monitoring the situation. Our forces are in an extremely
high state of readiness, probably as high as anywhere else in the
world, in case there is an incursion by North Korea.

Senator Warner. Well, General Luck has been before our com-
mittee on a regular basis since this committee monitors very care-
fully that situation.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. Undoubtedly we will ask you to appear on a
regular basis likewise, Admiral.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. General, I am also concerned about the trend
of the Joint Staff. I was very active in Goldwater-Nichols. One of
the landmark decisions in the Goldwater-Nichols reorganization is
to try and strike a balance between your staff responsibilities with
respect to the budget versus strategic planning. I want to have
your views as to how you are going to work on that balance of ef-
fort of the staff.

General Ralston. Yes, sir. First of all, as I previously stated, I
strongly support the role of the JROC to work on those issues of
operational requirements and program priorities as directed by the
Secretary of Defense, and I believe is the intent of the legislation.
There has been some talk of expanding that role to look at more
of the resource allocation decisions within the Departments, and
while that may be appropriate on some cases, I will tell you that
I also, and I have talked to Admiral Owens about this, I believe
that if we broaden the scope of the JROC too much that we run
the risk of losing focus on those issues that the JROC is uniquely
satisfied or structured to look at.

So I believe, again, there is a balance there, and I do not believe
it is appropriate for the JROC to look at everything across all the
services, because if they do then there is not enough hours in the
day to look at all the other things that you must look at.

Senator Warner. That was required by Congress on the strategic
balance of forces throughout the world. I hope that the President
is forthcoming with that report. You are familiar with it, are you
not?

General Ralston. I will get familiar with it, sir.

Senator Warner. Yes. Well, I must say I was one of the co-
authors here of the legislative requirement to send that. Unfortu-
nately, it has been in several years quite delayed in getting to the
Congress.

The Congress needs that report as it assesses the President's
budget and gives its own priorities to the funding levels of the sev-
eral requests each year submitted by the President, and then, of
course, the initiatives that Congress takes of itself. I would like to
turn to that question of initiatives.

A major initiative by the Congress this year has been to increase
the defense spending. You are aware of that, Greneral?

General Rai^ton. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. From time to time, as the rhetoric goes back
and forth, the administration has said these are funds that are for
programs and so forth not requested by the Congress and not need-
ed by the generals and the admirals. I take a different view.

I lully recognize your responsibility, having served in that build-
ing myself for many years, of your allegiance to the Commander in
Chief, the President, and your obligation to give him your best ad-
vise, then accept his judgments with respect to that budget. But
when the Congress, on its own initiative, supplements the requests
that come forward, I would hope that henceforth the uniformed
military would be very cautious in their comments, well, we do not
need it. If they do not need it, then state it. But I believe in this
particular bill there are a number of items being provided by the
Congress which are absolutely essential, and particularly for the
modernization of the U.S. military.

The modernization account has been that bank that has provided
the funds for the several operations embarked on by the President:
Haiti; indeed Bosnia is largely, for a period of time, going to be
drawn out of those modernization accounts and O&M accounts;
Iraq, we made some provisions for funding in the recent appropria-
tions bill, and today I am optimistic that the Senate will act favor-
ably on the authorization bill. But I cannot stress too firmly with
botn of you the need to keep the armed forces of the United States
modernized.

We understand, hopefully, the strategic situation today and the
contingencies facing us. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to
project into the future and assess what are the risks confronting
this Nation and our allies and freedom in the whole. The prolifera-
tion of weapons of mass destruction is indeed the greatest threat
facing this Nation today. I would like to ask both of you what your
assessment of that problem is, and what you will do in your respec-
tive positions subject to confirmation about the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.

General, why do you not lead off?

General Rai^ton. Yes, sir. I again share your concern as stated.
I can tell you just from the Air Force perspective today, the hat
that I have got on right now, I have 3500 Air Combat Command
personnel deployed in the desert today, and that is one of the
things that they are certainly subject to, is missile attack with
weapons of mass destruction. That is something that we are very
concerned about, and I believe that the Department needs to aa-

dress, and I believe that it has put a priority, on fielding a counter
to that. Much work remains to be done, but I will give you my per-
sonal commitment that that will be a very high priority of mine.

Senator Warner. Now, those missiles are both the short-range
ballistic as well as the short-range flat trajectory missiles, am I not
correct?

General Ralston. Yes, sir. They are ballistic missiles as well as
cruise missiles.

Senator Warner. The cruise is becoming a very significant
threat because many, many nations possess them, correct?

General Ralston. Yes, sir. I believe that the cruise missile will
be a significant threat.

Senator Warner. What about terrorist activities and the likeli-
hood that terrorists are beginning to have an increasing access to
weapons of mass destruction, Greneral?

General Ralston. Yes, sir, that is also an issue of concern.

Senator Warner. Admiral.

Admiral Prueher. I agree with what General Ralston said. The
weapons of mass destruction in all of our theaters are something
that our operational commanders are constantly aware of and mon-
itoring.

In the procurement sense and in working that issue, we are
spending a fair amount of our taxpayers' money trying to work on
detection, on counters, and antitoxins and the like to counter this
threat.

There is also a lot of strategic thought going on as to how to
react to this threat. One thought is with an overwhelming conven-
tional response. So there are a lot of ways to look at that should
a national actor use a weapon of mass destruction or should a ter-
rorist. The terrorist is a harder issue to track, sir.

Senator Warner. Well, also in your jurisdiction was, Admiral,
the tragic release of chemical and biological toxins in Japan.

Admiral Prueher. In the subway.

Senator Warner. That is also a threat in the subway system.
The military must be ever on guard for that type of situation.

Admiral Prueher. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. Gentlemen, thank you very much. We look for-
ward to your responses to the questions of the committee to supple-
ment the record. I ask you to do that very promptly, and I am sure
the chairman and ranking member, together with others, will urge
that the leadership of the Senate take up your nominations at the
earliest possible date.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, USN,
by Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]

10 ooc m

VicK Chief of Naval Operations,

Washinglon, DC, January 23, 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your letter of January 19, 1996, and for the
opportunity to respond to you and the committee.

As you requested, I am providing you and the committee answers to questions
concerning defense policy and management issues as they relate to the position of
Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command.

It is an honor to be nominated by the President for this position. I look forward
to meeting with you and the committee in the upcoming confirmation process.
Very respectively,

J. W. Prueher,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.

Enclosure.

Que^ions and Responses

DEFENSE reforms

More than nine years have passed since the enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations re-
forms. You have had an opportunity to observe the implementation and impact of
the reforms, particularly in your assignments as the Commander SIXTH FleetyCom-
mander Naval Striking and Support F'orces, Southern Europe and Vice Chief of
Naval Operations.

Question. Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes.

Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?

Answer. Goldwater-Nichols legislation has us well along the path to what Con-
gress intended. It has improved the effectiveness of our joint fighting forces and
joint professional military education system. Goldwater-Nichols legislation assures
that the President gets the best possible advice from the Nation's senior military
leadership; that he can place clear and absolute responsibility on combatant CINCs
for the outcome of military operations; and that the Nation's Armed Forces can suc-
cessfully execute joint operations with complementary warfighting systems.

Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. Two important areas were clearly defined by the Defense Reorganization
Act of 1986. First, the authority of the Warfighting CINCs over assigned forces was
expanded to establish a clear chain of command to accomplish assigned missions.
Second, and of no less importance, resfxinsibility and authority of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the principal military advisor were clearly established.

Question. Based upon your assignment as Vice Chief of Naval Operations and
your participation in meetings of the Joint Chiefs in the absence of the Chief of
Naval Operations, do you believe that the role of the Service Chiefs as Members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and
the polices and processes in existence allow the role to be fulfilled?

Answer. Yes. My observation is that Service Chiefs are full players and have
every opportunity to impact on the Chairman's decision. The role of the Service
Chiefs under Goldwater-Nichols seems to function smoothly.

The policies and processes currently in effect have proven extremely effective in
allowing the Joint Chiefs as a body and the individual Service Chiefs to achieve the
goals ofgreatcr joint interoperability and joint combat effectiveness, as well as more
integrated determination of joint requirements. Our fighting forces have proven the
benefits of these initiatives since 1986. We shall continue to improve in the future.

REIJVTIONSHIPS

Section 162(b) of Title 10, United States Code, provides that the chain of com-
mand runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and from the Secretary
of Defense to the combatant commands. Other sections of law and traditional prac-
tice, however, establish important relationships outside the chain of command.

Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the Commander in Chief,
United States Pacific Command to the following offices:

Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. Current DOI) Directives require Under Secretaries of Defense to coordi-
nate and exchange information with DOD components, such as combatant com-
mands, having collateral or dated functions. Combatant commanders are expected
to respond and reciprocate. Directives also stipulate that this coordination shall be
communicated through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. Under the current arrangement, only two Assistant Secretaries of De-
fense (ASD for C^I) and (ASD for I^egislative Aftairs) are principal deputies report-
ing directly to the Secretary of Defense. All other Assistant Secretaries of Defense
work for one of the Unaer Secretaries of Defense. This means that should
USPACOM require any involvement with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Low Intensity Confiict, for example, it would be through the Under Secretary of De-
fense for Policy. In the case of the ASD for C^I and the ASD for I^egislative Affairs,
any relationship required would be along the same lines as with an Under Secretary
of Defense.

Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StafT.

Answer. Title 10 establishes CJCS as the principal military advisor to the NCA.
However, he serves as an advisor and is not, according to the law, in the chain of
command that runs from the NCA directly to each comoatant commander. The law
does allow the President to direct that communications between him or the Sec-
retary of Defense be transmitted through the Chairman. President Clinton has di-
rected this to happen in the Unified Command Plan. This action keeps the Chair-
man in the loop so that he can execute his other legal responsibilities — a key one
being as spokesman for the CINCs, especially on the operational requirements of
their respective commands. While the legal duties of the Chairman are many and
they require either his representation or personal participation in a wide range of
fora, my reading of Title 10 says that as a CINC, I will have the obligation to Keep
the Secretary of Defense promptly informed on matters for which he may hold me
personally accountable. So I see it as a CINCs duty to work with and through —
but never around — the Chairman to provide for the security of his command and
execute NCA-directed taskings.

Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. When functioning as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's relation-
ship with the CINCs is exactly that of the Chairman. The 103rd Congress amended
Title 10 to give the Vice chairman the same right and obligation that other mem-
bers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to submit an opinion or advice to the Presi-
dent, National Security Council, or Secretary of Defense if their views disagree with
those of the Chairman. If confirmed as CINCPAC, I would readily listen to the Vice
Chairman's thoughts on any defense matter considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Finally, because the Vice Chairman also plays a key role on many boards and pan-
els that affect programming and therefore the preparedness of USPACOM, I believe
his insights are extremely valuable, and I would certainly seek his counsel.

Question. The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Unified Command Plan makes the geographic CINC the single point
of contact for providing U.S. military representation within his assigned AOK. To
meet this responsibility, CINCs must be fully engaged in the interagency process
as it considers matters in their AOR. I know that the Assistant to the Chairman
has an extensive charter to represent the Chairman in the interagency process here
in the Nation's capital. While there are not direct lines connecting the Assistant to
the Chairman to any combatant commander, what the Assistant knows and can
share about the interagency process with any CINC is useful and will be requested.
The Assistant to the Chairman also works on matters of personal interest to the
Chairman, which may require him to consult with a combatant commander.

Question. The Director of the Joint Staff.

Answer. The Director is generally the point of contact for soliciting information
from all the CINCs when the Chairman is developing a position on an issue. As the
Director and the Joint Staff support the Chairman in meeting the congressional

fmrpose set forth in law to provide for unified strategic direction of the combatant
brces, their operation under unified command, and their integration into an effi-
cient, joint fignting force, I would expect frequent interaction between USPACOM
and the Director, .K)int Staff.
Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.

are assigned to combatant commands. The authority exercised by a combatant com-
mand over Service components is quite clear, but requires close coordination with
each Service Secretary to ensure there is no infringement upon those lawful respon-
sibilities a Service Secretary alone may discharge.

Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.

Answer. The Service chiefs have two significant roles. First, they are responsible
for the organization, training, and equipping of their respective Service. Without the
full support and cooperation of the Service chiefs, no CINC can hope to ensure the
preparedness of his assigned forces for whatever missions the NCA directs. Second,
as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service chiefs are military advisors to
the NCA and NSC. Individually and collectively, the Joint Chiefs are a source of
experience and judgment that every CINC can call upon. If confirmed as CINCPAC,
I intend to conduct a full dialogue with the chiefs of all four Services and will be
eager to consult with any Service chief, any time.

Question. The other combatant commanders.

Answer. The Unified Command Plan, to operate effectively, demands close coordi-
nation among all combatant commanders. Any one of the nine unified CINCs may
find himself the supported commander or one of eight supporting commanders in
support of our National Military Strategy. Our execution orders clearly lay out these
formal command relationships; but it is frequent, informal communications that
form the basis for mutual trust and unwavering mutual support. Working this co-
ordination will be high priority objective.

UNITED STATES PRESENCE IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

Question. We expend significant resources to maintain military forces in the Pa-
cific. What is the threat in the Asia-Pacific region that justifies these military
forces? Are other nations in the area contributing their fair share toward maintain-
ing security in the region?

Answer. Seven of the largest armed forces in terms of manpower in the world are
located in or operate in the Asia-Pacific region and include those of nuclear weapon
states. This region will remain an area of uncertainty, tension, and immense con-
centrations of military power for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the dynamics
of Asian economics, upon which world economic vitality is increasingly reliant, is de-
pendent on free passage along the shipping routes through archipelagic sea lanes
in Southeast Asia and the major shipping lanes in the South China sea.

The key to shaping the regional environment toward a favorable future is stabiliz-
ing and maintaining a regional order of comprehensive security that facilitates co-
operation across all dimensions of economic, political, and military relations.

A nation's contributions to the regional security cannot and should not be meas-
ured in any single dimension. We must continue to encourage each nation to con-
tribute in its own way to regional stability.

The United States has pledged its commitment to the security of the Asia-Pacific
region and has sent a lot of resources fulfilling that pledge. The United States has
sent military forces to three major wars against aggression in Asia in the last half
century. As these experiences have proven, America's interests in the region must
be protected, and commitments will be honored. As home to a majority of the world's
armies, Asia's tensions have the potential to erupt in confiict, with dire con-
sequences for global security.

The most significant threat to peaceful process and destabilizing factor in the Pa-
cific Theater is that posed by Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). They
have a million person armed force ofTensively postured, and I remain concerned over
their continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missiles to
deliver them.

Although I do not view the People's Republic of China as a threat, it clearly is
a source of concern to its neighbors. China is a nuclear power, which continues to
modernize its military and update weafxjns technology by producing, copying, and
buying weapons such as fighters, missiles, and submarines.

Proliferation of WMI) and their means of delivery continues in the PACOM re-
gion. Several nations in the PACOM region are pursuing development of nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapon stockpiles. China, India, and Pakistan are known
to have a nuclear weapons facility, while such capability in North Korea is strongly
suspected.

At the heart of South Asia is the disputed Kashmir Region, home to a long-stand-
ing insurrection. Sri Lanka struggles to control a violent Tamil secessionist move-
ment. In Southeast Asia, Burma is plagued by drug traffickers and disaffected
groups. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge faction continues as a nagging problem, op-

posing the legitimate government and its military, and continues its destabilizing
actions. Indonesia is challenged by the East Timor situation.

These regional tensions, combined with the presence of seven of the largest armed
forces in the world, require the maintenance of significant U.S. forces in the Pacific.
Without a credible military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, the potential for re-
gional instability and conflict is enhanced.

Without addressing every nation in the Asia-Pacific region, I believe it's fair to
characterize our overall security relation.ships as effective, equitable, and mutually
beneficial. Throughout the region, a cooperative approach to security is effectively
advancing U.S. interests and meeting U.S. security needs at a significantly lower
cost than that we could achieve alone.

Japan supplies by far the most generous host nation support of any of our allies.
Japan has increased its share each year, and I am told currently pays over 5 billion
dollars annually for labor and utility costs of maintaining U.S. forces, leases for land
use by our forces, and funding for facilities construction. Japan Self-Defense Forces
continue to modernize and are assuming a larger role in providing for the defense
of Japan and regional security.

South Korea has grown as a partner and now seeks equality. The ROK has as-
sumed operational control of ROK military forces and provides in excess of $330 mil-
lion dollars for support of U.S. military forces each year.

Australia's participation in combined exercises, operation of joint defense facili-
ties, and granting of access to U.S. ships and aircraft are absolutely essential to our
forward presence.

A few other examples include: the Philippines, where we have a solid, mutually
supportive relationship; Singapore, which continues to provide access to excellent
naval and air facilities, while strongly supporting U.S. forward presence; Thailand,
a treaty ally with a long history oi collective security with the United States; and
a growing Indonesia, leaders in the region occupying a geostrategic position.

Question. The political and military balance on the Pacific rim is in an accelerated
state of change. How important is American presence in that region, and how can
America best enhance stability of the region?

Answer. We have fought three wars in the Pacific during the last half century,
and American presence today remains the cornerstone of regional stability. More-
over, this region covers half the globe, encompasses the world's fastest growing
economies, has two thirds of the world's people, and is clearly vital to U.S. interests.
American presence is a counterweight not only to obvious threats such as North
Korea, but also to uncertainty in the region that is home to seven of the world's
largest militaries.
Additionally, on a regional basis, U.S. military forces:

Enable the United States to meet security treaties and agreements

Promote security cooperation

Protect our critical lines of communication

Provide prompt and effective responses to crises

Increase access to foreign facilities

Counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

Assist in fighting against terrorism, drug trafficking, and international

crime organizations.
The United States can best enhance stability by remaining engaged throughout
the Pacific and by reiterating our commitment to present force levels for the foresee-
able future. This allows us to maintain our well deserved reputation in the region
as the "honest broker" and to preserve the stability that has been key to Pacific
prosf)erity.

Question. Do you think the current Unified Command Plan with respect to the
PACOM-CENTCOM split between India and Pakistan is appropriate, workable and
represents the best interests of the United States?

Answer. Yes. The Unified Command Plan recently realigned the Arabian Sea and
part of the Indian ocean to USCENTCOM, moving the boundary away from critical
choke points, more accurately refiecting current operational practices. Maintaining
the present boundary between USCENTCOM and USPACOM along the Pakistani-
Indian border presents a number of challenges, all of which are being met under
existing diplomatic/military arrangements. Specifically, two CENCs coordinate to en-
sure that their strategies do not exacerbate the situation between India and Paki-
stan. USPACOM and USCENTCOM have many long-standing relationships with
these countries, which provide leverage and thus serve to promote stability.

The current organization recognizes Pakistan's orientation as a Middle Eastern
country and India's as an Asian nation. The Commission on Roles and Missions
(CORM) report reaffirmed retaining India in PACOM because "movement of the cur-

rent seam would necessarily create a new seam elsewhere." Transfer of India to
CENTCOM or Pakistan to FACOM for that matter, would place a CINC in the posi-
tion of officiating between two long-term antagonists. This would also impact the
robust peacetime engagement program with India which has been cultivated by
PACOM's components and which has led to broader political cooperation. More im-
portantly, shifting India to CENTCOM would undercut PACOM's ability to facilitate
the critical India-China relationship. With India's long-term economic interests to
their southeast and long-term security interests to their northeast, the current UCP
boundary is appropriate, functional, and best supports U.S. regional interests.

Question. In your opinion, should Japan increase the size of its defense forces and/
or participate to a greater extent in out-of-country exercises and operations?

Answer. The size and capability of Japan's Self Defense Force (JSDF) seems about
right, but I will study the situation closer if confirmed. Japan, abiding by its con-
stitution, and in accordance with United States-Japan security arrangements,
should strive to ensure its own national defense arrangements and contribute to the
peace and stability of the international community. I understand the recently com-
pleted National Defense Ingram Outline actually directed modest decreases in per-
sonnel and expenditures while emphasizing modernization of Japan's force struc-
ture. Our natural interest would be best served if Japan continues to increase her
defensive capabilities through technological advances while maintaining current
force structure levels.

Additionally, 1 believe Japan should continue to pursue every opportunity to par-
ticipate in joint, bilateral exercises. Peacekeeping Operations/International Disaster
Relief Operations (PKO/IDRO), and Search and Rescue operations. In consonance
with their substantial economic standing in the world community, Japan has par-
ticipated in three PKO/IDRO operations since 1992 and will send a PkO contingent
to the GJolan Heights in F'ebruary. Within the bounds of their constitution, I would
like to see them participate in more bilateral and multilateral exercises with U.S.
forces as interoperability among Japan, the U.S. and our regional allies is a key fac-
tor in maintaining regional stability.

Question. What is your assessment of the status of the Agreed Framework on the
North Korean Nuclear Program? In your opinion, are the North Koreans complying
with the terms of the agreement? What are the long-term implications of this agree-
ment on the region?

Answer. There is reason to be optimistic about the prospects for long-term suc-
cess. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) nuclear development pro-
gram remains frozen in accordance with the Framework Agreement. International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors are maintaining almost continuous pres-
ence to ensure compliance.

While DPRK-Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) nego-
tiations are difficult, progress is being made caring out the Framework Agreement.
"The fourth KEI)0 site survey team is in North Korea, and I understand DPRK co-
operation has been satisfactory. The IAEA and the DPRK are discussing the sched-
ule and location of ad hoc and routine inspections. In accordance with the Frame-
work Agreement, these inspections are permissible now that the reactor supply con-
tract is signed.

The long-term implications of this agreement to regional stability are key. Contin-
ued stability is contingent upon the DPRK maintaining the freeze to its nuclear de-
velopment program. I would assess it is too soon to declare success. We have signifi-
cant remaining hurdles before this program concludes: disposition of spent fuel rods,
access by the IAP3A to conduct appropriate inspections specified within the agree-
ment, and KEDO partners finding adequate funds to meet our obligations under the
Framework Agreement.

Question. If Korea unifies, what, in your opinion, are the implications for PACOM
operations?

Answer. There are many definitions of what Korean unification entails, and a few
lessons can be drawn from the German reunification process. Certainly with unifica-
tion (whatever form it takes) there will be American public pressure to downsize our
forces on the Korean penin.sula. However, this may not be orudent until the situa-
tion there stabilizes and the picture develops for the entire Northeast Asia security
relationship. Post-reunification assimilation will represent a tremendous obstacle
with respect to financial resources and most likely result in a significant overload
on the Korean economy. While we hope and expect that a reunified Korea would
create a far more stable security environment, perceptions of neighboring countries
and the uncertainty that drive them are all important. Politically and militarily, a
reunified Korea may view and be viewed by China and Japan as potential security
concerns. Consequently, the Korean government may continue to favor a forward-

deployed U.S. military presence in Korea to enhance rcmonal stability, at least until
their economy successfully abso bs the moribund North Korean economy.

With or without Korean unification, USPACOM forward presence will continue to
support the U.S. strategy of engagement throughout the region. The long term goal
of the United States is stability and balance in the area; Korean peninsula reunifi-
cation must be evaluated in that light.

Question. Are sufficient forces assigned and allocated to PACOM to perform si-
multaneous operations for both a Major Regional Confiict (MRC) (in Korea) and
presence?

Answer. Yes, from my look here in Washington, the apportionment to PACOM in
crisis of approximately half a million soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen is ade-
quate to support a major regional contingency in Korea. I am confident a confiict
in Korea can be won with these forces while operations along our sea and air lines
of communication would provide our day-to-day forward presence in the region. Al-
though some of the elements of the Cooperative Engagement Strategy such as major
exercises would have to be curtailed as they were during Operation DESERT
STORM, high payoff and low-cost operations would continue in the region.

Question. Wnat important sea lanes are most vulnerable and how do you plan to
meet the threats to those sea lanes? Will the Law of the Sea Treaty affect this abil-
ity?

Answer. The Malacca Strait of course. Also, the sea lanes of the Southeast Asia
archipelagic states are the most vulnerable given a capable force with the intent to
impede passage. Significantly, half of the region's oil passes through this area. The
historical threat of an outside state closing these sea lanes has been replaced with
regional assertions by the archipelagic states. The strategic and economic interests
of the countries in the region parallel those of the United States. If confirmed, I will
maintain an adequate naval and air presence throughout the region emphasizing
freedom of navigation. At the same time, I will seek to further strengthen existing
contacts with nations of the region. These contacts will range from existing bilateral
discussions and exercises to playing an active role in multilateral fora such as the
ASEAN Regional Forum intercessional meeting on Search and Rescue, which the
United States will co-host with Singapore in Hawaii in March.

The Law of the Sea Treaty provides the means for achieving a comprehensive and
stable legal regime with respect to the traditional uses of the oceans. The Treaty
provides for navigational rights and freedoms that are in daily use by the naval and
air forces of the United States and our allies. I firmly believe maintaining key air
and sea lines of communication open as a matter of international law is a fun-
damental tenet of our national security strategy.

Question. How important is our presence in Okinawa to our PACOM operations?

Answer. Forward presence is the key to stability and crisis response. The strategic
importance of Okinawa and the forces forward deployed there, in relation to critical
sea lines of communication, the Korean Peninsula, and Asian region, are pivotal.
The forces and equipment stored on Okinawa can deploy to these areas much
quicker than CONUS or Hawaii-based resources.

Many Southeast Asian countries now question whether they can depend on a con-
tinued U.S. commitment to the region's security. United States forces on Okinawa
counter these concerns by underscoring our commitment through the physical pres-
ence of our Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps personnel.

In the event of a regional contingency, U.S. assets on Okinawa are critical to the
initial stages of any campaign. Marine forces can respond seven to ten days faster
than Hawaii or CONUS based forces. Moreover, these forces are uniquely deployable
and capable of responding to any crisis throughout the region. That fiexibility plays
a critical role in our maintaining credible power projection capability in support of
our national goals.

Question. What will the effect of a return of the Northern Islands (Kuriles) be on
PACOM operations?

Answer. The return of the Northern Territories to Japan would be a significant
event that would further stabilize northeast Asia by eliminating the major issue be-
tween Russia and Japan. That said, it seems unlikely to happen in the near future.

We have seen a number of indicators since President Yeltsin came to power that
the Russians have been looking hard at ways to resolve this dispute. However, as
you know, Moscow is constrained by domestic opposition, particularly from its mili-
tary, to the return of any of the islands.

In my view, even if Japan were to offer up a major financial aid package, coupled
with guarantees that it would not militarize the islands, Moscow would still need
considerable time to make its case to the Russian public that returning the islands
is only a modest concession and not evidence of national humiliation.

Recent statements by newly-appointed Russian Foreign Minister Primakov, sug-
gesting the dispute be set aside for the next generation to resolve, bear out this Rus-
sian position.

Therefore, I anticipate no impact on PACOM operations for the near term.

Question. It has been over two years since the United States closed its military
bases in the Philippines. What impact has the redeployment had on our military
operations and political standing in the Pacific region?

Answer. I./argely due to our improved regional interaction and our commitment to
the security oi the Asia Pacific, we were able to mitigate the loss of our facilities
in the Philippines. However, because of the increased distance to and the higher
cost of available training and repair facilities, more money and time is required to
maintain the same level of force proficiency. As a result of the Philippine Govern-
ment's decision, we emphasized access to places, not bases. This approach led to
wider U.S. cooperation with other nations in the region as they continue to see the
inherent value of participating with the United States in maintaining regional secu-
rity. In the post-bases era, we are able to meet our security commitments; the Phil-
ippines remain a strategically important friend with whom we have steadily im-
proved security relations; and we continue to be perceived as an honest broker with
this longtime friend.

Question. Unlike in Flurope, the United States has a series of bilateral security
arrangements with Asian nations. Should the United States strive to form a collec-
tive security arrangement similar to NATO in Asia?

Answer. The diversity of national interests in the Asia-Pacific region suggests that
formal mechanisms resembling NATO are not likely in the near future. Although
we have great hopes for the Asean Regional Forum, it is not a multilateral forum
equivalent to NATO. ARF will evolve only at a pace that is comfortable to the par-
ticipants. For the foreseeable future, the foundation for Asia-Pacific security and
stability will remain the U.S. security commitment built on our network of bilateral
security treaties and associated obligations, our regional access arrangements, and
the presence of about 100,000 forward deployed forces.

Question. The Asian Pacific region accounts for almost 40 percent of all U.S.
trade, exceeding that of Europe by a substantial amount. Because of this significant
economic reliance on Asia, we have a major role both militarily and diplomatically
in that region. In your judgment is the United States focusing enough attention on
this region of the globe?

Answer. The economic relationship between the United States and countries of
the Asia Pacific region is vital to American security and economic well-being. We
benefit from increased international order and stability, without which increased
trade and investment cannot occur. Our National Security Strategy lays out a strat-
egy for engagement and enlargement that promotes prosperity and security in a bal-
anced way. Our national interest in the region is established through clear prior-
ities:

A continued U.S. military presence in the Pacific

Strong alliances

Ready, effective military capabilities for crisis response.

With more than 313,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard in
the U.S. Pacific Command unified armed forces, and the numerous ongoing diplo-
matic programs, funds and activities, our national commitment is unequivocal.

Our forces are adequate to support this commitment. The harmony of our military
actions with political and economic focus of the future certainly bodes no decrease
in emphasis.

Question. India, with its large population and increasingly sophisticated military,
is one of the sleeping giants in the Pacific region. What role do you foresee India
will play in that region of the globe and how should the United States react to such
a role?

Answer. India's size, position, and geography have always made it a key regional
power in South Asia and an important interlocutor for the United States. With its
growing economy and technological prowess, however, it has the potential to be
among the world powers of the Twenty-First Century. India's support for multilat-
eral peace efforts and its role as a leader among developing countries demonstrate
its ability to engage globally. It is also important for India, as the most powerful
country in its region, to pursue good relations with its neighbors.

India's increasing importance clearly requires us to engage this fellow democracy
at all levels. In the defense arena, we see our cooperative relationship as a good ex-
ample of how expanding military contacts can promote broader political engage-
ment. Strengthening defense cooperation with India under the Agreed Minute"

signed by Secretary Perry last year allows us to pursue common security interests
and provides a firm basis for resolving our policy differences.

In addition, we are concerned that missiles and nuclear proliferation in South
Asia are destabilizing and undermine regional security. The United States can best
help avert a disastrous outcome by building bridges of trust. Our evolving defense
relationship provides a solid beginning to accomplish this objective.

Question. What is your assessment of the current state of our relations with
China? What would our strategy be for dealing with China both in the near and
long-term?

Answer. I have read that Sino-American relations plummeted immediately follow-
ing the visit of President Ijee Teng-hui of Taiwan and subsequent PRC military ex-
ercises over the summer of 1995. Although stabilized in recent months, there is lit-
tle forward momentum. It appears that China's leaders are reluctant to engage the
United States, substantively at least, until aft^r the March election in Taiwan.

To influence this situation, balanced engagement and dialogue at all levels is the
best answer — in other words, a continuous comprehensive engagement strategy de-
signed to promote mutual understanding with an increasingly prosperous China.

Question. What is the most effective security policy toward China?

Answer. A policy of participation and engagement rather than one of containment
would be most eiTective. China holds the key to progress in a variety of regional
challenges and increasingly important global issues. Our allies and friends in the
region support this stance.

Our military relationship with China is an integral element of the President's
Comprehensive Engagement Strategy. It should not be viewed independently, rath-
er, as one aspect of the comprehensive approach. Similarly, China must be encour-
aged to join and participate in multilateral regional as well as global security ef-
forts.

We need to continue to expand and develop the full range of military-to-military
contacts with China to better understand their concerns and build mutual trust and
understanding at every level. China is both a regional leader and developing global
power with significant political, economic, and security influence throughout the
world. It is in our mutual interest that China implement the Nuclear Nonprolifera-
tion Treaty and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in order to advance glob-
al security interests limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and discour-
aging export of nuclear missile technology. To support effectively U.S. security policy
toward China in the future, the U.S. Pacific Command must remain engaged at
many levels, and in tune with our diplomatic and economic initiatives.

Question. What kind of bilateral military activities should be conducted in pursuit
of this security policy?

Answer. In addition to multilateral programs, our strategy includes bilateral ac-
tivities such as high level visits (e.g., SECDEF, CJCS, CINCPAC), functional (work-
ing) exchanges (e.g., logistics, medical, legal), routine military contacts and con-
fidence building measures (e.g., ship visits).

These activities encourage mutual understanding as well as greater transparency
and trust. They do not include technology transfers or arms sales.

JOINT REQUIREME.NTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL (JROC)

Under Admiral Owens' leadership, the expanded JROC has met more often, trav-
eled to meet with the combatant commanders, conducted Joint Warfare Capability
Assessments (JWCAs), and discussed issues beyond those strictly related to require-
ments. As a member of the JROC, you have obviously devoted a lot of time to this
efTort.

Question. Are you satisfied that your time has been well spent?

Answer. Yes, my colleagues ana I have devoted an immense amount of time to
JROC. The time is well spent. The JROC is a unique forum where the Services get
together, at the four star leadership level, to address joint warfighting needs focused
on resources and requirements across Service lines. The common understanding
gained is a necessary precursor to taking on interservice issues.

Question. Does the JROC needlessly duplicate the work of other organizations?

Answer. The JROC, led by VCJCS, works for the CJCS and the Joint Chiefs. The
JROC is unique in its makeup, focus, and agenda. There is no other military organi-
zation that concerns itself with prioritizing our warfighting requirements and pro-
curement, driving systems to be fully interoperable across the uniformed Services.
An excellent example of the work done by the JROC/JWCA is pulling together a
Joint C4 Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance C4ISR architecture. There
exists no other forum to work this problem in a comprehensive way.

Question. Does the expansion into areas other than requirements ofTer the poten-
tial for greater policy cooperation and consistency among the Services?

Answer. All of the issues considered by JROC deal with requirements of our
warfighting commanders. While many of the subjects on the agenda are not con-
nected strictly to the acquisition process, they all concern requirements for fielding
and operating armed forces in the joint arena so issues of equipment, people, train-
ing, and organization for those are fertile ground for discussion. The service Vice
Chiefs work closely to achieve improvements in joint warfighting and to address ra-
tionally the resource constraints of the Department of Defense in order to assist the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in his advisory role on these matters.

OPKRATIONAL TKMPO

Question. How have American commitments in Bosnia, Haiti, and other areas af-
fected the operational tempo of Pacific Command forces?

Answer. Commitments in Bosnia, Haiti and other areas such as the Arabian Gulf
have increased the operational tempo of each of the CINCPAC components. It ap-
pears that the increased demands are manageable, and they have not had a det-
rimental effect on readiness or quality of life. CINCPAC has still been able to par-
ticipate in a wide variety of multilateral and bilateral exercises, contribute to the
counter drug operations, promote regional stability and enforce U.N. sanctions in
the Arabian Gulf. Obviously, I have been closer to the impacts on Naval forces. On
one occasion this past year, two surface combatants were extended in the Arabian
Gulf for thirty days as a precaution to possible Iraqi troop movements. However,
neither ship was deployed longer than six months, and they remained within the
goals of the Navy's Personnel Tempo program.

Additionally we have intensified our efforts on the full accounting of POW/MIAs
and the War on Drugs and contribute to security arrangements. These operations
most often affect the low density, high demand assets such as security forces, civil
affairs, linguist and reconnaissance assets. Kach of the components have been im-
pacted to some degree, but we are accommodating the increased Operating Tempo
thus far.

RELATIONSHIP TO CINC UNC/CFC/USFK

Question. As the only CINC commanding a permanent subunified command, how
much deference will you give to the CINC UNC/CFC/USFK?

Answer. The current command relationship between CINCPAC and CINC UNC/
CFC/USFK is widely accepted as an effective, efficient, and successful arrangement.
I share this perception and intend to maintain the high level of cooperation that
currently exists.

Both General Luck and Commander U.S. Forces Japan play pivotal roles in
USPACOM's management of politico-military affairs in Northeast Asia. These com-
manders are the key to successfully implementing our national strategy in peace
and war, and deserve my greatest consideration with regard to all issues afiecting
their commands.

Question. Should we have a separate combatant command for Northeast Asia?

Answer. I do not think a separate Northeast Asia Command best serves our na-
tions needs in the region. The trends in the Asia-Pacific region are clearly toward
greater integration and cooperation politically, militarily and economically. A sepa-
rate U.S. command in this arc^a would seem to run counter to this trend and com-
plicate the attainment of U.S. interests in the Pacific. Positioning a unified com-
mand headquarters in either Korea or Japan could be perceived as "favoritism."
PACOM's location in Hawaii establishes the combatant convmand headquarters
within the region without being the "tenant" of any one nation. General Luck and
Admiral Macke seem to have a harmonious working command relationship which,
if confirmed, I would continue to foster.

POW/MIA MATTERS

The Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command exercises command of Joint Task
Force-Full Accounting, which is responsible for activities to achieve the fullest pos-
sible accounting of those who did not return from Southeast Asia.

Question. How important is this effort and what priority would you assign to it?

Answer. The mission of P^ull Accounting is certainly an emotional topic. Our ef-
forts continue to be very important. We have achieved more results in the last 3
years than in the previous 20. Results continue to be gained incrementally; no dra-
matic breakthrougns arc anticipated.

ADAPTIVK JOINT KORCK PACKAGES

The concept of adaptive joint force packages has proven to be controversial. Vir-
tually everyone sees the value in joint training, including the training of joint task
force commanders.

Question. As commander, if confirmed, of one of the primary gaining commands
of the forces prepared by USACOM, what are your views of the concept of adaptive
joint force plannmg?

Answer. As commander, I share the responsibility to train assigned forces for joint
warfare, but to do so in the geographic arenas in which I expect to employ tnose
forces. USACOM prepares assigned forces for joint operations and ensures they pos-
sess the specific combat capabilities the other Combatant Commanders have identi-
fied through their joint mission essential task list. Combatant Commanders share
in the responsibility to identify specific combat capability recpaired as they develop
contingency plans for their respective areas of responsibility. Adaptive joint force
planning allows us to pull available forces together to meet evolving operational
needs and to augment our forward based and lorward deployed forces. The proper
balance of these forces, to conduct most effectively and efficiently our tasks, is our
objective.

Question. What role do you believe the commander of the gaining command
should play in the configuration of the forces made available and the selection of
the joint task force commander for operations within his area of responsibility?

Answer. Title 10 specifically states that Combatant Commanders are directly re-
sponsible to the President and the Secretary of Defense for the preparedness and
performance of their commands to accomplish missions assigned. Title 10 also em-
powers combatant commanders to organize commands and forces within their com-
mands as considered necessary to carry out assigned missions, to employ forces
within their commands as considered necessary to carry out assigned missions, to
assign command functions to subordinate commanders, and to select subordinate
commanders. Pursuant to their responsibilities, I believe commanders of gaining
commands have a critical and explicit role in determining the configuration oT forces
made available for mission accomplishment and the selection of the joint task force
commander who will lead those forces to success.

That said, I stress that whenever possible it is preferable that the gaining com-
mander convey to the providing command the capabilities needed for mission accom-
plishment rather than the exact configuration of forces to be provided. Specifying
thoughtfully derived capabilities provides some latitude to the providing command
and promotes innovative, efficient use of forces while minimizing the potential for
conflict with other gaining commands with respect to competing demands on specific
force packages.

MAJOR CHALLENGES

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Com-
mander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command? If confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?

Answer. The major military challenge in the Pacific theater continues to be North
Korea. In addition to the decades-ola threat of a short-warning invasion of South
Korea, we now face the possibility of implosion born of economic failure and food
shortages. Additionally, for the future safety of all, we must ensure that North
Korea abides by the terms of the nuclear Agreed Framework. In addition to the dip-
lomatic and economic initiatives taken by the United States, we in DOD are prepar-
ing for the far wider range of events than a straightforward North Korean attack
on South Korea. We must ensure that our military readiness is maintained— and
further increased as required — to deal with this broader range of eventualities. Ad-
miral Macke and his stalT in conjunction with CINCEUR have been working options
and approaches masterfully in the interagency process and with countries in the re-
gion. I intend to continue this approach while simultaneously being responsible for
the readiness of U.S. and combined military forces.

Of foremost importance is the U.S.-Japan security arrangement. This long-stand-
ing arrangement is the bedrock for peace and stability in Asia, not only for the Unit-
ed States, but for all nations in the region. Challenges threatening the security ar-
rangement come from many quarters: trade, economics, land, localized anti-Amer-
ican sentiment, and an evolving Japanese political landscape, to name a few. Work-
ing with the other agencies, I woula devote significant attention to further strength-
ening our unique security ties with Japan.

China and its emergence as an economic giant, presents a challenging opportunity
to us all. The core of the challenge for the United States, working with our friends
and allies, is to ensure that this emergence is mutually beneficial and preserves

40 -

peace, stability, and growth of the region. I view my primary role, as part of coordi-
nated U.S. strategy, to engage the powerful People's Liberation Army in military-
to-military dialog and activities. We know far less about this pervasive, conservative
institution, and they know less about us than is needed to assist China's positive
emergence.

Finally, there are the challenges of ensuring the continued stability and growth
of the region both for the benefit of the United States and for the countries oT Asia.
An important part of my job continues to ensure this stability. The stability we see
in Asia today is largely built on the foundation of U.S. presence and engagement.
This stability has fostered unprecedented economic growth benefiting both the Unit-
ed States and Asia. Sustained high rates of growtn in turn provide fertile ground
for the emergence of democracy, iree trade, and human rights. Many of the coun-
tries of Asia depend on this sustained growth; disruption, whether through conflict,
protectionism, or unbridled competition will not only threaten relations between
countries, but will call into question the legitimacy oi existing governments. I plan
to work in the inter agency process and with countries and fora in the region to
maximize the U.S. military's contribution to peace, growth, stability, and shared
prosperity.

MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the perform-
ance of the functions of Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command? What manage-
ment actions and timeliness would you establish to address these problems?

Answer. I see readiness of the force as the number one problem. As the United
States reduces force structure, it becomes increasingly important that the readiness
of our forces be unquestioned. Readiness stems from placing the right equipment in
the hands of quality people, who are motivated and trained to defend U.S. interests.
Each of these elements must be carefully weighed and balanced to ensure that we
receive the greatest return on our scarce defense dollars. This requires continued
awareness of readiness indicators and more subjective indications such as the mo-
rale of our troops. If confirmed, I will direct my personal attention to define further
these indications and to monitor actively and report the trends in the overall force
readiness. Where resources are required, I will work tirelessly with my chain of
command to ensure our scarce resources are used effectively and efficiently.

Readiness is not simply a problem that can be fixed by a single bold stroke or
even by money alone. Rather, it is a challenge that requires continuous attention
to meet ever-changing demands of our security. By implementing an effective thea-
ter strategy that fosters security through engagement and participation, I hope to
address these challenges and problems. Execution of a successful theater strategy
requires careful application of resources. Forces, assets, funds, and programs must
be efficiently managed in the Pacific to preclude any perception of U.S. withdrawal
from the region and to support U.S. national interests. We must continue to maxi-
mize available resources to reassure our Asia-Pacific allies that we are ready and
will be in the right place when needed.

Undoubtedly other, more specific challenges will arise. Through the coordinated
and efficient use of the PACOM staff, component and subordinate commands, and
the full spectrum of U.S. military support, I am confident that each can be effec-
tively addressed.

QUALIFICATIONS

Question. If confirmed, you will be entering this important position at a time of
heightened tensions and increased potential for confiict. What background and expe-
rience do you have that you believe qualifies you for this position?

Answer. My previous experience as Commander Sixth P^leet and currently as the
Vice Chief of Naval Operations has given me a unique perspective of both joint
warfighter and joint provider. In my role as NATO's Naval Striking and Support
Forces Southern Europe, supporting our efforts in Bosnia-Herzegonia, I have gained
experience in multilateral planning and operations that will be useful in the Pacific
Region. Additionally, our staff developed a regional engagement model for South Eu-
rope and Medetarian literal ba.sed on Admiral Larson s model for the Pacific. Like-
wise, in my role as a member of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, I have
gained insight into joint requirements and policy issues germane to not only the Pa-
cific Region, but also to each of the CINCs' AORs.

As a warfighter, my experience is extensive: Combat in Vietnam, commander at
the squadron, carrier air wing, battle group, and numbered fieet levels. My time as
a battle group commander from our West Coast included involvement in the growth
of joint training as well as implementation of the Two Tiered JTF structure now

in use. I believe I have the solid background and experience necessary to further
our nation's interests in the Pacific Region and am well versed on the potential con-
flicts and challenges of this region.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

In order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities, it is important
that this Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress are able to
receive testimony, briefings, and other communications of information.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before this
Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you ap-ee, when asked, to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the Administration in power?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee, or des-
ignated members of this Committee, and proviae information, subject to appropriate
and necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as the Com-
mander in Chief, United States Pacific Command?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of Information are provided to this Committee and its staff and other appro-
priate Committees?

Answer. Yes.

[The nomination reference of Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, USN, fol-
lows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

January 10, 1996.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named officer for reappointment to the grade of admiral in the
United States Navy while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility
under title 10, United States Code, section 601:

To be Admiral

Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, 5092.

[The biographical sketch of Adm. Joseph Prueher, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was re-
ferred, follows:]

Resume of Service Career of Adm. Joseph Wilson Prueher, U.S. Navy

25 NOV 1942

Born in Nashville, Tennessee

5 JUL 1960

3 JUN 1964

3 DEC 1965

Midshipman, U.S. Naval Academy

Ensign

Lieutenant (junior grade)

1 DEC 1967

Lieutenant

1 JUL 1972

Lieutenant Commander

1 FEB 1979

Commander

1 JUL 1985

23 APR 1990

Captain

Designated Rear Admiral (Lower Half) while serving in billets commensurate with

1 FEB 1991

that grade
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)

9 AUG 1993

Designated Rear Admiral while serving in billets commensurate with that grade

1 SEP 1993

Rear Admiral

20 NOV 1993

Designated vice Admiral while serving in billets commensurate with that grade

1 JAN 1994

Vice Admiral

19 APR 1995
1 JUN 1995 ..

Designated Admiral while serving in billets commensurate witti that grade
Admiral — Service continuous to date

Assignments and duties

From

NABTC, NAS, Pensacola, FL (DUINS)

NAAS, Kingswlle. TX (DUINS)

Attack Squadron 43

Attack Squadron 42

Attack Squadron 75

Attack Squadron 42

Naval Test Pilot School, Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, MD (DUINS)

Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, MD (Project Pilot/Flight Instructor)

Naval War College (DUINS)

Attack Squadron 42 (DUINS)

Attack Squadron 34 (Operations/Administrative Officer)

Headquarters, Naval Material Command (Personal Aide to the Chief of Naval Material) ....

Office of CNO (Surface Guided Weapons Program Coordinator) (OP-506F1)

Attack Squadron 42 (DUINS)

Attack Squadron 65 (XO)

CO, Attack Squadron 65

CINCLANT (Deputy Asst C/S for Studies and Analysis)

COMNAVAIRLANT (DUINS)

Commander, Carrier Air Wing SEVEN

CO, Naval Strike Warfare Center, Fallon, NV

Immediate office of Secretary of the Navy (F-A and Naval Aide to SECNAV)

COMNAVAIRLANT (DUINS)

Commander, Carrier Air Wing EIGHT

United States Naval Academy (Commandant of Midshipmen)

National Defense University (DUINS)

Clommander Carrier Group ONE

Commander SIXTW Fleet/Commander Naval Striking and Support Forces. Southern Europe
Vice Chief of Naval Operations

JUN 1964
JUL 1965
DEC 1965
MAR 1966
JUL 1966
JAN 1969
OCT 1969
JUN 1970
JUL 1972
AUG 1973
DEC 1973
JUN 1976
OCT 1977
OCT 1978
MAR 1979
JUN 1980
OCT 1981
JAN 1983
JUN 1983
MAY 1984
MAR 1986
MAY 1987
JUL 1987
FEB 1989
FEB 1991
APR 1991
DEC 1993
MAY 1995

JUL 1965
DEC 1965
FEB 1966
JUL 1966
JAN 1969
SEP 1969
JUN 1970
JUL 1972
JUL 1973
DEC 1973
JUN 1976
OCT 1977
OCT 1978
MAR 1979
JUN 1980
SEP 1981
JAN 1983
JUN 1983
MAY 1984
MAR 1986
MAY 1987
JUL 1987
DEC 1988
JAN 1991
MAR 1991
NOV 1993
APR 1995
TO DATE

Medals and awards:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal.

Legion of Merit with four Gold Stars in lieu of subsequent awards.

Distinguished Flying Cross.

Defense Meritorious Service Medal.

Meritorious Service Medal with two Gold Stars in lieu of subsequent awards.

Air Medal with Combat "V", Numeral "8" and three Gold Stars in lieu of subse-
quent awards.

Navy Commendation Medal with Combat "V" and two Gold Stars in lieu of subse-
quent awards.

Navy Achievement Medal with Combat "V" and two Gold Star in lieu of subse-
quent awards.

Presidential Unit Citation.

Joint Meritorious Unit Award.

Navy Unit Commendation with one Bronze Star.

Meritorious Unit Commendation with one Bronze Star.

Navy "E" Ribbon with two "E's".

Navy ExpeditionaiT Medal with one Bronze Star.

National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star.

Vietnam Service Medal with one Silver Star and four Bronze Stars.

Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with one Silver Star.

Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation.

Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.

Expert Pistol Shot Medal.
Special qualifications:

BS (Naval Science) U.S. Naval Academy, 1964.

Designated Naval Aviator (HTA): 29 December 1965.

U.S. Naval Test I^lot School Graduate, 1970.

MS (International Affairs) George Washington University, 1973.

Graduate of Naval War College, 1973.

Designated Joint Specialty Olticer, 1988.

Language Qualification: French (Knowledge).
Personal data:

Wife: Suzanne Pearce of Petersburg, Virginia.

Children: Anne B. Prueher (Daughter), bom: 30 May 1971; Joshua W. Prueher
(Son), bom: 27 January 1974.
Summary of joint duty assignment:

Assignment

Dates

Rank

Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff. Studies and Analysis. US. Atlantic Command

OCT 81-JAN 83
DEC 93^PR 95

CDR

Commander SIXTH Fleet/Commander Naval Striking and Support Forces, Southern Europe

VADM

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, USN, in connection
with his nomination follows:!

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Room SR-228

Washington, DC 20510-6050

(202) 224-3871

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM

BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF
NOMINEES FOR CERTAIN SENIOR MILITARY POSITIONS

Instructions to the Nominee: 1. Complete all requested information. If more
space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

2. If you have completed this form in connection with a prior military nomination,
you may use the following procedure in lieu of submitting a new form. In your letter
to the Chairman (see Item 2 of the attached information), add the following para-
graph to the end:

"I hereby incorporate by reference the information and commitments con-
tained in the Senate Armed Services Committee form 'Biographical and Finan-
cial Information Requested of Nominees for Certain Senior Military Positions,'
submitted to the committee on [insert date or your prior form]. I agree that all
such commitments apply to the position to which I have been nominated and
that all such information is current except as follows: ..." [If any information
on your prior form needs to be updated, please cite the part of the form and
the question number and set forth the updated information in your letter to the
Chairman.]

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.)
Joseph Wilson Prueher.

2. Position to which nominated:
Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command.

3. Date of nomination:
January 10, 1996.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:

November 25, 1942, Nashville, TN.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married, Suzanne Pettit Pearce Prueher.

7. Names and ages of children:

Anne Brooks Prueher (24); Joshua Wilson Prueher (21).

8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other
part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than
those listed in the service record extract provided to the committee by the executive
branch.

None other than those listed in the service record extract.

9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an ofTicer, direc-
tor, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corpora-
tion, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, educational or other
institution.

None.

10. Memberships: List all memberships and ofTices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

Association of Naval Aviation, since 1976.

The Retired Officers Association, since 1989.

U.S. Naval Institute, since 1989.

Naval Academy Athletic Association, since 1989.

U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association, since 1989.

Naval Aviation Museum Foundation, since 1990.

Army-Navy Club (social), since 1987.

The Tailhook Association, since 1992 (also member 1984-1987).

11. Honors and awards: List all memberships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding service or achieve-
ments other than those listed on the service record extract provided to the commit-
tee by the executive branch.

U.S. Navy I>eague Award for Inspirational Leadership, 1984.

12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power?

Yes.

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

Signature and Date

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

Joseph W. I'rueher.

This eleventh day of January 1994.

[The nomination of Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, USN, was reported
to the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on January 26, 1996,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on January 30, 1996.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, USAF,
by Senator Thurmond p-ior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]

Depaktment of the Air Force,
Headquarters Air Combat Command,
Langley, Air Force Base, VA, January 22, 1996.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the questions
from the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is an honor to have been nominated
by the President to be Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. I respectfully submit
the enclosed responses to your questions on the important defense policy and man-
agement issues and look forward to working with you and the Committee.
Sincerely,

Joseph W. Ralston,
General, USAF Commander.
Enclosure,
cc: Senator Sam Nunn,

Ranking Minority Member.

Questions and Responses
defense reforms

More than 9 years have passed since the enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols De-
partment of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms.
You have had an opportunity to observe the implementation and impact of those re-
forms, particularly in your assignment as Commander, Alaskan Command, Deputy
Chief of Staff for Plans and Operations, and most recently as Commander, Air Com-
bat Command.

Question. Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes, the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations
reforms have significantly strengthened our Armed Forces.

Question. What Is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?

Answer. I believe these reforms have been fully accepted and integrated into the
Armed Services. The organization of and communication between the President, the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman and our warfighting combatant commanders —
the nine Commanders in Chief (CINCs) are sound. The effectiveness of our joint
warfighting forces has significantly improved. Our best and brightest officers are
educated in joint military schools and serve together in joint assignments. I am con-
fident we will continue these efibrts and remain vigilant that the full intent of the
reforms is realized.

Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. The most positive aspect of the legislation is the significant improvement
of the effectiveness oi our joint fighting forces. In clearly defining the responsibilities
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combatant Commanders, the
Goldwater-Nichols Act has resulted in much needed improvements in joint doctrine,
joint professional military education, strategic planning, and, as seen in the Gulf
War, joint execution by our fighting forces, lexpect the momentum gained thus far
to continue to drive improvements in quality even as our forces are reduced in size.

Question. Based on your assignment as Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Oper-
ations and your participation in meetings of tne Operations Deputies, do you believe
that the role of the Service Chiefs as Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under
the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the jaolicies and processes in
existence allow that role to be fulfilled?

Answer. The existing role of the Service Chiefs is entirely appropriate. As a result
of Goldwater-Nichols, service Chiefs are no longer directly involved in the oper-
ational employment of forces. This allows the Chiefs to concentrate on two primary
roles. First, they are responsible for the organization, training and equipping of
their respective forces to meet the CINCs' warfighting requirements. Next, as mem-
bers of tne Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation to pro-

vide military advice to the National Command Authorities. Individually, and collec-
tively, the Joint Chiefs are also a source of experience and judgment that every
CENC can call upon.

Question. Based on your assignment as Commander, Air Combat Command, the
air component commander for U.S. Atlantic Command, U.S. Central Command, and
U.S. Southern Command, do you believe that the role of the component commanders
is appropriate and the policies and procedures of the combatant commanders allow
that role to be fuiniled?

Answer. Yes, in my experience the focus of the component commander has contin-
ued to be on training, organizing and equipping the right level of forces to support
each of the warfighting CINCs' requirements. From my perspective, the procedures
each of the combatant commanders have in place allow the organizing, training and
equipping role to be fulfilled subject to the authority, direction and control of the
Secretary of Defense and the responsibilities of the CLNCs.

DUTIKS

Section 154 (c) of Title 10, United States Code, provides that the Vice Chairman
performs the duties prescribed for him as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
such other duties as may be prescribed by the Chairman with the approval of the
Secretary of Defense. In his response to a question during his 1994 confirmation
process, Admiral Owens advised that General Shalikashvili and he agreed that "we
best serve our country and meet our responsibilities if we share oversight in as
many areas as possible. Clearly, as the Vice Chairman, I would expect to be in-
volved intimately in the details of the acquisition process through the Defense Ac-
quisition Board and as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council."

Question. What duties do you expect will be prescribed for you if you are con-
firmed as the Vice Chairman?

Answer. I agree with Admiral Owen's response in his 1994 testimony and believe
that General Shalikashvili will continue to have us share oversight in as many
areas as possible. I would expect to continue if confirmed, to be intimately involved
in the acquisition process through the Defense Acquisition Board and as designated
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. I am prepared to fulfill
whatever responsibilities the Chairman prescribes for me.

Question. If you are heavily involved in the acquisition and internal program/
budget processes within the Pentagon and also participate as a member of tne depu-
ties committee of the NSC, as Admiral Owens has done, how would you plan to keep
sufficiently abreast of the myriad of issues that arise in these diverse areas?

Answer. As with every assignment I have had, I am committed to spending the
time to understand and remain actively engaged in the myriad of diverse issues I
will be asked to consider. Given the many different opportunities and experiences
I've had in the requirements process, the program development process, the budget
process and force allocation and execution processes — combined with the high cali-
ber of highly dedicated officers serving in the joint arena, I have many tools at my
disposal to help me in my duties.

Question. Do you believe that you can provide advice to the Secretary of Defense,
the NSC and the Resident in disagreement with or in addition to the advice of the
Chairman without jeopardizing your relationship with General Shalikashvili?

Answer. I look forward to working with a man of such high integrity as General
Shalikashvili. I believe it is our responsibility as officers serving in the Armed
Forces of this country to provide our best advice to our civilian leadership, even if
we should happen to disagree with each other. I am confident General Shalikashvili
and I are in conTplete agreement that I should fully meet my responsibilities as a
member of the JCS.

RELATIONSHIPS

Section 162(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides that the chain of command
runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and from the Secretary of De-
fense to the combatant commands. Other sections of the law and traditional prac-
tice, however, establish important relationships outside the chain of command.
Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to the following offices:

Undersecretary of Defense

DOD Directives require Under Secretaries of Defense to coordinate and exchange
information with DOD components having collateral or related functions; this would
include the Vice Chairman. I would expect to interact frequently with the Under

Secretaries, particularly while being involved in the acquisition process and in di-
recting the eiTorts of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

The Assistant Secretaries of Defense

With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C^I and I>egislative
Affairs, all Assistant Secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under Secretaries of
Defense. This means any relationship the Vice Chairman would require with the As-
sistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Requirements, for example, would be
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Since the Assistant Secretaries
of Defense for C^I and Legislative Affairs are SecDefs principal deputy for overall
supervision of C^I and I^egislative Affairs matters respectively, any relations re-
quired between the Vice Chairman and ASD (C^I) of ASD (LA) would be conducted
along the same lines as those discussed above regarding relations with the various
Under Secretaries of Defense.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Title 10 clearly establishes the Vice Chairman shall perform duties as prescribed
for him as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and such other duties as prescribed
by the Chairman. Pending specific guidance from the Chairman, I would exfxjct to
share oversight in as many areas as possible. As Chairman, General Shalikashvili
is principal military advisor to the Resident, Secretary of Defense, and the National
Security Council. He cannot afford to purposely exclude himself from certain mat-
ters by delegating them exclusively to me or anyone else. For my part, restricting
my focus to narrowly-defined functional areas would limit my ability to regularly
substitute for General Shalikashvili as Acting Chairman. As a result of daily contact
to exchange information and opinions, I would strive to represent his views in those
fora where I am his representative.

The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I know that the assistant to the Chairman has wide ranging assignments to rep-
resent the Chairman in the interagency process in Washington. What the assistant
knows and can share with the Vice Chairman about the interagency process and
on matters of personal interest to the Chairman is useful and will be requested.

The Director of the Joint Staff

As the Director and the Joint Staff support the Chairman in meeting Title 10 re-
sponsibilities to provide for unified strategic direction of the combatant forces, their
operation under unified command, and their integration into an efficient, joint fight-
ing force, I would expect frequent interaction between the Vice Chairman and the
Director, Joint Staff, particularly when the Vice is acting for the Chairman. If con-
firmed, I would depend heavily on the Director and the Joint Staff to assist me in
carrying out my many responsibilities as we both support the efforts of the Chair-
man.

The Secretaries of the Military Departments

With involvement in the acquisition and internal program/budget processes, as
well as the Vice Chairman's directing the efforts of the Joint Requirements Over-
sight Council, I would expect significant interaction and close coordination with the
Secretaries of the Military Departments.

The Chiefs of Staff of the other Services

The Service Chiefs have two significant roles. First and foremost, they are respon-
sible for the organization, training, and equipping of their respective Service. Next,
as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service chiefs have a lawful obligation
to provide military advice. Individually and collectively, the Joint Chiefs are a
source of exjjerience and judgment. If confirmed, I would expect to maintain the
same sort of relationship with the other Joint Chiefs of Staff as exists today.

The combatant commanders

Particularly when acting for the Chairman and therefore as spokesman for all of
the combatant commands, the Vice Chairman must be in constant communications
with each in order to present the best possible military advice to the President and
Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I expect to continue the same relationship which
exists between the Vice Chairman and the combatant commanders, one of mutual
respect, trust and confidence.

REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS

There has been much talk of a revolution in military affairs in recent times, and
discussion that revolution calls for putting new technologies to work and changing
organization to win future conflicts.

Question. Do you agree that there is such a revolution in military affairs, and that
it will have far reaching conscauences?

Answer. In my view the revolution in military affairs refers to the recognition that
future war will be fought in the context of an information rich battlefield — and we
must recognize and prepare for that change. This recognition calls for a different
way of thinking about battle, as well as the training and equipping to prepare for
it. In an environment of ever-increasing information, the commander will have stag-
gering situational awareness, e.g. locations and status of friendly and enemy forces,
up-to-the-second data on weather, terrain and casualties, the number of specific
weapons available in the same timeframe, etc.

There are many tools associated with recognizing and preparing for the revolution
in military affairs: communications, computers, unmanned aerial vehicles, precision-
guided munitions, sensor-fused weapons, and others. Since the reforms of the De-
fense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have been
fully accepted and integrated into the Armed Services, I believe they have provided
the growing capability lor each service to mesh its unique contribution to this prepa-
ration. The real challenge of our future is to understand more precisely, what we
recognize intuitively, that the information age battlefield will be very different, and
the iorce that masters the means and methods will have a decisive advantage.

BUDGET ISSUES

Recent press accounts have portrayed the military leadership as advocating in-
creases in procurement accounts in the immediate future rather than in the out
years. This committee purposely provided a bill with increased procurement of sys-
tems in production to ensure our forces have the weapons and systems to fight and
win with.

Question. How long do you believe our armed forces can go without a rebound in
procurement, considering the large cuts in the last ten years?

Answer. I believe we have done a reasonable job in balancing force structure,
readiness and modernization. But, in my iudgment, we have come very close to the
margin with respect to modernization. I oelieve we must address the recapitaliza-
tion of all the Services in the FY98 budget process that the Services, the Jomt Staff
and OSD are undertaking at this time. I believe we must work with the Congress
to clearly articulate our most pressing needs so that the Executive and Legislative
Branches come to a mutually acceptable solution to the future readiness of our
Armed Forces.

Question. As we look ahead, the prospect of increased defense spending is limited.
Assuming that the defense budget remains at a constant rate, where would you rec-
ommend the Services should focus their limited fiscal resources?

Answer. The services must first program the forces that are required to meet the
national military strategy. Secondly, these forces must be ready to meet the CINCs
tasking. The services must also program adequately for the future — by prudent
modernization. If any of these three basic elements get out of balance, we place the
Nation at risk. Therefore, the services must focus their limited fiscal resources on
attaining and maintaining this carefully constructed balance.

Question. The JAST program is changing from a technology demonstration to a
long term acquisition program. Do you think the JAST program will provide the
necessary capabilities for tne Air Force, Navy and Marine requirements, or will the
services work to prevent each others' requirements being met through the process?

Answer. The JAST program is moving in the right direction and offers great po-
tential towards achieving an affordable solution to meet our joint warfighting needs.
I know from personal experience the services have made much progress toward
achieving the high degree of commonality needed to keep costs down while ensuring
each service gets the minimum necessary capabilities that they require. This should
be our focus — maximum commonality while meeting minimum necessary capabilities
for each service. We should recognize that this will not result in one model of air-
craft. If we keep this focus then 1 believe all the services will cooperate in reaching
this goal.

Question. Modernization of the force continues to be a concern, as procurement
accounts continue to decline. Recent budget requests have not included sufficient re-
capitalization of major end items to maintain the levels outlined by the national
military strategy. How do you propose to overcome this bow wave of equipment that
will have to be purchased in the out years?

Answer. First we have to look for opportunities to eliminate unnecessary and
unafTordable duplication. This is a fundamental responsibility of the JROC. Next,
savings through increased commonality can be achieved. IVivatization should result
in substantial savings. Finally, we absolutely must reduce the timelines required to
field new weapon systems. I believe that acquisition reform gives us the greatest
opportunity to reduce the bow wave. If confirmed, I will personally work to achieve
savings in all of these areas.

Question. Contingency and on-going operations continue to be a draining factor on
the force's readiness. How do you propose to control jjersonnel tempo, especially on
the low density skills and the adverse effects on operations and maintenance fund-
ing?

Answer. I am always concerned with the effect of PERSTEMPO on the force.
However, I see in my travels that morale and retention throughout the force is high.
Although there remains concern over the long-term impact of increased operations,
only localized areas of adverse impact cave been noted and these are oeing ad-
dressed by the Services and the Joint Staff. We must continually monitor the levels
of operations and their effects to ensure we maintain a ready and capable force. We
must review ways to reduce the level of operations through avenues such as reduc-
tion in or combining of exercises. The proper employment of Reserve Forces to aug-
ment active forces can improve personnel tempo by carefully providing the right mix
of forces and capabilities for selected contingencies/crises, as well as exercise sup-
port and peacetime augmentation.

From personal experience, the Reserve Components have been particularly helpful
to the Air Force in mitigating the adverse PERSTEMPO for many of our systems.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure PERSTEMPO impacts are considered in all pro-
posed contingency operations.

Question. With emphasis being placed on the procurement of major end items and
pieces of equipment, do you feel we are procuring sufficient amounts of less glamor-
ous type items or common soldier type things?

Answer. It is evident by the requests made by the Services for fiscal year 1996
that we are wearing out much of our low end but very integral equipment. Replace-
ment of smaller end items such as trucks, tents, small arms, etc. is part of our mod-
ernization challenge. The high visibility systems depend on the infrastructure that
supports them. We cannot lose our focus on the totality of our fighting capability
as we worit through our resource decisions for the 21st Century. "Less glamorous"
may mean an item that does not make a budget briefing chart taken to Capitol Hill,
but can not translate into forgotten resourcing. A soldier with poor web belting,
tents, and trucks is less combat effective regardless of the C ** I we develop. High
and low technology must come together to keep our fighting force the best in the
world.

JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL (JROC)

Under Admiral Owens' leadership, a new analytic process — the Joint Warfighting
Capability Assessments (JWCA) — was created to support deliberations of the Ex-
panded Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). Admiral Owens views the
JROC process as a catalyst in managing and using the revolution in military affairs
from a joint perspective. One critic views it as an additional layer of programming
and budgetary review on top of an excessively detailed exercise in minutia and as
detracting from the Joint staffs rightful strategic and operational planning focus.

Question. What is your understanding of the present mission and focus of the
JROC?

Answer. My understanding of the mission and focus of the JROC is that its pur-
pose was to create a senior military, multi-service review of the needs and require-
ments of the Services and the CINCs for the purpose of reducing redundancies
where appropriate, and insuring joint program and system interoperability. Addi-
tionally, a major part of the JROC focus is assisting the Chairman in his title 10
responsibilities to provide advice and recommendations on alternative programs and
budget proposals.

In order to provide advice on alternative programs and budget proposals, the
JROC must necessarily review the Service programs. The Services — particularly at
the staff level — could well view this process as redundant. However, I strongly be-
lieve the current focus of the JROC is necessary and appropriate.

Question. Do you agree with that mission and focus?

Answer. Absolutely. The JROC plays a valuable role in identifying the best pos-
sible joint military capability for the Nation. This senior level council can get to the
heart of joint resources for our Nation's defense. The time and energy I see devoted

by this group and the results they have tendered thus far are most impressive. I
hope, if confirmed, to contribute to this on-going effort.

Question. Do you believe that any changes are needed in the mission and focus
oftheJROC?

Answer. I believe the current focus is correct. With each Chairman's Program Rec-
ommendation and Program Assessment, I have seen the process institutionalized
within each service as both a methodology and a spirit that can only lead to better
deliberations on the key resource decisions facing our military for the next century.

Question. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has recently played
a more important role in rationalizing Defense systems requirements across the
services. Traditionally, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has fo-
cused on the procurement of warfighting systems and requirements. Do you see the
JROC being expanded as a vehicle to evaluate a service's entire program (e.g. cur-
rent readiness, nousing, quality-of-life, and medical care)?

Answer. If the JROC's charter is expanded too broadly we run the risk of losing
focus on the critically important elements that only the JROC is equipped to ad-
dress. My personal belief is that the Services and OSD are in a better position at
this time to do detailed evaluation of the Services entire program.

Question. How would you use the JROC during the coming years?

Answer. I believe the current focus of the JROC is correct and I would strive to
continue the direction established by General Shalikashvili and Admiral Owens. I
believe the JROC should serve as the major forum in preparing the Chairman to
provide military advice, alternative programs and budget proposals.

JOI.NT TRAINING AND ADAPTIVK JOINT KORCK PACKAGES

U.S. Atlantic Command's implementation of its responsibility for joint training of
assigned forces and the concept of adaptive joint force packages has proven to be
somewhat contentious. As the Air Force component commander for three combatant
commanders since June 1995, you have been in a position to observe the maturation
of such implementation.

Question. What are your views of the viability of these policies and their imple-
mentation to date?

Answer. The Presidential decision to change the Unified Command Plan (UCP)
in 1993 to place one of the five geographic CINCs in charge of ensuring our CONUS
based forces are jointly trained ana ready to perform their missions in increasingly
complex environments around the world came as a result of the confluence of sev-
eral forces: the DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 (Goldwater-Nichols); Desert Shield/
Desert Storm lessons learned; and CJCS Gen. Colin Powell's Report on the Roles
and Missions of the Armed Forces. All pointed toward the increased need for prepar-
ing our forces for joint operations.

As with any new concept of this magnitude, a period of development should be
expected. From my vantage point, I would say we have achieved much in less than
three years. The Commander in Chief USACOM uses a board of directors approach
in managing change and I have been included in the process. We have worked hard
to blend joint training exercises and compxinent training requirements to eliminate
unnecessary duplication. We still have a way to go but I believe we have made much
progress.

With regard to packaging of joint forces. Air Combat Command routinely deploys
squadrons of aircraft, as the basic combat unit. We tailor — or adapt — the deploying
force to the requirements of the Joint Force Commander. This approach has worked
well in the past and is working well today.

ROLKS AND MISSIONS

Question. The Commission on Roles and Missions completed its report last year
and Secretary Perry has forwarded his recommendations to the Congress. Are there
any roles and missions issues which you believe might save critical resources with-
out jeopardizing the effectiveness of the military forces?

Answer. The Department of Defense has already made significant progress in act-
ing on key recommendations in the Roles and Missions Report. DOD has shown
strong support for the commission's recommendation to improve the operation of,
and possibly downsize, the operational support (OSA) fieet. The Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff directed a study of OSA wartime requirements. This study was
completed in October 1995, and determined that the OSA wartime requirement was
391 aircraft. This validated requirement will allow the Department to reduce the
OSA fieet by 160 aircraR (551 to 391). With the USTRANSCOM study to rec-
ommend the adoption of streamlined, consolidated scheduling system for the OSA

fleet, I believe substantial resources will be saved while increasing operational effi-
ciency.

The Department also strongly endorsed the Commission's recommendation to con-
duct an assessment of all deep attack systems to determine appropriate force size
and mix. The OfTice of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff have initiated
a comprehensive study in this area. This assessment will identity force size and
mix, as well as the a C"*! architecture to support timely, effective deep attacks, and
procedures for integrating the employment of our many deep attack systems. If con-
firmed, I will be a part of that assessment.

I also see potential savings and increased efficiency from the Commission's rec-
ommendations to out source commercial-type support activities (e.g. education and
training, family housing, finance and accounting, data center operations, and base
infrastructure operations), depot maintenance, and direct support of new weapon
systems. A department-wide Integrated Process Team (IPT) cnaired by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, was created to implement these proposals. In general, the IPT
seeks to ensure broad private sector participation while maintaining adequate man-
agement control and adequate capability to meet surge requirements during war-
time.

With respect to the cross-Service interoperability initiatives cited by the Commis-
sion, I see significant potential savings. The Joint Staff is conducting an Electronic
Warfare mission area assessment to be completed in April 1996. Based on these
findings, the decision will be made on appropriate upgrades to the EA-6B fleet
which will serve as the single airborne electronic warfare platform for both the Air
Force and the Navy.

Question. The Bottom-Up Review is based on a military strategy of our forces
being capable of fighting two nearly-simultaneous Major Regional Confiicts (MRC).
In your opinion, is this an appropriate strategy? Are our forces, as currently pro-
grammed, capable of executing this strategy?

Our National Military Strategy (NMS) of fiexible and selective engagement is ap-
propriate for the post-Cold War international security environment. Its strategic
components are peacetime engagement, deterrence ana conflict prevention, and tne
capability to fight and win. The requirement within that strategy to be able to suc-
cessfully respond to two nearly simultaneous Major Regional Contingencies (MRC)
is also appropriate. The U.S. is a global power with global interests. The need to
be able to deter and defeat aggression in more than one part of the world has
marked much of our history in this century. In the recent past the validity of this
requirement was again proven by the need to respond in 1994 to dual crises caused
by Iraqi and North Korean threats. Our ability to reinforce both theaters served to
deter aggression.

In my opinion, we need to ensure that we not only have the capability to success-
fully respond to two nearly simultaneous MRCs, but have sufficient forces to meet
our peacetime contingency requirements. In some cases, the peacetime requirement
requires greater force levels than the two MRC scenario.

With respect to the capabilities of our forces, we are able to execute two nearly
simultaneous MRCs with the funding requested from Congress. Analysis, command-
ers' assessments, and war games have concluded that programmed forces can sup-
port the National Military Strategy. Of course, we neea to continue to keep a close
watch for any disconnect developing between strategy and resources. Sufficient
funding is essential to provide for the key BUR identified modernizations and en-
hancements to the force to meet today's and tomorrow's security challenges.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PERSIAN GULF WAR

Question. The United States is currently recognizing the 5th Anniversary of the
Persian Gulf War. What in your judgment are the most important lessons learned
from that conflict and how are these lessons applicable to tne current operation of
our Armed Forces?

Answer. The Persian Gulf War gave us volumes of lessons learned, and it is very
difficult to say which one area is most important. Most likely the primary lesson
learned is that we must not be lulled into thinking that Desert Shield and Desert
Storm are a model for operations now, or in the future. The Gulf War was truly
unique in the amount of time we had to prepare and the limited response of our
foe. Therefore, the lesson we should carry forward from the Gulf War is that pre-
paredness for a confiict begins long before the crisis. In many respects, the forces
that go to war are the product of earlier decisions and as we complete our planned
draw-down and the defense budget becomes relatively smaller, it is important to im-

6 rove upon the things that ensured our readiness for Operations Desert Shield and
lesert Storm. These include: forward presence, military-to-military contacts to fa-

cilitate regional operations, security assistance to improve regional stability, joint
and combined exercises under realistic conditions and continued investments in de-

f)loyment infrastructure, mobility capabilities and R&D. Maintaining our techno-
ogical edge has always been one of the more important aspects of preparedness to
deter crisis and protect U.S. interests. However, we can not forget that technology
is only one part of the equation which excelled in the Gulf War, the other crucial
element being the high Quality service members who can use the advanced equip-
ment in innovative and eificient ways.

As to the volume of specific lessons learned I spoke of earlier, we have initiatives
ongoing which will improve our capability. We must continue to communicate our
lessons learned in order to be a more efficient and effective force.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Question. You will be the fourth officer to occupy the office of the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Each of your predecessors is recognized for making a
specific contribution toward establishing the credibility of that office. What do you
expect to be your most significant contribution to the history of the office?

Answer. I believe we are in a period of constrained resources coupled with ex-
panding requirements for U.S. military presence around the world. We can only ac-
complish our goals by aggressively seeking ways to more efficiently and efTectively
modernize our forces. I will work closely with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and the services to make our requirements process more responsive and
more willing to embrace commercial practices to fulfill our opjerational require-
ments. By significantly reducing the time to field new weapon systems, primarily
through streamlining our acquisition processes, we can significantly reduce the cost
of modernizing our forces.

MAJOR CHALLENGES

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Answer. In my view our greatest challenges stem from the limited resources we
can expect to receive, balanced with the appropriate amount of force readiness and
modernization to provide for the strongest national defense. Consolidating the views
of the CINCs into a process which reasonably considers how to achieve this balance
will be part of my duties and will be of great importance to our future defense pos-
ture.

Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these challenges?

Answer. I will look for ways to be most effective in pursuing joint solutions where
they make the most sense to address shortfalls or finding more efficient ways of
doing our business. My experience working in the requirements process, the pro-
gramming and budgeting process and the force application process nas given me in-
sight into how to develop consensus on many of these issues. I will work closely with
General Shalikashvili, the services, the CINCs, our civilian leadership and the Con-
gress in order that we achieve an integrated, strong national defense posture.

MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the perform-
ance of the functions of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Answer. I know of no serious problems, only the challenges we have noted, and
I look forward to the opportunity to continue the tremendous efforts of Admiral
Owens and his predecessors.

Question. What management actions and timelines would you establish to address
these problems?

Answer. I will look for ways to constantly reinforce the following message: never
lose focus on the welfare of our young aolcucrs, sailors, airmen, and marines while
maintaining the appropriate balance of readiness and nuxlemization.

QUAUFICATIONS

Question. Section 155 (b) of title 10, United SUtes Code, prpvides that the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must have the joint specialty and must have
completed a tour of duty in a joint duty assignment. Have you been designated a

joint specialist?

Answer. Yes.

Question. If so, on what basis did vou receive that designation?

Answer. In 1988, the Air Force designated me as a Joint Specialty officer based
on a combination of Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) and joint equiva-

lent duty. I graduated from National War College (NWC) in 1984. My joint equiva-
lent duty was an assignment as special assistant for I>qw Observable Technology,
HQ USAF, Washington DC from Jul 84-Feb 86. To complete my general officer joint
duty, I served as Commander, Alaskan Command, a subunified command of U.S.
Pacific Command (USPACOM) and Commander, Alaskan North American Air De-
fense Command (NORAD) region from 1992-1994.

Question. If not, has the President determined that a waiver in your case is nec-
essary in the national interest?

Answer. I do not require a waiver.

Question. What background and experience do you have that you believe qualifies
you for this position?

Answer. I believe that I have the right background to bring a balanced approach
to the job of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have spent over 12 years
in operational flying assignments where I worked with the other services either in
combat or preparing for combat operations. I have spent another 12 years in assign-
ments directly related to the formulation of operational requirements. These latter
assignments include service as the Department of Defense Director of Low Observ-
able Technology, the Director of Tactical Programs for the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition, and the Air Force Director of Operational Requirements.
I have worked directly with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and
its predecessor, the Joint Requirements Management Board (JRMB) since 1984 and
have seen the Department of Defense's requirements formulation function evolve to
its present state. Finally, I worked a broad array of high level planning and oper-
ational matters as the Air Force's Operations Deputy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Question. According to the information provided to the committee, you have no
prior service on the Joint Staff. How will this factor impact your performance as
the Vice Chairman?

Answer. While I have not been assigned to the Joint Staff, I was assigned as the
Air Force Operations Deputy to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in that capacity I,
along with my counterparts from the other services, reviewed all operational mat-
ters prior to their submittal to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I believe this experience
is invaluable to allow me to exercise the duties and responsibilities of the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if confirmed.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

In order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities, it is important
that this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress are able to re-
ceive testimony, briefings, and other communications of information.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before this
committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your f)ersonal views, even if those
views differ from the administration in power?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee, or des-
ignated members of this committee, and provide information, subject to appropriate
and necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as the Vice
Chairman of the Joint Cniefs of Staff?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree to ensure the testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of information are provided to this committee and its staff and other appro-
priate committees?

Answer. Yes.

[The nomination reference of Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, fol-
lows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

December 18. 1995.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named officer for appointment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and reappointment to the grade of general under the provisions of title 10,
United States Code, Section 154:

Vice Chairman ok thk Joint Chiefs of Staff
To be General
Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, 9172, USAF.

[The biographical sketch of Gren. Joseph W. Ralston, USAF,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomina-
tion was referred, follows:]

Department of the Air Force,
Headquarters United States Air Force,

1040 Air Force Pentagon,
Washington DC, December 20, 1995.
Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman.
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The President, under the provisions of Section 601, title 10
of the United States Code, has submitted to the Senate the nomination of the follow-
ing general ofTicer for reappointment to the grade of general with assignment as in-
dicated:

Name, grade and SSN

Aje

Assignment (from/to)

Joseph W. Ralston General
9172.

From Commander, Air Combat Command Langley AFB, VA— To Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Pentagon, Washington, DC.

General Ralston is replacing Admiral William A. Owens, United States Navy, who
is retiring. Confirmation action during December 1995 will help insure a smooth
transition for General Ralston. This action will not result in the Air Force exceeding
the number of generals authorized by law.

For the information of the Committee, I am enclosing a military history on Gen-
eral Ralston.

Sincerely,

Eugene E. Habiger,
Lieutenant General, USAF,
Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel.

Attachment:

Military History.

Military History ok Gen. Joseph Wood Ralston, USAF

Date and place of birth: 4 November 1943, Hopkinsville, Kentucky.

Years of active service: Over 30 years as of 24 July 1995.

Schools attended and degrees: Miami Univ, BA, 1965; Central Michigan Univ, MA,
1976; U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1976; National War Col-
lege, 1984.

Joint specialty officer: Yes.

Aeronautical rating: Command Pilot.

Major permanent duty assignments:

Assignment

USAFR, Not on Active Duty

Stu Ofcr, Undergrad Pit Tng, 3645 Stu Sq, ATC, Laughlin AFB, TX

Stu Ofcr, USAF Opnl Tng Crs, F-I05, 4523 CCTSq, TAC, Nellis AFB, NV

Pit, Tac Ftr, F-105, 67 TFSq, PACAF, Kadena AB, Japan

Pit, Tac Ftr, F-105, 12 TFSq, PACAF, Kadena AB, Japan

Pit, Tac Ftr, F-105F, 354 TFSq, PACAF, Takhli RTAFB, Thailand

Instr Pit. F-105, 66 FWSq, TAC, Nellis AFB, NV

Air Ops Ofcr, Air Superiority Div, DCS/Rqmts, Hq TAC, Langley AFB. VA

Acft Comdr, F-4, 335 TFSq. TAC. Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC

Asst Ops Ofcr, F-4, 335 TTSq, TAC Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC

Asst Ch, Stan-Eval Div. 4 TFWg, TAC, Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC

Jun 65

Jul 65

Sep 66

Apr 67

Aug 67

Jan 70

Nov 70

Dec 71

Jun 73

Aug 73

Jan 74

Mar 74

Assignment

Ch, Stan-Eval Div, 4 TfWg, TAC, Seymour-Johnson AFB. NC

Stu, US Army Cmd & Gen Stf College, Hq Lmd, Ft Leavenvorth, KS

Tac Ftr Rqmts Ofcr, Tac Div, AF/RDQRT, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Ops Ofcr, D/Dps, 68 TTSq, TAC, Moody AFB, GA

Comdr, 68 TFSq, TAC, Moody AFB, GA

Sped Asst to the Comdr. TAC, Langley AFB, VA

Exec Ofcr to the Comdr, TAC, Langley AFB, VA

Stu, National War College, NOU, Ft. McNair, Wash DC

Sped Asst for Low Observable Tech, AF/RD, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Comdr, 56 TTWg, TAC, MacDill AFB, FL

Asst OCSA)ps, Hq TAC, Langley AFB, VA

DCS/Requirements, Hq TAC, Langley AFB, VA

Dir, Tactical Prgms, SAF/AQP, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Dir, Operational Rqmts. AF/XOR, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Comdr, Alaskan Command; Comdr, 11 AF; Comdr Alaskan NORAD Rgn; & Jt Task Force-Alaska,
Elmendorf AFB, AK.

Dep Chief of Staff, Plans and Ops, Pentagon, Wash DC

Comdr. Air Combat Command. Langley AFB VA

Apr 74

Jul 75

Aug 76

Sep 76

Aug 79

Oct 79

Jul 80

Nov 80

Aug 83

Jul 84

Feb 76

Feb 86

Feb 87

Jul 87

Jun 90

Dec 91

Jul 92

Aug 94

Jun 95

Present

Promotions and effective date:

Second Lieutenant, 6 Jun 65.

First Lieutenant, 24 Jan 67.

Captain, 24 Jul 68.

Major, 1 Dec 73.

Lieutenant Colonel, 1 Apr 78.

Colonel, 1 Jun 81.

Brigadier General, 1 Mar 88.

Major General, 1 Aug 90.

Lieutenant General, 13 Jul 92.

General, 1 Jul 95.
Decorations:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal.

Air Force Distinguished Service Medal.

Legion of Merit with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

Distinguished Flying Cross with three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

Meritorious Service Medal with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

Air Medal with three Silver Oak I^eaf Clusters and four Bronze Oak I^eaf Clus-
ters.

Air Force Commendation Medal with four Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

Summary of joint assignments:

Assignments

Dates

Grade

Comdr, Alaskan Command; Comdr. 11 AF; Comdr. Alaskan NORAD Rgn; &
Joint Task Force— Alaska, Elmendorf AFB AK.

•Special Asst for Low Observables Technology, Deputy Chief of Staff/Re-
search, Development & Acquisition, HQ USAF, Wash DC.

Jul 92-Jul 94
Jul 84~Feb 86

Lt Gen
Colonel

'Joint Equivalent

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, in connec-
tion with his nomination follows:]

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Room SR-228

Washington, DC 20510-6050

(202) 224-3871

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICF:S FORM

BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INI-^ORMATION REQUESTED OF
NOMINEES FOR CERTAIN SENIOR MILITARY POSITIONS

Instructions to the Nominee: 1. Complete all requested infonnation. If more
space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B— 4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

Part A— Biographical Information

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Joseph W. Ralston.

2. Position to which nominated:
Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

3. Date of nomination:
December 18, 1995.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and tne information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
November 4, 1943, Hopkinsville, Kentucky.

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

7. Names and ages of children:

Christopher K. Ralston, 26; Paige A. Ralston, 25; David D. Streicker (s/son), 21;
Sarah E. Streicker (s/daughter), 16.

None other than that listed in my service record previously provided to the com-
mittee.

9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an officer, direc-
tor, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corpora-
tion, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, educational or other
institution.

Director, Armed Forces Benefit Association (not for profit insurance company)
(non-compensated).

10. Memberships: List all memberships and olTices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

Air Force Association.

Order of Daedalians.

Alumni Association, National War College.

Council on Foreign Relations.

None.

12. Conunitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power?

Yes.

Signature and Date

Joseph W. Ralston.

This 15th day of December 1995.

[The nomination of Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, was reported
to the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on Januaiy 26, 1996,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on January 26, 1996.]

NOMINATIONS OF LT. GEN. HENRY H.
SHELTON, TO BE GENERAL AND COM-
MANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. SPECIAL OPER-
ATIONS COMMAND; AND LT. GEN. EUGENE
E. HABIGER, TO BE GENERAL AND COM-
MANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. STRATEGIC COM-
MAND

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1996

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:41 a.m., in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond
(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Committee member present: Senator Thurmond.

Committee staff members present: George W. Lauffer, deputy
staff director; and Shawn H. Edwards, receptionist.

Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, Gregory J.
D'Alessio, Stephen L. Madey, Jr., Steven C. Saulnier, Cord A. Ster-
ling, and Eric H. Thoemmes.

Minority staff members present: Arnold L. Punaro, minority staff
director; Andrew S. Effron, minority counsel; Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel; and Patrick T. Henry, professional staff member.

Staff assistant present: Deasy Wagner.

Committee members' assistants present: Richard F. Schwab, as-
sistant to Senator Coats; Glen E. Tait, assistant to Senator
Kempthorne; David W. Davis, assistant to Senator Hutchison;
Patty Stolnacker, assistant to Senator Santorum; Andrew W. John-
son, assistant to Senator Exon; John P. Stevens, assistant to Sen-
ator Glenn; Lisa W. Tuite, assistant to Senator Byrd; Suzanne
Dabkowski, assistant to Senator Robb; and John F. Lilley, assist-
ant to Senator Lieberman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND,

CHAIRMAN

Chairman Thurmond. The committee will come to order.

The committee meets today to receive testimony concerning two
very important nominations. Lt. Gen. Henry Shelton has been nom-
inated for promotion to General, and to be Commander in Chief,
United States Special Operations Command. Lt. Gen. Eugene
Habiger has been nominated for promotion to General, and to be
the Commander in Chief, United States Strategic Command.

(59)

We all know both these nominees very well. General Shelton is
currently commander of the Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina. General Habiger is the Air Force Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel in the Pentagon. I believe every mem-
ber of the committee has their biographies, so there is no need for
me to recite their records of challenging assignments and accom-
plishments. In the interest of time I would like to move as quickly
as possible to the questions.

Before I yield to Senator Nunn — I guess he will be here in a few
minutes — I would like to recognize the family members who are
here today. Greneral Habiger, I understand that your wife Barbara
and your son Karl are here today. Ms. Habiger, would you and
Karl raise your hands? I want to welcome each of you here today.
I am delighted that you could be part of this important experience.

General Shelton, I understand your family could not join you
here this morning.

The committee asked Greneral Shelton and General Habiger to
respond to a series of advance policy questions, and they have both
responded to those questions. Without objection, I will make the
questions and the responses part of the record.

General Shelton, if you have any opening remarks, we will give
you the opportunity to address the committee at this time. Greneral
Habiger, we will offer you the same opportunity following General
Shelton's remarks. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. HENRY H. SHELTON, NOMINEE FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE
VICE COMMANDER, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

General Shelton. Thank you very much, Senator Thurmond. I
would just like to say that I am pleased to be here today. I am
humbled by the nomination, and, if confirmed, look forward to
working with you and the other Senators.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. EUGENE E. HABIGER, NOMINEE FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COM-
MAND

General Habiger. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am honored and hum-
bled to be here today. It is ironic that almost 12 years ago to the
day I stood before this group to brief them on how then the Strate-
gic Air Command would counter the new SA-10 surface to air mis-
sile system, and it is again a pleasure to stand before this august
group.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Chairman,
General Shalikashvili, the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Perry, and the
President for their confidence and support in this nomination proc-
ess.

Chairman Thurmond. I have several questions we ask of every
nominee who appears before the committee. If each of you will re-
spond to each question then we can move on to policy questions.

Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest?

General Shelton. Yes, sir.

General Habiger. Yes, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Have you assumed any duties or under-
taken any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of
the confirmation process?

General Shelton. No, sir, I have not.

General Habiger. No, sir, I have not.

Chairman THURMOND. General Shelton, I note that you served in
the Special Forces as a young officer in Vietnam. But despite your
extensive experience as a combat leader in the Army, that seems
to be the extent of your experience in Special Operations forces. Do
you feel that you have enough Special Operations experience for
the job as commander of Special Operations Command?

General Shelton. Sir, I have served for over 32 years, as my
record indicates, in every position from company to corps level. I
have been very fortunate in being allowed to do that. My service
has included attending U.S. Army Ranger school, which I com-
pleted and I was an instructor in the Ranger department. I com-
pleted Special Forces training, and as you indicated, led a Special
Forces A Team in Vietnam. I am also a scuba and a free-fall quali-
fied officer.

More recently, as the J-33, Deputy Director for Operations on
the Joint Staff, I was responsible for worldwide control of current
operations. This position not only involved special operations, but
special technical operations and planning for counter-terrorism, re-
connaissance, and counter-narcotics missions.

Most importantly, as Commander, Joint Task Force 180 during
Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY in Haiti, where I was resp9n-
sible for the planning and executing this operation. This position
also involved the planning process for every type of special oper-
ations force and incorporating these forces into the overall plan for
UPHOLD DEMOCRACY. These plans included not only the Army
Rangers but also Special Operations Forces, — civil affairs, psycho-
logical operations, special operations aircraft. Navy Seals, and the
Joint Special Operations Command. These forces include both ac-
tive and reserve components.

Chairman Thurmond. General Habiger, the United States is cur-
rently planning to have all Peacekeeper ICBM's eliminated by
2003, pursuant to the START H treaty. But the fate of START H
in Russia is uncertain at best. What contingency planning is re-
quired for Peacekeeper in case Russia fails to ratify START H, and
when will we need to program resources for this purpose?

General Habiger. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force has been working
on contingency plans to phase out the Peacekeeper, assuming
START n. If START H does not materialize, we have looked at the
continuation of that major weapons system, and just looking at the
programming process, we would have until the Program Objective
Memorandum (POM) of the year 2000 in order to begin putting
money into that program, and I am confident that we will be able
to keep Peacekeeper online for as long as necessary, should START
n not materialize.

Chairman Thurmond. General Shelton, according to unclassified
sources approximately 45,000 Special Operations personnel from
all the services are assigned to your future command. What percent
of this number is provided by the Reserve components, and in what
areas do the Reserves provide the greatest contribution?

•?8.90'? 07

General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide an an-
swer for the record although I know we have a large contingency
of Reserve Component Forces.

(The information follows:)

Thirty-two percent of SOF are Reserve Component. The Reserves are employed
in all areas but particularly in civil afTairs, psychological operations, sp>ecial lorces,
special boat units, and special opxjrations squadrons. USSOCOM regularly assesses
tne proper mix of forces. The most recent assessment indicates the mix appears to
be right. Specifically, based on actual contingencies, historical analysis, and pro-
jectea requirements, the existing structure and mix is considered adequate to meet
the requirements of the theater CINCs.

Chairman Thurmond. If you would like to answer that for the
record it will be all right.

General Shelton. For the record, in terms of the numbers, yes,
sir. But in terms of the second part of the question, we do have a
large number of Reserve special operations forces Reserves, where
civil affairs and psychological operations forces are a large portion
of the force as well as AC-130 crews in the Special Operations air-
craft.

Chairman Thurmond. General Habiger, the Air Force has devel-
oped a proposal to use existing Minuteman facilities and missiles
made available through the base closure process for a limited na-
tional missile defense system. I believe that the Strategic Com-
mand has been consulted on this idea. Do you believe that this con-
cept is meritorious and deserves to be carefully considered?

General Habiger. I am familiar with the proposal, Mr. Chair-
man, and I do agree if there is a requirement to deploy this system
that it does have merit.

Chairman Thurmond. General Shelton, as the Commander of
the 18th Airborne Corps you have under your command the 82nd
Airborne Division. The armored gun system was being developed
by the Army to replace the Sheridan armored reconnaissance vehi-
cle in the 82nd Airborne Division. It appears that the Army may
cancel the armored gun system program. If the program is can-
celed, how will you replace the Sheridan? What impact will this
loss of mobile firepower have on the 82nd Airborne Division's rapid
reaction capability?

General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, the decision to cancel that pro-
gram, as I understand it, was made after looking at all of the var-
ious alternatives available to General Reimer, the Army Chief of
Staff. This was a tough decision for him to make, but had it to be
made in order to preserve force structure in the Army.

We are currently looking at other tactics, techniques, and proce-
dures we can modify the way we would normally conduct the air-
borne operation, which includes introducing the immediate ready
company in the 24th Infantry Division (mechanized). This company
is on the same timeline as the 82nd Airborne, moving quickly once
the lodgement area or the air-head had been established by the
82nd. We will continue to explore other means of getting more fire-
power into the lodgement area, since we will not have the AGS to
replace the Sheridan.

Chairman Thurmond. General Habiger, before this hearing I
had asked you to respond in writing to numerous questions on the
Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program. You responded
that you were not sufficiently familiar with the details of these

matters to provide answers in the time available. Can I depend on
you to provide your answers to these questions for the record as
soon as possible?

General Habigp:r. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. If confirmed, you
will have them very quickly.

(The information follows:)

Yes, I am in full agreement with the findings of the NPR. I am also in agreement
with the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum (NWSM) that establishes DOD's
requirement for nuclear weapons. In combination with the Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Plan, the NWSM delineates the requirements for the Department
of Energy's infrastructure.

Yes, consistent with the responsibilities of mv position.

The hedge called for in the NPR is intendecf to maximize the effectiveness of our
forces should. Russian START II implementation be interrupted for some reason.
This hedge requirement is to allow upload of our weapons platforms and will be re-
viewed when we gain confidence that Russia's START II drawdown is "on track".
Reactivation rates and timelines depend on the circumstances, but we will be able
to react appropriately.

Yes.

No. There are two ways in which warheads in the Inactive Stockpile will be con-
figured differently than warheads in the Active Stockpile. First, warneads in the In-
active Stockpile may have their tritium reservoirs removed. Second, those warheads
will receive only modifications and alterations necessary for the warhead to be reac-
tivated within the required timeliness DOD has been working closely with DOE in
refining the guidance for the Inactive Stockpile to ensure it meets DOD require-
ments. [DELETED]

Yes, a post START II Inactive Stockpile will require tritium gas and limited life-
time components to meet upload hedge requirements.

DOD has established a requirement for tritium production, and we have been in-
volved in the development of the DOE plan to supply tritium.

Yes, provided it receives proper funding and support. DOE has stated that, with
or without START II, the "dual track" program for tritium production will be suffi-
cient to meet DOD requirements.

Yes. The DOE strategy to provide adequate pits to support the projected stockpile
includes programs to refurbish and re-qualify existing pits; manufacture new pits;
and demonstrate the capability to expand the production capacity in response to
operational requirements. With sufficient support and funding, this plan appears to
be adequate.

Today, I believe that the stockpile is safe and reliable. The planned Science Based
Stockpile Stewardship tools are designed to give us a degree of confidence in the
stockpile that would not otherwise be possible without nuclear testing. Until all
these tools are operational, some degradation in the safety and reliability of the
stockpile might occur, but we cannot judge its significance at this time.

In the documentation available to us, there is insufficient detail for us to judge
whether the FY97 budget proposal will be sufficient. As for out years, funding pro-
jections refiect major uncertainties and will have to be carefully scrutinized each
year.

Until all of the currently planned tools under the Science Based Stockpile Stew-
ardship program are operational, projected for 2007, there will be a gap in some of
our monitoring capability, but not necessarily a gap in our confidence. That will de-
pend on whether problems occur in the stockpile and how significant they are.

Over the past year, DOD has enjoyed a strong working relationship with DOE,
and looks forward to continuing this relationship.

Stockpile stewardship, hydronuclear tests, and underground 500 ton tests are all
useful ways to increase confidence in the safety and reliability of the stockpile.
Science Based Stockpile Stewardship is necessary to provide nearly the same con-
fidence in the safety and reliability of the stockpile without any of these tests.

Yes, I will look to the laboratory directors for their advice, as well as the advice
of other experts, as I form my own assessment in the confidence in the safety and
reliability of the stockpile.

The START II Treaty limit of 3,500 warheads only applies to deployed strategic
nuclear weapons and not to stockpiles. [DELETED]

We are confident that the technical experts will determine the best production
method, whether it involves accelerator tecnnology or light water reactor technology,
to meet all our tritium requirements.

In the President's 11 August 1995 announcement of Safeguards associated with
a zero-yield Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CENCSTRAT was tasked to advise,
through the Secretary of Defense, regarding confidence in the safety and reliability
of the nuclear stockpile. USSTRATCOM is working within DOD and with DOE to
develop reporting procedures that will allow CINCSTRAT to make an informed as-
sessment in this regard.

DOE funding must be adequate to support the Stockpile Stewardship and Man-
agement Plan while maintaining the current surveillance and other stockpile sup-
port programs. Funding requirements will need to be carefully reviewed each year.

Chairman Thurmond. General Shelton, in your opinion are Spe-
cial Operations personnel being selected for promotion and schools
at a rate commensurate with the rest of the force fleet? If not, what
are your plans to correct this inequity?

General Shelton. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge,
the selection rates for SOF soldiers are commensurate with the rest
of the armed forces. I have not had a chance to look at that in
great detail, but it will be an item of interest, if confirmed by this
committee.

Chairman Thurmond. General Habiger, in your answers to the
advanced questions submitted by the committee, you made ref-
erence to the nuclear posture review implementer which was
signed by Secretary Perry on September 11th, 1995. Would you
please provide the committee a copy of this document for our
records?

General Habiger. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will do that.

Chairman Thurmond. Is there anything else either one of you
would like to say?

General Shelton. No, Mr. Chairman.

General Habiger. I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman THURMOND. I want to thank you for your testimony,
both of you. I know Senator Nunn and Senator Exon wanted to be
here this morning, and they may submit some questions for the
record, and I wish you would please answer those. Since we have
a joint session of Congress, I will adjourn this hearing so we can
go to the joint session.

There is nothing else, I believe, so the committee now stands ad-
journed.

IWhereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned. 1

[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Henry H. Shelton by
Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied fol-
low:

January 31, 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairma.V: Thank you for your letter of January 29, .1996, concerning
my nomination for Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command. I feel
honored to have received the nomination and look forward to appearing before the
Senate Armed Services Committee as part of the confirmation process.

I respectfully submit my enclosed responses to the questions of the committee.
Sincerely,

Henry H. Shelton,
Lieutenant General, USA Commander.

Enclosure.

cc: Senator Sam Nunn,

Ranking Minority Member.

QuECTioNS AND Responses

DEFENSE REFORMS

More than 9 years have passed since the reenactmcnt of the Goldwater-Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations re-
forms. You have had opportunity to observe the implementation and impact of those
reforms, particularly in your assignments as Deputy Director for Operations, Na-
tional Muitaiv Command Center, Deputy Director for Current Operations, and
Commander, Joint Task Force, Haiti.

Question. Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes, the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 has significantly enhanced
the readiness and warfighting capabilities of the US Armed Forces.

Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented in general and the Special Operations reforms in particular?

Answer. My sense is that the reforms have been successfully implemented.
CINCSOC appears to enjoy a firm position of equality among the CINCs, and the
Special Operations forces of this nation arc without equal, largely as a result of the
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.

Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. I believe the legislation is accomplishing what Congress intended. It has
clearly strengthened civilian authority by clarifying the chain of command from the
National Command Authorities to the combatant conunanders. Similarly, it has
placed clear responsibilities on the unified commanders. Finally, the legislation en-
sures that the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their
responsibilities.

RELATIONSHIPS

Section 162(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides that the chain of command
runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and from the Secretary of De-
fense to the combatant commands. Other sections of the law and traditional prac-
tice, however, establish important relationships outside the chain of command.
Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the Commander in Chief,
United States Special Operations Command to the following offices:

Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. Current DOD Directives require Under Secretaries of Defense to coordi-
nate and exchange information with DOD components, such as combatant com-
mands, having collateral or related functions. Combatant commanders are expected
to respond and reciprocate. Directives also stipulate that this coordination shall be
communicated through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StafT.

Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C^I and
Legislative Affairs, all Assistant Secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under
Secretaries of Defense. This means an relationship SOCOM would require with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict,
for example, would be through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Since the
Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C^I and Legislative Affairs are SecDefs prin-
cipal deputies for overall supervision of C^I and legislative matters respectively any
relations required between SOCOM and ASD(C'M) or ASD(I^) would be conducted
along the same lines as those discussed above regarding relations with the various
Under Secretaries of Defense.

Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. Title 10 clearly establishes CJCS as the principal military advisor to the
NCA However, he serves as an advisor and is not, according to the law, in the chain
of command that runs from the NCA directly to each combatant commander. The
law does allow the President to direct that communications between him and the
Secretary of Defense be transmitted through the Chairman, and President Clinton
has directed this to happen in the recently revised Unified Command Plan. This ac-
tion keeps the Chairman in the loop so that he can execute his other legal respon-
sibilities. So I see it as a CINCs duty to work with and throueh — but never
around — the Chairman to provide for the security of his command and execute NCA
directed taskings.

Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StafT.

Answer. When functioning as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's relation-
ship with CINCs is exactly that of the chairman. The 103rd Congress amended title
10 to give the vice Chairman the same right and obligation that other members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to submit an opinion or advice to the President, Na-

tional Security Council, or Secretary of Defense if their views disagree with those
of the Chairman. If confrmed, I would readily listen to the Vice Chairman's
thoughts on any general defense matter considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fi-
nally, because the Vice Chairman also plays a key role on many boards and panels
that effect programming and therefore the preparedness of SOCOM, I believe his
insights are extremely valuable and I would certainly seek his counsel.

Question. The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Unii'ied Command Plan makes the geographic CINC the single point
of contact for providing US military representation within his assigned area of re-
sponsibility. To meet this responsibility, CLNCs must be fully engaged in the inter-
agency process as it considers matters under their cognizance.. The Assistant to the
Chairman has an extensive charter to represent the Chairman in the interagency
process here in the Nation's capital. While there are no direct lines connecting the
Assistant to the Chairman to any combatant commander, what the Assistant knows
and can share about the interagency process with any CINC is useful and will be
requested. The Assistant to the Chairman also works on matters of personal inter-
est to the Chairman which may require him to consult with a combatant com-
mander.

Question. The Director of the Joint Staff.

Answer. The Director of the Joint Staff has many significant responsibilities
which require frequent interaction with SOCOM. Key among these is that the Direc-
tor is generally the point of contact for soliciting information from all the CINCs
when the Chairman is developing a position on any key issue.

Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.

Answer. Title 10, section 165 provides that, subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the SecDef and subject to the authority of combatant commanders, the
Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible for the administration and sup-
port of the forces they have assigned to combatant commands. The authority exer-
cised by a combatant commander over Service components is quite clear, but re-
quires close coordination with each Secretary to ensure there is no infringement
upon those lawful responsibilities a Service secretary alone may discharge.

Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.

Answer. Service Chiefs are no longer involved in the operational chain of com-
mand. They now have two significant roles. F'irst, they are responsible for the orga-
nization, training, and equipping of their respective Service. Without the full sup-
port and cooperation of the Service Chiefs, no CINC can hope to ensure the pre-
paredness of his assigned forces for whatever missions the NCA directs. Next, as
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation to
provide military advice to the NEA Individually and collectively, the Joint Chiefs
are a source of experience and judgment that every CINC can call upon. If con-
firmed as CINCSOC, I intend to conduct a full dialog with the Chiefs of all four
Services and certainly look forward to working with them.

CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT

The Special Operations reforms enacted by Congress as part of the Defense Ap-
propriations Act for Fiscal Year 1987 specified that one of tne Assistant Secretaries
of Defense shall be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and
Low Intensity Confiict (ASD(SO/LIC)) whose principal duty would be the overall su-
pervision (including oversight of policy and resources) of special operations activities
and low intensity confiict activities of the Department of Defense.

Question. What is your view of the importance of this position, in terms of over-
sight and advocacy?

Answer. ASD SO/LIC is an important partner to USCINCSOC; he provides the
SECDEF with senior civilian oversight of special ofx;rations activities, aevelops spe-
cial operations policy, and is the essential special operations advocate within OSD
and the interagency community.

Title 10 use, section 136 establishes ASD SO/LIC's principal duty as the overall
supervision (including oversight of policy and resources) of special operations activi-
ties and Lie activities of DOD. The special operations activities are defined in sec-
tion 167 of Title 10 USC.

While USSOCOM has principal responsibility for readiness and preparation of
special operations forces in support of regional CINCs, it appears that USSOCOM's
ability to execute that mission would be greatly hindered without the sound policy,
and the interagency coordination provided by the ASIXSO/LIC).

DOD Directive 5111.10, Subject ASD(S0/L1C) further defines ASp(SO/LIC) over-
sight role. Bottom line is they develop, coordinate and oversee the implementation

of policy for SO and LIC activities and ensure adherence to approved policy and
planning guidance.

Question. Does the presence of this level of civilian oversight enhance or hinder
USSOCOM's ability to carry out its mission?

Answer. Based on my knowledge, the civilian oversight enhances USSOCOM's
ability to carry out its mission. This relationship provides the best possible source
of advice and information reporting to both the SKCDKF and CJCS. The absence
of ASIXSO/LIC) would have a negative impact on USClNCSOC's ability to execute
his assigned mission. As previously stated, senior civilian oversight of policy and re-
sources, and advocacy of special operations activities at the highest levels is essen-
tial to USClNCSOC's ability to carry out his primary mission of preparing trained
and ready SOF for assigned worldwide missions.

Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role of the ASIXSO/LIC) in the
preparation of Major Force l*rogram 11 and the Special Operations Command Pro-
gram Objective Memorandum?

Answer. ASD(S0/LIC)'8 proper role in Major Force Program 11 programming and
budgeting is that which he currently performs. ASD(SO/LIC) and the CINCSOC co-
chair the USSOCOM Board of Directors. This Board makes the key decisions in the
USSOCOM POM process. The office of ASD(SO/LIC) is also involved in all aspects
of the MFP-11 budget development and execution. This involvement is an invalu-
able contribution to ensuring the viability of our special operations forces.

OPERATIONAL AND PERSONNEL TEMPO FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

Special Operations Forces are increasingly being used for contingencies and other
non-combat operations. This has been done without a corresponding increase in
force size, and thus has led to a dramatic increase in the OPTEMPO of these forces
(125 percent increase in missions between 1991 and 1994). In 1995, more than
43,900 special operations soldiers, sailors and airmen were sent to more than 140
countries to accomplish some 1,300 missions ranging from humanitarian relieve to
combat operations. The SOF mission in Haiti is just one of the numerous successes.
Obviously, the demand for SOF is extremely high since they can be employed
throughout the total spectrum of conflict.

Question. How do you envision the future employment of SOF in other regional
"hot spots" such as Bosnia?

Answer. SOF, by their very nature are ideally suited to operate in the diverse geo-
graphical and cultural regions that will continue to be "hot spots" around the world.
We anticipate continued employment of SOF by theater commanders, both unilater-
ally and in concert with larger conventional force deployments. SOF will continue
to be both a cost effective option and highly effective force multiplier for future
multi-national operations.

Question. What has been the impact of this increase on the special operations per-
sonnel?

Answer. I am informed that there are presently no indications that these contin-
gency operations are having an adverse affect on morale. The feedback from our
PERSTEMPO model does indicate that some of the specialized, high demand skills
are experiencing in excess of 180 deployed days-per-year away from home station.
These skills include the Air F'orce AC/MC-130 aircrews. Army Civil Affairs person-
nel, Navy SEALS, special tactics squadrons, and Army CH— 47 pilots. As the Joint
Chiefs implement the Global Militaiy Force Presence (GMFP) Policy, this will help
manage tne deployment schedule of the high demand and low density skills for
USSOCOM components. (GMI-T is a CJCS initiative to develop guidelines for more
effective management of scarce assets with unique mission capabilities which are
currently experiencing excessive OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO.) Such guidance will pro-
vide senior decisionmakers with quantifiable data on the cost of long-term high
OPTEMPO for these assets in terms of readiness, maintenance, training, and qual-
ity of life. The resulting policy should improve operational decisions regarding the
worldwide allocation of these scarce resources. If these high operating tempos con-
tinue unabated, they may begin to adversely affect morale.

Question. Have there been any problems associated with the readiness of these
forces?

Answer. I am unaware of any significant problems. Because many special oper-
ations forces are regionally oriented with a mission that involves working with in-
digenous forces, these continuing operations help contribute to regional expertise
and experience. However, long term, repetitive deployments can impose constraints
on ability to maintain some specialized warfighting skills. To minimize this, SOF
works closely with all the wariighting ClNCs to rotate forces to ensure mission es-

sential combat skills are maintained. If confirmed, this will be a matter of special
interest.

EMPLOYMENT OF AC-130 AIRCRAFT

After the successful close air support mission of an Air Force Special Operations
Force (AFSOF) AC-30 "Spctre" gunship on January 31, 1991, during the battle of
KhaQi, the aircraft turnea southward to return to its base. Unfortunately, the plane
had remained on station into the predawn hours and in an instant an Iraqi infra-
red-guided surface-to-air missile (SAM) locked-on and knocked the "Spectre" mto the
Gul^ killing all 14 crew members. It was the Air Force's single largest loss of the
war.

Question. How has or will the Special Operations Command combat this obvious
threat to its fixed wing as well as rotary wing assets?

Answer. Since the shootdown of AC-130H Gunship (Spirit 03) on January 31,
1991, United States Special ()perations Command components have strengthened
their Command and Control ((J2) of all Special Operations Forces Aviation Assets
to ensure assets are selected and operated with the maximum consideration, under
the circumstances, of their vulnerabilities. In addition, Air F'orce Special Operations
Command and United States Army Special Operations Command are continuously
developing and implementing new tactics and doctrine to counter the latest threats
to their aircraft. Finally, USSOCOM and its components are testing and fielding im-
proved countermeasure systems for their current Heet of aircraft, as well as procur-
ing new weapon systems like the AC-130U, MC-130H Talon II, MH-60K and MH-
47E.

Question. What are some of the operational procedures or new technologies that
will make our airmen less vulnerable?

Answer. SOCOM and its components have developed the Special Operations Liai-
son Element (SOLE) which provides a critical C2 node that coordinates and synchro-
nizes SOP Air and Surface Operations with Joint Air Operations. The SOLE inte-
grates and deconflicts SOF missions in support of the Joint Forces Commander's
overall mission objectives.

I am informed that USSOCOM and its components are developing and imple-
menting new tactics and doctrine as countermeasures to new threats to SOF air-
craft. AFSOC and USASOC have conducted new exploitation testing of its various
aircraft. AFSOC has completed a comprehensive rewrite of its tactics manual, and
its 18th Flight Test Squadron created a branch dedicated specifically to tactics. Fi-
nally, Research and Development programs at AFSOC/USASOC have provided new
systems to aid in the survivability of SOF. These advances fall into two main areas,
Aircraft Survivability Equipment and Weapons Technology.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES IN HAITI

Army Special Forces soldiers played a vital role in Haiti and have been described
as the sinews that are holding the island together.

Question. With the eventual redeployment of Special Forces from Haiti to other
critical regions, how will this affect the overall stability of the island? Should Spe-
cial Forces remain in Haiti, and if so, in what quantity and for how long?

Answer. The performance of Special Operations Forces (SOF) in Haiti was nothing
less than spectacular and clearly demonstrates the value of SOF in an era when
the traditional roles and missions of the military are being challenged almost daily.
The hallmarks of SOF, that is, their maturity, discipline, cultural awareness, and
language abilities, are what enabled ihem to be sucn an efrective force multiplier,
essentially allowing us to maintain an effective presence throughout the entire coun-
try with a minimum of conventional combat forces. SOF, perhaps more than any
other force, seem particularly suited to some of these "non-traditional" operations.
Their contribution in Haiti cannot be overstated * ♦ * they were a critical part of
the team and they performed superbly.

SOP have performed and accomplished their mission in a manner that does credit
to the institution and the United States. That mission is complete now in my opin-
ion, and the next mission belongs to the U.N. and the government and people of
Haiti. U.S. involvement in peacekeeping operations will come to a close on 29 Feb-
ruary 96. The military component of will be sharply reduced in the next few weeks
and responsibility for maintaining, a secure and stable environment will largely de-
fault to the Haitian National Police.

PRINCIPAL ROLE OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES SPECIAL OPERATIONS

Forces are used for a wide variety of missions ranging from humanitarian oper-
ations to unconventional warfare.

Question. What do you envision as the principal role for Special Operations
Forces?

Answer. SOF are a strategic asset to be applied when the mission cannot be per-
formed by conventional means. SOP^ serve three strategic purpxjses in the promotion
of national security: (1) SOF expand the range of options available to
decisionmakers confronting an increasing number of military ojjerations that fall be-
tween wholly diplomatic initiatives and overt use of large conventional forces, such
as terrorism, insurgency, narcotics trafficking, subversion, and sabotage. (2) SOF
provide a strategic economy of force andgenerate a strategic advantage dispropor-
tionate to the resources they represent. They are able to operate without the infra-
structure often needed by a larger force. SOF can be skillfully integrated with con-
ventional forces as a force multiplier, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of
the total military efTort. (3^ SOF provide the broadest range of capabilities to react
to situations requiring exceptional sensitivity, such as benign, noncombatant hu-
manitarian assistance and peace operations missions.

CIVIL AFFAIRS FUNCTION

One of the most highly stressed segments of the Special Operations Forces com-
munity has been civil affairs. Composed primarily of component personnel, these
forces have been the backbone of the United States' effort in recent years in such
remote places as the Kurdish area of northern Iraq and the Haitian countryside.

Question. Are you concerned about the stresses on the civil affairs segment and
do you have any plans to alleviate those stresses?

Answer. The Joint Staff completed a study for the Committee on Armed Services
in May 1995 that addressed whether operational requirements were adversely im-
pacting reserve CA and PSYOP units. The results showed that US Army Reserve
(USAR) CA and PSYOP soldiers averaged 42.8 duty days per year. The study did
not consider this number of mandays to be unusually high. USSOCOM and HQS
DA concurred in the conclusion.

USASOC conducted an analysis of the active CA/PSYOP forces' PERSTEMPO.
The result of this analysis indicated that the average active CA/PSYOP soldier was
deployed for 139 days. This was considered acceptable as it was below the UOC de-
sired 179 day annual limit for deployments.

The OPTEMPO of all SOF, and the effects thereof, will be a matter of special in-
terest to me if confirmed. That interest will certainly encompass the members of our
civil affairs teams. I do know that average fxjrsonnel numbers do not provide visi-
bility to the SOF CA/PSYOP team or individuals that frequently exceed the desired
limit of 179 days. I know commanders are proactively manage their forces to ensure
the PERSTE\fPO is maintained at an acceptable level by planning unit rotations
and personnel replacements.

DEMINING ASSISTANCE

Another important area for the use of Special Operations Forces is to train cadres
of foreign personnel to detect and remove landmines so that cadres can, in turn,
train other indigenous personnel for the important demining mission. This training
has provided entry for U.S. military personnel to countries in which they have not
previously had access. Some critics have maintained that these activities would be
better carried out by civilian contractor personnel.

Question. What is your view as to whether these activities should be carried out
by U.S. military personnel?

Answer. It is extremely important that US military personnel continue to play a
role in humanitarian demining of)erations. Our ability to conduct these operations
has gained access into nations that were previously not disposed to allow our forces
in for any reason.

An example is the demining operations that will commence this year in Laos.
These operations will facilitate our ability to conduct Joint Task Force Full Account-
ing missions in that nation which are our efforts to locate remains of MIAs. Eaually
important is the contact between our military and a host nation's military and gov-
ernmental officials in exposing them to our system in which a professional military
exists to serve democratically elected officials and the citizens of a nation.

Question. What is the value of these activities to the United States?

Answer. First, it is simply the right thing to do. Thousands of human beings,
many of them children, are killed or maimed around the world each year as a result
of indiscriminate use of landmines. Demining assists nations in which the ability
to grow crops, move them over roads safely to market and generally conduct the
normal processes of travel and trade has been degraded by lanamines.

The resulting economic hardships, (magnified bv the problem of providing expen-
sive emergency medical care and long term renabilitation to those maimed by
mines) destabilizes nations that are located in regions in which the US has vital
interests.

By training host nations to solve their mine problem, the United States helps en-
sure that it will not be necessary to send more forces to help solve more serious
problems. Humanitarian demining funds are provided to the Regional CINCs by
ASD SO/LlC (HRA) and they have covered all unit costs associated with providing
all phases of demining training to a host nation under current authority. There is
a tremendous humanitarian payoff, SOF soldiers get to train foreign military per-
sonnel (a primary task for them), they get to hone their language and cultural skills
and obtain valuable regional experience. SPECIAL OPERATIONS BUDGET

Question. Given the increased TEMPO and the continuing pressures on the de-
fense budget, how has the budget for the Special Operations Command been im-
pacted?

Answer. I know that the geographic CINCs worldwide operational requirements
for SOF have increased ancf that this trend is expected to continue. At the same
time, the USSOCOM MFP-11 TOA has been reduced by 11 percent from its original
programmed level in POM 94-99. 1 am informed that resources have been taken
from moderation accounts to cover the reduction in TOA, delaying essential on-going
programs and terminating others. The increased operational demands for SOF
worldwide require more MrM'-ll resources. With a declining budget, resources are
being taken from some currently funded modernization projects and applied to meet
real world emergent missions.

Question. Are there sufficient O&M funds programmed to maintain current readi-
ness?

Answer. Current O&M resources, including funds taken from modernization, are
sufficient to maintain readiness. However, some new moderation programs have
been delayed to allocate sufficient resources to ensure combat readiness. For 1997,
some reductions were taken in the operations account. Future reductions could en-
danger moderation efforts, and negatively impact force structure and try.

Question. Are there sufficient procurement funds programmed to ensure long term
readiness and modernization of these forces?

Answer. I am informed that the projected MFP-11 procurement and research and
development resources levels are not sufficient to pursue current moderation needs.
Sufficient funds must be provided to avoid the "hollow force" experiences of the past.

Due to the shrinking budgets and increased OI^EMPO, many modernization pro-
grams have been delayed. This inhibits the ability to continue to give our
warfighting soldiers, sailors, and airmen — who go in harm's way — the very best
equipment and training available.

V-22 A IRC RAPT

Question. Is the SOF version of the V-22 affordable? How many are planned to
be procured?

Answer. The V— 22 fills a critical mission need for SOF. It appears at this point
that the program is affordable. Joint efforts with the Navy are producing cost sav-
ings and nave minimized or eliminated potential redundancies within the program.
Additionally, the SOF V-22 purchase is dovetailed into the Marine purchase, which
ensures SOF airframes are produced at the most economical price. The basic V-22
airframes (identified as service common) are being procured by the Air Force. MFP-
11 should fund the SOF fxjculiar equipment and its installation.

The plan to procure 50 CV-22 aircrafl, to replace approximately 1(X) older aircraft
currently in the SOF inventory, is key to the SOF modernization program.

INTKRNATIONAL TERRORIS.M

Terrorism has proven to be an increasing threat to law enforcement and national
security. P^or years, our basic image of terrorism consisted of terrorists planning
against specific targets and primarily using weapons and explosives to deliver their
messages. U.S. law enforcement agencies have become involved in investigating
crime and terrorism which are associated with modern telecommunications such as
computer E-mail, the INTERNET, and the use of automated data bases. Weapwns
of mass destruction arc now in the picture.

Question. Have you observed similar occurrences: and, if so, how do you rec-
ommend dealing with the matter?

I am aware of no evidence of terrorist groups attacking or seriously planning to
attack computer or communication systems, although this is a potential future
threat.

I am aware of only a handful of terrorist-related weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) incidents, but this also an area of increasing concern. The sarin gas released
in the Tokyo subway by the Japanese cult last March underscores the impact of an
improvisea WMD type of attack. While terrorist attacks should continue to be con-
ducted with explosives and/or small arms, the extremely high imoact of a WMD type
attacks mandates priority intelligence collection to support early warning and, as
appropriate, preemption.

Question. In the same regard, what are your view on what motivates terrorists
and what we might do to counter those motivations? Are we focusing on the causes,
motivations, individuals and groups which are independent from the terrorists, but
may find benefit in cooperating with them?

Answer. Terrorist group motivations run the range of perceived grievances such
as political, regional, religious, cultural, ethnic, economic, and various combinations
of each. The causes are as varied as the countries the terrorists groups are based
in, but are common in that they use violent methods to bring attention to their
muse. States sponsor, use, and will continue to use, terrorism as an extension of
their foreign policy objectives. However, because of the extremist nature of individ-
uals that become terrorists, anything short of total victory for their causes will not
satisfy them.

Question. Are you satisfied with the level of international cooperation in resolving
terrorism? Do you have any recommendations for improvement?

Answer. Generally, the level of international cooperation is good, especially with
our traditional western allies. Cooperation has in fact increased with other nations
over the past year as shown with the success of the terrorist extradition program
directed at World Trade Center bombers remaining at large. International coopera-
tion is one of the keys to combatting terrorism.

POW/MIA MATTERS

The Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command is responsible for
many of the activities to achieve the fullest possible accounting of those who are
missing, captured, or detained by a hostile force.

Question. How important is this effort and what priority would you assign to it?

Answer. For any commander, achieving the fullest accounting of those who are
missing, captured, or detained by a hostile force must rank as one of his highest
priorities. Any member of our armed forces must have an abiding faith in this pre-
cept. USSOCOM was established with the primary function of preparing special op-
erations forces (SOF) to carry out assigned missions. USSOCOM s ability to carry
out its primary SOF missions and collateral tasks gives the National Command Au-
thorities a wide range of options to deal with POW/MIA issues.

MAJOR CHALLENGES

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Com-
mander in Chief United States Special Operations Command?

Answer. USSOCOM has four primary functions in support of the National Secu-
rity Strategy and the National Military Strategy of the United States. These are:

1. Provide trained and ready SOF to the NCA and Regional Unified Commanders,
in peace and war, in support of strategic or operational objectives.

2. Provide integrateo, joint strategic planning designed to support the needs of
USSOCOM customers, now and into the future.

3. Develop resourcing strategies designed to provide the most effective and capa-
ble special operations force to the NCA and Regional Unified Commanders.

4. Design requisitions and programs to support the SOF warrior in our oper-
ational missions, now and into the future.

Accordingly the major challenges facing USCINCSOC are to develop forward
thinking, customer oriented strategies that ensure the availability and relevancy of
SOF while managing Major F'orce Program 11 to efiectively support those strategies.
USSOCOM must accomplish these challenges in light of increased opx^rational re-
quirements in an environment of decreased p)ersonnel and resources.

SOF must provide the NCA with a force capable of answering the special needs
of our nation. SOF has already moved down that road with the assignment of the
mission areas of Counterproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Informa-
tion Warfare.

As new threats emerge, SOF' will closely examine those threats and provide timely
and effective response through strategic planning, resourcing, acquisition, and oper-
ational support. Using SOF's newly implemented Strategic Planning System, vye
will identify those missions that are no longer relevant for SOF. These missions will
be proposea for transfer to conventional forces, as appropriate.

Finally, with the increase demand for SOF worldwide, USCINCSOC will face the
scant challenge of balancing our operational tempo and personnel tempo to ensure
successful accomplishment of the SOF mission while maintaining the effective train-
ing, education, professional development and quality of life programs.

MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the perform-
ance of the functions of Commander in Chief United States Special Operations Com-
mand?

Answer. The most serious challenge I see for CINCSOC is to continue to provide
trained and properly equipped SOF to meet the requirements of the regional com-
manders while simultaneously ensuring these forces maintain their technological
advantage.

Question. What management actions and time lines would you establish to ad-
dress these problems?

Answer. A meaningful answer to this question requires a familiarity with the
USSOCOM operation beyond my knowledge as the Commander, Airborne Corps. If
confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to return and discuss this matter in
depth with the committee. This issue will obtain my immediate attention.

QUALIFICATIONS

If confirmed, you will be entering this important position at a time of heightened
tensions and increased potential for confiict.

Question. What background and experience do you have that you believe qualifies
you for this position?

Answer. I believe I am qualified for this position by virtue of my previous assign-
ments training, and responsibilities. As both a Ranger and special forces qualified
ofiicer, I have served as a Ranger instructor and as a Special Forces Commander
in the Republic of Vietnam. Personally, I am both SCUBA and free-fall qualified.
Most importantly, my experiences while serving in two separate joint assignments
have provided me with the most significant learning experience to assume the posi-
tion under your consideration.

While serving as the Deputy Director for Operations, National Military Command
Center, J-3, Joint Staff, I was resfX)nsible for the immediate response to requests
and directives of National Command Authorities. I was the mediator for sensitive
worldwide operations, exercises and events. I briefed and supervised briefings on
worldwide political-military matters. I eventually assumed the position of Director
for Current Operations where I was responsible for worldwide control of current op-
erations, maintenance of plans, and emergency procedures during crises. I was the
focal point for matters pertaining to current military operations. Unconventional
warfare, special plans special technical operations and activities, counterterrorism,
reconnaissance and counternarcotics.

Perhaps most importantly was my role as the Commander, Joint Task Force
Haiti. In this capacity, I had the distinct pleasure of serving with the best and the
brightest within our military. Steering the helm of such an organization provided
me with the insight and knowledge necessary for the overall management of a uni-
fied command. I was able to effectively plan for and employ a wide range of SOF
capabilities and activities involving special forces, rangers, SOF aviation, civil af-
fairs, reVOP, SEAI^ and JSOC. This included both active and reserve components.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities, it is im-
portant that this committee and other appropriate committees of the 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 the Congress?

Answer. Yes, I do.

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the administration in power?

Answer. Yes, I do.

Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of information are provided to this committee and its staff and other appro-
priate committees?

Answer. Yes, I do.

[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Henry H. Shelton follows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

December 18. 1995.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named officer for appointment to the grade of general while as-
signed to a position of importance and responsibility under Title 10, United States
Code, Section 601(a):

To be General
Lt. Gen. Henry H. Shelton, 4698, United States Army.

[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Henry H. Shelton, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]

Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, January 5, 1996.
Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The President has forwarded to you under separate cover
the following nomination.

For appointment to the grade of General.

Lieutenant General Henry H. Shelton, Commanding General, XVIH Airborne

Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as Commander in Chief,

United States Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.

For the information of the Committee, I am enclosing a military career resume

for this officer showing his assignments and grades held.

Sincerely,

Morris J. Boyd,
Major General, U.S. Army,
Chief of Legislative Liaison.
Enclosure.

Resume of Service Career of Lt. Gen. Henry Hugh Shelton

Date and place of birth: 2 January 1942, Tarboro, North Carolina.

Years of active commissioned service: Over 32.

Present assignment: Commanding General, XVHI Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg,

Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307, since June 1993.
Military schools attended:

The Infantry School, Basic and Advanced Courses, Air Command and Staff Col-
lege, National War College
Educational degrees:

North Carolina State University — BS Degree — Textile Engineering

Auburn University — MS Degree — Political Science
Foreign language(s): None recorded.

MAJOR DUTY ASSIGNMErfTS

From

Assignment

Jul 63

Sep 63

Student, Infantry Officer Basic Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Geor-

Nov 63

Apr 64

gia
Platoon Leader, Headquarters Company. 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry, 2d Infantry Division, Fort
Benning, Georgia.

Apr 64

Jun 64

Student. Ranger Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning. Georgia.

Jun 64

Jul 65

Platoon Leader, Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Benning,
Georgia.

Jul 65

Sep 66

United States Army Reserve, not on Active Duty.

Sep 66

Jul 67

Platoon Leader, Detachment B52, 5th Special Forces Group, 1st Special Forces, United States
Army, Vietnam.

Jul 67

Dec 67

Commander, Detachment A-104, Company C, 5th Special Forces Group, United States Army

Pacific
Executive Officer, 11th Battalion, 3d Training Brigade, United States Army Training Center, Fort

Jan 68

Mar 68

Jackson, South Carolina

Mar 68

Dec 68

S 4 (Logistics), 3d Advanced Individual Training Brigade, Fort Jackson, South Carolina

Jan 69

Jan 70

S-2 (intelligence), later Commander, Company C, later Acting S-3 (Operations), 4th Battalion,
503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade, United States Army, Vietnam.

Mar 70

Nov 70

Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning,
(jeorgia.

Nov 70

Jul 72

Instructor, later Operations Officer, Ranger Department, United States Army Infantry School,
Fort Benning, Cieorgia

Aug 72

Jun 73

Student, Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alat)ama.

Jul 73

Jul 75

S-1 (Personnel), later S-3 (Operations), 2d Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks,

Hawaii.
Chief, Officer Management Branch, later Deputy G-1 (Personnel), 25th Infantry Division,

Jul 75

Jun 76

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.

Jun 76

Jun 77

Executive Officer, 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry, 2J Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield
Barracks, Hawaii.

Jun 77

Apr 79

Professional Development Officer, Comtiat Arms Branch, later. Chief, Assignments Branch, Ma-
jors Division, Officer Personnel Management Directorate, United States Army Military Person-
nel Center, Alexandria, Virginia,

Apr 79

Jun 81

Ck)mmander, 3d Battalion, 60th Infantry, 2d Brigade, 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash-
ington
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3 (Operations), 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Washington.

Jun 81

Jun 82

Jun 83

Student. National War College, Fori McNair, Washington, DC

Jun 83

Oct 83

Chairman, Reserve Components Study Group, Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Unit-
ed States Army, Washington, DC

Oct 83

Oct 85

Ck)mmander, 1st Brigade, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, ftorth Carolina

Nov 85

Jul 87

Chief of Staff, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, New York.

Jul 87

Jun 88

Deputy Director for Operations, National Military Command Center, J-3, Organization of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC.

Jun 88

Jul 89

Deputy Director for Operations (Current Operations), J-3, Organization of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, Washington, DC

Jul 89

Aug 90

Assistant Division Commander, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

Aug 90

Mar 91

Assistant Division Commander, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault, DESERT STORM, Saudi
Arabia.

Mar 91

May 91

Assistant Division Commander, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

May 91

May 93

Commanding General, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

DATES OF APPOINTMENT

Promotions

Temporary

Permanent

2LT

19 Sep 64

1 IT

7 Jan 65

19 Mar 67

7 Feb 74

19 Sep 67
19 Sep 71
19 Sep 78
6 Nov 78

CRT

LTC

COL

1 Oct 83

1 Aug 88
1 Oct 91

LTG

7 Jun 93

U.S. Decorations and badges:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)

Distinguished Service Medal

Legion of Merit (with Oak Leaf Cluster)

Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)

Purple Heart

Meritorious Service Medal (with 2 Oak I^eaf Clusters)

Air Medals

Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)

Combat Infantryman Badge

Master Parachutist Badge

Pathfinder Badge

Special Forces Tab

Ranger Tab

Air Assault Badge

Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
Source of commission: ROTC.

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS

Assignments '

Dates

Grade

Deputy Director for Operations, National Military Command Center, later Deputy
Director for Operations (Current Operations), J- 3, Organization of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC.

Commander, Joint Task Force, Haiti

Jul 87-Jul 89

Sep 94 -Oct 94

Brigadier General

Lieutenant General

>As ot 5 Januaiy 1995

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial, and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Lt. Gen. Henry H. Shelton 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 ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B— 4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

Part A— Biographical Information

Instructions to the No.minee: 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.)
Henry Hugh Shelton.

2. Position to which nominated:

Commander, XVI II Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5000

3. Dat« of nomination:

December 18, 1995.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and tne information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
January 2, 1942; Tarboro, NC.

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

7. Names and ages of children:

Jonathan Hugh Shelton, 28; Jeffrey Michael Shelton, 26; and Mark Philip
Shelton, 17.

8. Government experience: List any advisory, consultative, honorary of other
part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than
those listed in the service record extract provided to the Committee by the Executive
Branch.

Chairman, Combined Federal Campaign.

9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an officer, direc-
tor, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corpora-
tion, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, educational or other institution.

None.

10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civilj business, charitable and other organizations.

Member, North Carolina Farmers' Alliance
Member, North Carolina State Alumni Association
Member, National War College Association
Member, Association of the United States Army

Ex-Officio Member, Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, Fay-
etteville, North Carolina

Honorary Chairman, Combined Federal Campaign
Member, 82d Airborne Division Association
Member, Ranger Association

11. Honors and awards: List scholarships, fellowships, honorary society mem-
berships, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or achievements
other than those listed on the service record extract provided to the Committee by
the Executive Branch.

None.

12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly constitutea committee
of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power?

Yes.

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

Signature and Date

I hereby state that I have read and signed the foregoing Statement on Biographi-
cal and financial Information and that the information provided therein is, to the
best of my knowledge, current, accurate, and complete.

Henry H. Shelton.

This 20th day of Nov., 1995.

[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Henry H. Shelton was reported to
the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on February 1, 1996, with

the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomi-
nation was confirmed by the Senate on February 1, 1996.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. G^n. Eugene E. Habiger bv
Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supphed fol-
low:

Department of the Air Force,
Headquarters United States Air Force,

January 31, 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the questions
from the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is an honor to have been nominated
by the President to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command. I respectfully
submit the enclosed responses to your questions on the important defense policy and
management issues and look forward to working with you and the committee.
Sincerely,

Eugene E. Habiger,
Lieutenant General, USAF,
Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel.

Enclosure.

cc: Senator Sam Nunn.

Ranking Minority Member.

Questions and Responses
defense reforms

More than nine years have passed since the enactment of the Goldwater- Nichols
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and Special Operations reforms.

Question. Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes, I strongly support the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the
Special Operations reforms. Hey have definitely strengthened our Armed Forces and
the effectiveness of our combatant commanders.

Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?

Answer. I believe the entire Department of Defense has vigorously and success-
fully pursued implementation of these important reforms.

Question. What do you consider to be tne most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. The most positive aspect Is the overall improvement of our joint
warfighting ability. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has resulted in much needed im-
provements in joint doctrine, joint professional military education, and strategic
Rlanning. Another important element Is clarity in the chain of command from tne
fational Command Authorities to the combatant commanders and unambiguous re-
sponsibility placed upon each CINC for execution of mission and preparedness of as-
signed forces.

Question. Do you believe that the authority of the combatant commanders under
Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies and processes in exist-
ence allow that role to be fulfilled?

Answer. Yes. The law gives combatant commanders sufficient authority they need
to carry out their assigned missions. This has been well demonstrated through the
many comply joint operations conducted since legislation was enacted, as well as the
ongoing superb work of strategic deterrence by U.S. Strategic Command.

REIJ^TIONSHIPS

Section 162(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides that the chain of command
runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and from the Secretary of De-
fense to the combatant commands. Other sections of law and traditional practice,
however, establish important relationships outside the chain of command. Please de-
scribe your understanding of the relationship of the Commander in Chief, United
States Stratec Command to the following offices.

Question. The Under Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. Under current DOI) Directives, Under Secretaries of Defense coordinate
and &change information with DOD components, such as combatant commands,
having collateral or related functions. As a combatant commander! will respond ana
reciprocate. This coordination I expect will be communicated through the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C**! I^egis-
lative Affairs, all Assistant Secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under Sec-
retaries of Defense. This means any relationship STRATCOM would require with
any Assistant Secretary of Defense would be throijgh the Under Secretary of De-
fense for Policy. Since the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C^I and Legislative
Affairs are SecDefs principal deputies for overall supervision of C^I and Legislative
matters respectively, any relations required between STRATCOM and ASD(C^I) or
ASD(IjA) would be conducted along the same lines as those discussed above regard-
ing relations with the various Under Secretaries of Defense.

Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. TTie Chairman is clearly established by title 10 as the principal military
advisor to the NCA. However, he serves as an advisor and is not in tne chain of
command that runs from the NCA directly to each combatant commander. The law
does allow the IVesidcnt to direct that communications between him and the Sec-
retary of Defense be transmitted through the Chairman, and President Clinton has
directed this to continue to happen in the recently revised Unified Command Plan.
This action keeps the Chairman fully involved so that he can execute his other legal
responsibilities. Certainly a key responsibility is his role as spokesman for the
CINCs, especially on the operational requirements of their respective commands.
While the legal duties of the Chairman are many and they require either his rep-
resentation or personal participation in a wide range of issues, my reading of Title
10 says that as a CINC, I will have the obligation to keep the Secretary oi Defense
promptly informed on matters for which he may hold me personally accountable. A
CINC's duty is to work with and through the Chairman to provide for the security
of his command and execute NCA-directed taskings.

Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. When functioning as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's relation-
ship with CINCs is exactly that of the Chairman. The 103rd Congress amended
Title 10 to give the Vice Chairman the same right and obligation that other mem-
bers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to submit an opinion or advice to the Presi-
dent, National Security Council, or Secretary of Defense if their views disagree with
those of the Chairman. As a CINC I would readily listen to Vice Chairman's
thoughts on any general defense matter considered by the Joint Chiefs of staff. Fi-
nally, because the Vice Chairman also plays a key role on many boards and panels
that affect planning and programming, and therefore the preparedness of
STRATCOM, I believe his insights are extremely valuable and I would certainly
seek his counsel.

Question. The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Unified Command Plan makes the CINC the single point of contact
for providing US military representation within his assigned responsibilities. To
meet this responsibility, CINCs must be fully engaged in the interagency process
as It considers matters under their purview. I know that the Assistant to the Chair-
man has an extensive charter to represent the Chairman in the interagency process.
While there are no direct lines connecting the Assistant to the Chairman to any
combatant commander, what the Assistant knows and can share about the inter-
agency process with any CINC is u.seful and will be requested. The Assistant to the
Chairman also works on matters of personal interest to the Chairman which may
require him to consult with me as a combatant commander.

Question. The Director of the Joint Staff.

Answer. The Director of the Joint Staff has many significant responsibilities
which require interaction with STRATCOM. Most importantly, the Director is gen-
erally the point of contact for .soliciting information from all the CINCs and tneir
staffs when the Chairman Is developing a position on any important issue.

Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.

Answer. Title 10, section 165 provides that, subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the SecDef and subject to the authority of combatant commanders, the
Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible for the administration and sup-
port of the forces they have assigned to combatant commands. The authority exer-
cised by a combatant commander over Service components is quite clear, but re-
quires dose coordination with each Secretary to ensure there is no infringement
upon those lawful responsibilities a Service Secretary alone may discharge.

Question. The Chiefs of StafTof the Services.

Answer. Service Chiefs are no longer involved in the direct operational chain of
command. They now have two significant roles. They are responsible for the organi-
zation, training, and equipping of their respective Service. Without the full supfwrt
and cooperation of the Service Chiefs, no CINC can hope to ensure the preparedness
of his assigned forces for whatever missions the NCA directs. Next, as members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation to provide mili-
tary advice. Individually and collectively, the Joint Chiefs are a source of experience
and judgment that every CINC can and should call upon. If confirmed as
STRATCOM, I intend to conduct a full dialogue with the Chiefs of all four Services.

STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH RUSSIA

Question. As political and strategic relations between the United States and the
Russian Federation continue to improve, and as proliferation increases the complex-
ity of the deterrence equation, do you believe that the United States should begin
to integrate strategic defensive capabilities and strategies into its deterrence plan-
ning?

Answer. I believe the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means
to deliver them (missiles), in some cases by nations with an historical or dem-
onstrated enmity toward the United States, gives us reason to pursue development
of defensive capabilities against missile threats to United States interests in a
measured, threat based program.

Strategic defense must be viewed in light of its efTect on the entire deterrence
equation, including alliances and treaties, as well as on technological capabilities
and resource limitations. I believe that consideration of strategic defense will in-
creasingly be viewed as an essential element of our deterrence planning.

Question. Notwithstanding the U.S. -Russian de-targeting agreements, there seems
to be little evidence of a fundamental shift in Russian strategic doctrine. In fact,
the trend in Russia seems to be continued adherence to a nuclear war-fighting, dam-
age-limiting strategy. Does this trend pose any serious challenges for STRATCOM
as U.S. strategic forces are reduced and as the United States reduces the robustness
of its strategic command and control posture?

Answer. Russia's strategic nuclear forces continue to be an important foundation
for their national military power, and they continue to modernize their forces. As
long as we maintain a stable and reciprocal drawdown with Russia to agreed levels,
we will retain the strategic force structure necessary to maintain an effective deter-
rent.

NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

Question. When Deputy Secretary Deutch presented the Nuclear Posture Review
to the Committee in September 1994, he stated that a detailed implementation plan
would be forthcoming. What is the status of this plan?

Answer. The Nuclear Posture Review's recommendations, approved by the Presi-
dent, were based on the ratification and entry into force (EIF) of the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START) II. Since the Russian DUMA has not yet ratified START
II, full implementation of the NPR is being held in abeyance. The NPR implementer
which Secretary Perry signed 11 September 1995, gives specific guidance to the
Service Secretaries and explicitly ties their actions to START II EEP. I understand
that no strategic systems will be downloaded, deactivated or removed from combat
status prior to START II EIF except to comply with START I limits. Additionally,
Service Secretaries must notify the Secretary of Defense 180 days prior to beginning
any download or deactivation of weapon systems to ensure our drawdowns are syn-
chronized with Russian implementation of START II.

Question. Do you believe that any of the findings or recommendations contained
in the Nuclear Posture Review need to be reconsidered?

Answer. No. The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was a comprehensive review of
all aspects of our nuclear force structure and policies. This review was conducted
over a period of 14 months by representatives from the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, combatant CINCs, and the military services with full con-
sideration of the then current political conditions, the best threat intelligence as-
sessment, and with the expectation of a START II Treaty entry into force. I believe
that the results of the NPR were completely correct for the conditions under which
the review was conducted, and remain so today; reconsideration would be appro-
priate if the assumptions under which the NPR was conducted were to change.

MISSILE DEFENSE AND START TREATY

Question. Some have advocated early retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM and
early downloading of the Minuteman III. Do you believe that the United States
should take either of these actions prior to entry into force of the START II Treaty?

Answer. No. It Is important that we maintain a stable drawdown of forces and
not make any irreversible arms reductions unilaterally. To that end, I do not advo-
cate proceeding to START II limits or recommend negotiating follow-on agreements
without START II entry into force. I am hopeful that START II will eventually enter
into force and that we can continue to manage a stable drawdown of nuclear forces
in cooperation with Russia. However, as long as implementation of START II re-
mains in question, we must retain the full complement of weapons and platforms
consistent with our START I obligations.

Question. If Russia does not ratify the START II Treaty in the near future, the
United States will have to consider plans for retaining the Peacekeeper ICBM be-
yond 2003. What would this entail, both in terms of planning and budgeting? When
would the decisions need to be made?

Answer. In the event that START II is ratified, I understand that our plans in-
volve the complete retirement of the Peacekeeper system by 2003. There are several
years of lead time needed to incrementally retire the system to meet that deadline.
With the START II treaty awaiting Russian ratification, we need to continue to
maintain the viability of the Peacekeeper system. I am not aware that final deci-
sions on planning and budgeting for that possibility have been made.

Question. Do you favor reductions in strategic nuclear delivery systems beyond
those envisioned in the START II Treaty?

Answer. Over the last decade, we've reduced our strategic delivery systems by
about 70 percent, and START II is a point of departure for further reductions. In
my view, the essential criterion is whether further reductions would enhance strate-
gic stability and serve the national interest, and that will depend on many vari-
ables. In my opinion from the outside looking in right now, further limitations on
delivery systems without achieving commensurate reductions in the weapons them-
selves can be destabilizing rather than stabilizing. And this will require substantial
progress in gaining mutual transparency in weapon stockpiles and fissile materials.

Question. Do you believe there is a floor below which the United States should
not proceed?

Answer. Our strategic objective should be stability, not a specific nuclear weapons
"floor". Our actions should be guided by a mutual trust which not only involves war-
head reductions, but other issues such as transparency into nuclear weapon stock-
piles. In addition, we must always take into account our broader strategic concerns
beyond the specific U.S. -Russian relationship, including emerging threats and the
impact of reductions on our allies.

Question. Are you familiar with the Air Force proposal to use some part of the
Grand Forks ICBM infrastructure to support national missile defense (including
silos, launch control centers, and Minuteman boosters)?' Given that any NMD sys-
tem based on this infrastructure would be START accountable, how many NMD
interceptors/silos would we be able to deploy (up to the limit of 150 feasible at
Grand Forks) without undermining U.S. strategic offensive requirements?

Answer. Yes. However, I am not in a position to address the specific tradeoffs in-
volved without further study.

Question. Has DOD made any formal decision to equip some or all of the Minute-
man III ICBMs with the Mark 21 warhead? In your view, how many of the Minute-
man III missiles should carry the Mark 21, and when should that transition begin?

Answer. I am aware the Air Force has a program to replace the MM III Mkl2
warheads with the Mk21 warheads removed from the Peacekeeper missile, and that
USSTRATCOM and the Air F'orce are working toward a mutually agreeable solu-
tion. The full program is predicated on the successful ratification of START II which
will determine the availability of Mk21 warheads and the timelines under which
such a transition would occur.

Question. Do you believe the United States should initiate START II arms reduc-
tions before Russia ratifies the agreement?

Answer. No. We should not proceed unilaterally with START II reductions. To do
so could remove Russia's incentive to ratify the Treaty and jeopardize strategic sta-
bility.

Question. Do you think we should maintain essential parity as the U.S. and Rus-
sia begin to implement the START II Treaty?

Answer. Yes, both sides should be comfortable that the other is proceeding in good
faith in fulfilling Treaty obligations.

BOMBERS

Question. If the U.S. keeps 94 B-^2H bombers in the active inventory, how would
that affect wai+iead loading under STAET I and START II (assuming we also have
20 B-2s capable of performing the nuclear mission)?

Answer. In my opinion, the Nuclear Posture Review's recommended bomber struc-
ture of 66 B-52Hs and 20 B-2s is the right strategic bomber force see to meet
STRATCOM's warfighting requirements under START II. Under START I counting
rules, keeping 94 B-52s in the active inventory does not impact warhead loading.
Under STAJRT II, additional bombers would require adjustments in warhead load-
ing. There are many variables involved, and I would have to study this carefully
with the command if confirmed to assess the full impact.

STRATEGIC KXKRCISES

Question. How should STRATCOM exercises be modified, if at all, to reflect the
post-Cold War era?

Answer. I understand that STRATCOM's exercise program has indeed evolved in
the post-Cold War era. The basic exercise architecture has changed to encompass
a more adaptive way of responding to diverse threats. More recent, exercises have
increasingly emphasized support for the theater commanders in addressing regional
crises where the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is an issue.

INDUSTRIAL BASE

Question. From STRATCOM's perspective are there key sectors of the U.S. Indus-
trial Base that must be protected? What is the current status of on-going efforts in
this area?

Answer. It is my personal conviction that the support and sustainment of our
strategic systems are absolutely essential to ensure a continued, viable deterrent.
This nation has in hand or in production all of Its major strategic systems. Since
there are no follow-ons in progress, and existing systems must be maintained for
an unforeseeable length of time, it is crucial for us to ensure continued support for
key strategic components and systems unique to the defense sector.

In that light, it is my understanding that Strategic Command, in coordination
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Services, is currently pursuing
such industrial capability initiatives as those supporting space based communication
and sensor systems, strategic missile guidance technology, propellant technology
and reentry vehicle design capability. These initiatives and others supporting cru-
cial technologies and systems set a foundation which will be built upon to keep stra-
tegic forces robust and modem in both the near and long term.

TRIDENT II SUBMARINE FX)RCE

Question. The Committee has expressed concern that the United States not pre-
maturely rule out the option of retaining an 18 Trident II force, even though this
exceeds the number recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. What are your
news on these concerns?

Answer. I understand an SSBN force of 14 submarines crying the D-5 missile,
as recommended by the NPR, is sufficient for the sea-based leg of the START II
force structure. Ensuring that all our operational SSBNs are equipp)ed with the D-
5 missile is of particular concern; the C— 4 missile will not last the life of the sub-
marine hulls without substantial investment in life extension programs. In any
event, until START II enters into force, we should retain 18 Trident submarines.

CONVERSION OF STRATEGIC SYSTEMS FOR CONVENTIONAL MISSIONS

Question. Do you believe that the United States should configure some part of its
inventory of ICBMs and SLBMs to perform conventional missions, such as attacking
deep underground facilities?

Answer, f am aware and support the Services in evaluating the technological fea-
sibility of using conventionally armed ballistic systems in this manner. Such a capa-
bility could provide valuable options to decision makers. However, the arms control
and policy implications of fielding a conventionally armed system of this type will
have to be studied carefully.

EXTREMELY 1X)W FREQUENCY (ELF) COMMUNICATIONS

Question. Do you support continued operation of the Extremely Low Frequency
(ELF) communication system? Do you believe that this system is cost effective and

necessary, especially in light of other U.S. decisions to downgrade U.S. strategic
command and control?

Answer. A strong command and control capability remains of the utmost Impor-
tance to the success of our nation's strategic deterrence in this and any era. Post-
Cold War reposturing resulted in placing more emphasis on submarines as the
major leg of our nuclear deterrence. ELF is the only communications system that
allows SSBNs to utilize their full range of tactical capabilities and maximize inher-
ent stealth, thereby providing the operational flexibility needed to support command
and control requirements stemming from force structure and mission changes. Both
ELF communication sites, operating simultaneously, are needed to meet our world-
wide requirements. Dismantling this critical system would unacceptably impact the
survivability and flexibility of our submarine forces.

NUCLEAR WEAPO.NS AND THE DOE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX

Question. Are you in full agreement with the findings and approach of the Nuclear
Posture Review (NPK) as it delineates requirements for the E>cpartment of Energy's
infrastructure for producing and maintaining nuclear weapons?

Can you describe any differences you may have with the NPR, in particular with
the requirements for the DOE weapons infrastructure?

Can you describe those areas of the NPR which you believe need to be more com-
plete, more explicit, or which you intend to give special emphasis should you be con-
firmed as CINCSTRAT in particular with respect to DOE?

Which elements of the NPR need to be updated, in particular with respect to
DOE?

If you determine that there is a problem with a U.S. nuclear weapon, will you
immediately notify the Senate Armed Services Committee?

The Nuclear Posture Review called for an affordable hedge in which the approved
force structure could support weapons levels greater that those called for under
START II should 'major geostrategic changes demand it.

Can you define this hedge both qualitatively and quantitatively?

How long will It take to uphold the number of platforms available under these
circumstances?

If DOE is required to maintain both the active and inactive stockpiles in the same
state of readiness, will DOD have an adequate number of platforms to accommodate
the number of warheads kept in that state of readiness, with exception of weapons
set aside for quality control and other similar purposes?

Will the hedge require that the inactive stockpile be maintained in the same state
of readiness as the active stockpile?

Will a post-START II active and inactive stockpile, as planned in the new Nuclear
Weapons Stockpile Memorandum, be adequate to fulfill the requirements for such
an upload hedge? Will a post START II inactive stockpile require tritium gas and
limited lifetime components to meet the upload hedge requirements? Is the DOD
plan for tritium production adequate to meet present and future needs in the
present START I scenario without a signed START II treaty? Is the DOE plan for
tritium production adequate to meet present and future needs in the present START
I scenario, without a signed START II treaty? Is the DOE plan for tritium produc-
tion adequate to meet present and future needs if the START II treaty is finally
signed?

Is the DOE plan for pit production and re-fabrication adequate qualitatively and
quantitatively?

DOE has testified that its plan for maintaining stockpile confidence in lieu of un-
derground testing is not guaranteed to work. DOE has also testified that it does not
believe that the weapons in this oldest of nuclear stockpiles need to be rebuilt and
that DOE does not nave a plan for ensuring* an adequate remanufacturing infra-
structure.

In light of this, of the DOE programs for Stockpile Stewardship (confidence) and
for Stockpile Management (surveillance and production) provide suitable milestones
for DOD to judge, with confidence, that the - stockpile will remain safe and reliable?

Has DOE requested sufficient funds to ensure that the U.S. nuclear stockpile will
remain safe and reliable in both the near and long term?

The stockpile stewardship program is a long-term plan. Even if this program is
demonstrated to be successful, will the "bow wave" be so far out that there will be
a gap in our confidence in stockpile safety and reliability?

By statute, the DOP] R«&D and production program is to be under a fiag officer.
Under the present Administration, this does not appear to be the case. Does this
effect STRATCOM's working relationship with DOD^

In June 1995 the DOE laboratory directors recommended that stockpile steward-
ship, underground hydro nuclear tests and underground 500 ton test be performed
to maximize stockpile confidence. This conclusion and this 50-year-old means of
doing business was ignored by the Secretary of Energy in favor of a JASON report
whicn recommended no underground testing and which did not involve the nuclear
weapons laboratory directors or responsible military and DOD officials.

V/nat is your view of the technical accuracy of each of these processes?

Will you look to the weapons laboratory directors in the future for expert views
on the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons stockpile or will you look to outside
consultants instead?

Some Administration officials have suggested that under START II, only 3,500
nuclear weapons need to be maintained in the active U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile,
and that a ready inactive stockpile is unnecessary. What is your opinion on this
matter?

As the customer, are you confident an improved accelerator technology can meet
all the tritium requirements of the United States?

Please comment in detail on the role you will play in certifying the safety and
reliability of our nuclear weapons?

Do you believe the Congress will need to increase DOE funding to allow that de-
partment to meet its nuclear weapons responsibilities to the Nation?

Answer. Given my current position, I am not familiar with the intricate details
necessary to give you a thoughtful, comprehensive response to your many questions
in this area at this time. If confirmed, I pledge to immerse myself in this area to
come up to speed, but please allow me to comment generally on the focus of your
questions.

The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reaffirmed the viability of the Nuclear Triad
as well as the importance of a "lead and hedge" strategy. Under START II limits,
we have a minimum force structure, with suflicient fiexibility to respond to future
challenges. It is essential to preserve our reconstitution capability as a hedge
against unwelcome political or strategic developments. When oTART II is ratified
by the Russians ana entered into force, we will need to move toward the NPR-ap-
proved force structure in a prudent way. We should not be hasty in taking irrevers-
ible steps to eliminate weapons platforms or capabilities.

With or without nuclear testing, the United States must ensure that its nuclear
stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable. I recognize that CINCSTRAT has spe-
cific responsibility in that regard. Strategic Command should continue to carefully
monitor DOE progress in developing a viable stockpile stewardship plan, and assist
as necessary to lay out tasks to be accomplished and resources required. I under-
stand that good progress is being made through the coordinated efforts of DOD and
DOE, but I nave not seen the final product of their efforts.

NUCLEAR TRIAD

Question. Do you believe that the nuclear triad is essential to maintain nuclear
deterrence? Would you support negotiations with Russia to eliminate the land-based
leg of the triad?

Answer. The triad is essential, and as it now exists, is sufficient to carry out na-
tional policy guidance, given the current strategic environment. The triad has
served us well in the past, and planned adjustments under the NPR and START
II preserve the triad well into the future. Before considering changes to the composi-
tion of our forces, we must carefully weigh the effects that sucn a change would
have on the synergy of our nuclear forces. Each triad leg brings its own unique
strengths to the equation, providing the National Command Authority with options
and flexibility in time of crisis.

It seems to me that elimination of the ICBM leg would be risky and destabilizing,
by simplifying an adversary's targeting problem and removing an important capabil-
ity that can not readily be replaced.

MAJOR CHALLENGES

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Com-
mander in Chief, United States Strategic Command? If confirmed, what plans do
you have for addressing these challenges.

Answer. Strategic Command's mission is to ensure that the nation's deterrent re-
mains viable so that we do not have to use our nuclear forces. In my view, the com-
mand's principal challenge is to continue to ensure a safe, reliable, and effective de-
terrent in a world still characterized by instability, uncertainty, and real and poten-
tial dangers. This challenge has two facets. First, the end of the Cold War has
brought substantial improvements to our security, allowing significant reductions in

the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and the former Soviet Union. At the
same time, I am especially concerned about the persistent and, in some respects,
growing threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery.

The Nuclear Posture Review recognized the reduced role of nuclear weapons in
our defense posture but reaffirmed the important contribution which nuclear weap-
ons will continue to make to our nation's deterrent strength. The United States is
already well on its way to meeting its obligations under the START I Treaty and
is prepared to move toward START II force levels once that treaty enters into force.
As these reductions continue (with or without START II), we need to ensure that
our force reductions are managed in a way that reinforces the stability of our strate-
gic relationships. I expect to be quite active in ensuring that we strike the right bal-
ance in our resource allocation and force sizing efforts and in fostering productive
military-to-military contacts which further our threat reduction and confidence
building activities.

In parallel with responsible management of our relationship with Russia, I believe
we need to strengthen our capabilities to respond to strategic challenges that mav
emerge elsewhere, whether in a global or regional context. In that regard, I look
forward to building on the cooperation which Strategic Command already enioys
with other combatant CINCs. This is not just a weapons issue, but also one of plan-
ning, intelligence, exercises, force management, resources, and command and control
so tnat the nation is prepared to respond to a variety of contingencies.

MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the perform-
ance of the functions of Commander in Chief, United States Strategic Command?
What management actions and time lines would you establish to address these
problems?

Answer. As I noted, Strategic Command's challenge is to continue to ensure a via-
ble deterrent for the nation. Strategic nuclear forces today do not require an exces-
sive investment to provide a safe, reliable, and effective deterrent in this uncertain
world. I have been told that they constitute little more than three percent of the
nation's defense budget. But we need to maintain and strengthen this deterrent for
the long haul. Weapons platforms will typically need to be sustained well beyond
their initial design lives. Industrial sectors on which we rely must not be allowed
to atrophy. We must maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons
stockpile. We will grow increasingly dependent on technology and information so
that we can do our job more efficiently. And we must always support and keep faith
with our people: We ask a lot of them and their families, whether on alert, on pa-
trol, on deployment, or juggling multiple missions with fewer resources.

Ultimately, these issues require the judicious investment of scarce resources. If
confirmed, I intend to ensure that, as a combatant command, we have identified our
requirements carefully, and to work with those responsible for allocating defense re-
sources to fill those requirements in a cost-effective manner.

QUALIFICATIONS

Question. Section 164 of Title 10, United States Code, requires a combatant com-
mander to have the joint specialty and to have completed a full tour of duty in a
joint assignment as a fiag or general officer. The military history provided oy the
Air Force in connection with your nomination indicates that you have not served
in any joint duty assignments and merely served in three joint equivalent assign-
ments from June 1982 to August 1984. Do you meet the requirements of the law
or did the President have to grant a waiver in your case?

Answer. I did not meet the Title 10 requirements you so state in that I have not
served in a general officer joint duty assignment. The President waived this pre-
requisite based on Secretary of Defense Perry's recommendation.

Question. What background and experience do you have that you believe qualifies
you for this important position?

Answer. I have extensive experience in offensive strategic support to theater com-
manders, a thorough comprehension of force employment and nonstrategic oper-
ations. Additionally, 1 served as Director, Plans and Resources, Headquarters Air
Force. I am also a graduate of the Joint Flag Officer's Warfighting Course.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee and
other appropriate committees of the Congress?

Answer. Yes, I do.

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your pxjrsonal views, even if those
views differ from the Administration in power?

Answer. Yes, I do.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee, or des-
ignated members of this committee, and provide information, subject to appropriate
and necessary security protection, with respect to vour responsibilities as the Com-
mander in Chief, Unitea States Strategic Command?

Answer. Yes, I do.

Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of information are provided to this committee and its staff and other appro-
priate committees?

Answer. Yes, I do.

[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Eugene E. Habiger fol-
lows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

December 18, 1995.

Ordered. That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named ofRcer for appointment to the grade of general while as-
signed to a position of importance ana responsibility under Title 10, United States
Code, Section 601:

To be General
Lt. Gen. Eugene E. Habiger, 5234, United States Air Force.

[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Eugene E. Habiger, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was

referred, follows:]

AFGOMO
1040 Air Force Pe.ntagon,
Washington, DC, December 18, 1995.

Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman.
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The President, under the provisions of Section 601, Title 10
of the United States Code, has submitted to the Senate the nomination of the follow-
ing general officer for appointment to the grade of general with assignment as indi-
cated:

Name, Grade and SSN

A«e

Assignment (From/To)

Eugene E. Habiger, Lieutenant General, 5234

From Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, Headquarters,
United States Air Force, To Commander in Ctiief,
United States Strategic Command

General Habiger is replacing Admiral Henry G. Chiles, Jr., United States Navy,
who is retiring. Confirmation action during December 1995 will help insure a
smooth transition for General Habiger. This action will not result in the Air Force
exceeding the number of generals authorized by law.

For the information of the Committee, I am enclosing a military history on Gen-
eral Habiger.

Sincerely,

T. Michael Moseley,
Colonel. U.S. Air Force.
Chief, Air Force General Officer Matters Office.

Attachment:
Military History

Resume of Service Career of Lt. Gen. Eugene Emil Habiger

Date and place of birth: 11 June 1939, Oakland, California.
Years of active service: Over 34 years as of 24 August 1995.
Schools attended and degrees: Univ of Georgia, BS, 1963; Geo Wash Univ, MS, 1974;

Air Command and Staff College, 1975; National War College, 1982
Joint specialty officer: Yes.
Aeronautical rating: Command Pilot.

MAJOR PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS

Assignment

Enlisted Status, US Army

Stu, Ofcr Tng Sch, ATC, Lackland AFB, TX

Stu Ofcr, Air Intel ofcr Crs, 3415 Tech Sch. ATC, LowryAFB, CO

Tng Ofcr, E— Fit, 3637 CCTSq, ATC, Stead AFB, NV

OIC, Element II, 3637 CCTSq, ATC, Stead AFB, NV

Stu Ofcr, Undergrad Pit Tng, 3526 Stu Sq, ATC, Williams AFB, AZ

Co-Pit, B-52, 524 BMSQ, SAC, Wurtsmith AFE, Ml

Acft Comdr, B-52H, 524 EMSQ, SAC, Wurtsmith AFB, Ml

Fit Comdr, C-7A, 457 TASQ, PACAF, Cam Ranh Bay AB, Vietnam

Intel Ofcr, 4500 Spt Sq, TAC, Langley AFB, VA

Air Intel Ofcr, DCS/lntel, Hq TAC, Langley AFB, VA

Ch, Operations Er. DCS/lntel, Hq TAC, Langley AFB. VA

Stu, Air Comd & Staff College. AU, Maiweli AFB, AL

Ops Ofcr, 644 BMSQ, SAC, K.I. Sawyer AFB, Ml

Bomtjer Contingency PInr, DCS/Ops Plans, Hq SAC, Offutt AFB. NE

Exec ofcr to DCSA)ps Plans, Hq SAC, Offutt AFB, NE

Comdr, 325 EMSQ, SAC, Fairchild AFB, VA

Stu, National War College, NDU, Ft McNair, Wash DC

Ch. Strat Ofcr Frcs Div. AFAOXFS, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Dep Asst Dir for Jt 8, NSC Mtrs, AFAOJ, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Exec Ofcr to the Vice CofS, AF/CV. Hq USAF, Wash DC

Vice Comdr, 5 BMWG, SAC. Minot AFB. ND

Comdr, 379 BMWG, SAC, Wurtsmith AFB. Ml

Comdr, 2 BMWG, SAC, Barksdale AFB, LA

Inspector General, Hq SAC, Offutt AFE, NE

Dep Dir, Prgms & Eval, AF/PRP & Chmn, Prgms Review Council, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Dir, Prgms & Eval, AF/PRP & Chmn, AFB, Hq USAF. Pentagon, Wash DC

Dir. Prgms, AF/PRP; & Chmn, AFB, Hq USAF, Pentagon. Wash DC

Vice Comdr, Hq ATC, Randolph AFB, TX

Vice Comdr, Hq AETC. Randolph AFB, TX

DCS. Personnel. HQ USAF. Pentagon, Wash DC

Mar 59

Sep 63

Oct 63

May 64

Oct 64

Nov 64

Jul 65

Jan 67

May 69

Jun 69

Jan 71

Sep 71

Jan 72

May 73

Aug 74

Jun 75

Sep 77

May 79

Jan 80

Jul 81

Jun 82

Mar 83

Apr 83

Oct 83

Aug 84

Mar 85

Jan 86

Jan 87

Jan 88

Jun 90

Jul 90

Sep 90

Oct 90

Aug 91

Jul 93

Apr 95

Present

DATES OF APPOINTMENT

Promotions

Effective date

Second Lieutenant
First Lieutenant ...

Captain

Major

Lieutenant Colonel

Colonel

Brigadier General .

Major General

Lieutenant General

24 Sep 63

24 Mar 65

1 Apr 67

1 Jun 74

1 Apr 79

1 Jul 81

1 May 88

1 Dec 90

26 Mar 93

Decorations:

Air Force Distinguished Service Medal

Legion of Merit with one Bronze Oak l>eaf Cluster

Distinguished Flying Cross

Defense Meritorious Service Medal

Meritorious Service Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster

Air Medal with four Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters

Air Force Commendation Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS

Assignments '

Dates

Grade

'Executive Officer to the Vice Chief of Staff. HQ USAF, Washington DC

*Dep Asst for Joint and National Security Council Matters, Directorate of Plans. Deputy Chief

of Staff, Plans and Operations. HQ USAF, Washington DC

'Ch, Strategic Offensive Forces Div, Directorate for Force Development. Deputy Chief of Staff,

Plansand Operations. HQ USAF, Washington DC

Oct 83-Aug 84
Apr 83-Oct 83
Jun 82-Apr 83

Colonel
Colonel
Colonel

'Joint Equivalent

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Lt. Gen. Eugene E. Habiger 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 ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B^) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

Part A— Biographical Information

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Eugene Emil Habiger.

2. Position to which nominated:

Appointment to the grade of General with duty as the Commander in Chief, Unit-
ed States Strategic Command.

3. Date of nomination:
December 18, 1995.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
June 11, 1939; Oakland, California.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married: Barbara Anne Veal.

7. Names and ages of children:

Karl Eugene Habiger, 30; Kurt Henderson Habiger, 28.

None.

9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an officer, direc-
tor, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corpora-
tion, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, educational or other institution.

Armed F'orces Benefit Association — pro bono

United States Soldiers and Airmen's Home — pro bono

Armed Forces Retirement Home — pro bono

10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

Psi Chi, University of Georgia

Phi Kappa Phi, University of Georgia

National War College Alumni Association

University of Georgia Alumni Association

George Washington University Alumni Association

Association of Old Crows

Air Force Association

Harvard Kennedy School Alumni Association

MIT Seminar XXI Alumni Association

11. Honors and awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding service or achieve-
ments other than those listed on the service record extract provided to the Commit-
tee by the Executive Branch.

1988-1989 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow, Seminar XXI Program
1988 Harvard University — Program for Senior Executives in National and Inter-
national Security

12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the Administration in power?

Yes.

Signature and Date

Eugene E. Habiger.

This 11th day of December, 1995.

[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Eugene E. Habiger was reported to
the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on February 1, 1996, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomi-
nation was confirmed by the Senate on February 1, 1996.]

NOMINATION OF KENNETH H. BACON TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, FRANKLIN D. KRAMER TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS,
AND ALVIN L. ALM TO BE ASSISTANT SEC-
RETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1996

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:20 a.m., in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond
(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Thurmond, Warner,
Smith, and Robb.

Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff di-
rector; George W. Lauffer, deputy staff director; Melinda M.
Koutsoumpas, chief clerk; Donald A, Deline, general counsel; and
Christine K. Cimko, press secretary.

Professional staff members present: Gregory J. D'Alessio, John
H. Miller, Bert K. Mizusawa, and Cord A. Sterling.

Minority staff members present: Andrew S. Effron, minority
counsel and Richard D. DeBobes, counsel.

Staff assistants present: Patricia L. Banks, John R. McLeod,
Deasy Wagner, and Jennifer L. Wallace.

Committee members' assistants present: Judith A. Ansley, assist-
ant to Senator Warner; Thomas L. Lankford, assistant to Senator
Smith; and Suzanne Dabkowski, assistant to Senator Robb.

Chairman Thurmond. The committee will come to order.

Senator, did you want to say a few words?

Senator Robb. Mr. Chairman, if I might. I am not going to be
able to stay for the hearing.

I have had occasion to meet with all three of these distinguished
nominees, and I am very pleased to say that I look forward to their
confirmation and to working with them. But I hope you will forgive
me. I had very good individual meetings, and I suspect the con-
firmation process will find similar favor with the President's nomi-
nations.

(89)

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I will take your
leave.

Chairman THURMOND. Thank you very much.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND,

CHAIRMAN

Chairman Thurmond. Gentlemen, I thank you for joining us this
morning to discuss your nominations to these very important posi-
tions in the administration. We have put all of you together today
so that we can expedite your nomination procedures. I hope you
will not mind the inconvenience.

I see Senator Warner is here to introduce Mr. Aim, and then I
hope he will rejoin me at the committee table.

Let me take just a few minutes to address each of you individ-
ually. Mr. Bacon, you get the honor of being first.

I believe that your job will prove to be one of the more difficult.
My press secretary has some pretty long and very difficult days,
and she only has to manage one senator. You have the entire Pen-
tagon to deal with. However, you know what is involved, because
you have been doing this job for sometime now, as the assistant to
the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I believe your wife,
Darcy, is here today. I would like to ask her to raise her hand so
we can all greet her.

We thank you for joining us for this hearing.

Mr. Bacon, I notice from the material you have supplied the com-
mittee that you have attended both Amherst College and Columbia
University, receiving a Masters of Science degree in Journalism.
Regardless of how hard you tried to convince me in my office, I
know that Columbia University is not located in Columbia, South
Carolina. [Laughter.]

But you appear to be very qualified for this position anyway. I
would just like to give you a small piece of advice about members
of Congress. We prefer not to have surprises. If you are confirmed,
please give us all the advance notice you can about matters of in-
terest to you.

Mr. Kramer, I understand you are accompanied by your wife,
Noel, and your son, Christopher. Would you two please raise your
hands so everyone can see where you are seated.

I thank you and appreciate your joining us today.

Mr. Kramer, you have been involved with the Office of the As-
sistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs be-
fore. From 1977 to 1979, I believe, you were the Special Assistant.
From 1979 to 1981, you were the Deputy Assistant Secretary in
that office.

I also noticed that you graduated cum laude from Yale in 1967,
and received your J.D. from Harvard magna cum laude in 1971.
You are currently the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
European and NATO Affairs. You may even be overqualified for
this position, but you certainly should not be surprised by any of
the day-to-day activities, if you are confirmed.

Mr. Aim, you are our last nominee, and I am very interested in
the position for which you have been nominated. Mr. Aim, each
year large sums of money from the Department of Defense go to
the Department of Energy to clean up materials that resulted from

nuclear facilities that produced or stored nuclear weapons. Each
year we have concern that the money will not be used efficiently
or in the best interest of the Department of Defense. I hope that,
if you are confirmed, you will keep this committee advised on the
conduct of your activities.

Your background indicates that you are well qualified. You start-
ed your association in 1961 as an intern with the Atomic Energy
Commission, and served for 7 years with what we all know now as
the Office of Management and Budget. I notice that in 1970, you
became the first Staff Director of the newly created Council on En-
vironmental Quality. You were also the assistant Secretary of En-
ergy for Pohcy and Evaluation in 1977. In 1983, you became Dep-
uty Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. I also
notice that you spent a number of years in the private sector, as
well, but always in the environmental area.

Again, I would like to welcome all of you, and thank you for ap-
pearing before this committee. I will ask you some questions that
we ask all nominees, but first, I would like to let Senator Nunn —
he is not here today — is there any Democrat here to make a state-
ment? [No response.]

Chairman Thurmond. I would also like to ask you to keep your
remarks as short as possible, because our time is limited today.
Suppose we go ahead and take you gentlemen's opening remarks,
to save time, all right.

Glad to hear from you, Mr. Bacon?

STATEMENT OF KENNETH H. BACON, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I do not have an opening statement for the record, but I would
like to make a very brief comment.

I am honored that Secretary Perry has selected me to serve as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I am honored that
President Clinton has nominated me for that position.

As you have mentioned, I have had a considerable period of on-
the-job training. During that time, I have tried to respond quickly
to all requests from the Senate Armed Services Committee. If I am
confirmed, I pledge that I will continue to respond quickly, and I
will also continue to work with our legislative affairs staff to follow
the Thurmond no-surprises policy, one with which I agree totally.

In 1968 and 1969, I worked for the late-Senator Thomas Mcln-
tyre, who was a member of this committee. It was my privilege to
do some of his staff work on defense matters. I saw firsthand that
there were two keys to a strong defense: first, Democrats and Re-
publicans must work together; and second, the administration and
Congress must work together.

Mr. Chairman, you and Senator Nunn are both dedicated to
maintaining a bipartisan policy for a strong national defense; so is
Secretary Perry and his team. If confirmed, I will do my best to
work with this committee in a bipartisan fashion to keep our mili-
tary the world's best.

Thank you.

Chairman THURMOND. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF FRANKLE^ D. KRAMER, NOMINEE TO BE AS-
SISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SE-
CURITY AFFAIRS

Mr. Kramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is a
great honor to appear before you as President CHnton's nominee to
be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Af-
fairs. If confirmed, it will be an honor to represent our country and
the American people.

I am also honored to have the opportunity, if confirmed, to work
with Secretary Perry, Deputy Secretary White, and Under Sec-
retary Slocombe, and particularly, again, with the men and women
of the U.S. military, whom this committee knows, far better than
I do, of their superb dedication and professionalism. I look forward
to working also with this committee and with the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a prepared statement. It has been pro-
vided to the committee previously, and I would ask that it be sub-
mitted for the record, and then I would just make some very brief
remarks.

Mr. Chairman, we are at an historic juncture now. The opportu-
nities for achievement are great. The dangers of missed opportuni-
ties are also great. As we deal with those opportunities and chal-
lenges, defense and military force are inherent components of our
U.S. national security strategy. Properly calibrated, our defense ef-
fort provides a framework in which our other elements of inter-
national security posture — diplomacy, economic relations, the lead-
ership that our political and moral systems give us — can provide.

Military power, as utilized by the United States, is a source of
stability and security throughout the world. Military power does
more than that. It prevents the emergence of threats, if possible;
it deters would-be aggressors, and when called upon, it defeats an
enemy as effectively and as decisively as possible. The role of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs is
to support a strong defense and to help the development of that
international framework in which we, our allies and our friends
can thrive.

Mr. Chairman, there are numerous worldwide challenges with
which the Assistant Secretary of Defense can help Secretary Perry,
the President, this committee, and the Congress. I would leave to
questions from the chair and from the Senators any specifics on
that. But I look forward very much, sir, to working with you, if con-
firmed, and to having the opportunity to serve our country.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement and information of Mr. Kramer follows:]

Prepared Statement by Franklin D. Kramer

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honor to appear before
you today as President CHnton's nominee to be Assistant Secretary oi Defense for
International Security Affairs. If confirmed, it will be an honor to represent our
country and the American people. Equally, I could not ask for better persons to
work for than Secretary Perry, Deputy Secretary White, and Under Secretary
Slocombe, nor better colleagues than the other leadership and staff in the Policy sec-
tion. I am honored to have occasion to work again with the men and women of the
United States military. This committee knows well, and even better than I, the su-
perb dedication, professionalism, and willingness to sacrifice that the military brings
to its tasks. I look forward also to working with this committee and with tne Con-

gress. I am very much a believer in our Constitution, and together I believe we can
achieve much.

We are at an historic juncture when the opportunities for achievement are great,
and the risks and dangers of missed opportunities are also great. It is a task to
which we must rise even as we acknowledge the fundamental and overriding suc-
cess of the United States in recent years — in the transformation of Europe and the
demise of the Soviet Union, in the achievements of the Middle East peace process,
in the Gulf War, and in the ongoing efforts in Bosnia.

As we deal with the challenges and risks which we face, defense and military
force are inherent components of our United States national security strategy. Prop-
erly calibrated, our defense efTorts provide a framework in which the other elements
of our national security posture — diplomacy, economic relationships, the leadership
ability our political and moral systems give us — can successfully operate. In the con-
text of our Asia policy. Secretary Perry has said that it is the US defense effort
which provides the oxygen that has fed the great economic achievements of that
area. I subscribe to that statement. Military power, as utilized by the United States,
is a source of security and stability throughout the world. Of course, military power
does more than provide a framework of stability and security. Military power seeks
to prevent the emergence of threats to our security. In circumstances of potential
or actual conflict, military power deters would-be aggressors, and, when called upon,
defeats an enemy as effectively and quickly as possible. This committee has always
worked to ensure a strong, effective defense in its annual budget efTorts, in its orga-
nizational achievements such as Goldwater-Nichols (which, I can assure you a re-
turnee to the Pentagon most appreciates) and in its policy efforts, including con-
sultations between members of tne committee and the Department of Defense.

The role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
is to support a strong defense and to help the development of that international se-
curity framework in which the natural abilities of ourselves, our allies, and our
friends can thrive. It is to help establish deterrence through declaratory policy, force
deployments, and agreements with allies and friends. It is to support our military
efforts, so that when they are actively engaged, the results are as effective and effi-
cient as can be accomplished.

The scope of the Assistant Secretary's tasks is worldwide, with the exception of
the non-Baltic states of the former Soviet Union. Let me briefly address some of the
opportunities for achievement and some of the challenges we face in those areas.

In Europe, we are changing the security strategy of a continent through NATO
adaptation, through NATO enlargement, through the Partnership for Peace, and
through our relations with Russia. There can be no doubt that Europe is critical to
the security of the United States, and that the United States is critical to the secu-
rity of Europe. We have demonstrated that in Bosnia where the military effort is
moving forward very successfully to date. Indeed, as the IFOR deployment dem-
onstrates, there can be no successful major military effort in Europe without U.S.
involvement. As IFOR also demonstrates, we can and should seek out our common
interests with Russia. While keeping a clear-eyed view on what is happening in
Russia, we want to do our best to have Russia demonstrate its commitment to con-
structively participate in the security architecture of Europe. As we develop that se-
curity architecture through NATO adaptation and NATO enlargement — which, I be-
lieve, is appropriate and inevitable, we should particularly recognize that through
security cooperation countries subscribing to the Partnership for Peace are working
to uphold democracy, build market economies, improve civilian control over their
militaries, resolve border disputes with their neighbors, and make their military
forces compatible with NATO, a security transformation of remarkable promise.

In East Asia, we have some of our most significant relationships and challenges.
We have no more important bilateral relationship than our relationship with Japan.
We have our historic and enduring commitment to the Republic of Korea ana, in
the South, to Australia, to which we are bound by treaty, culture and shared sac-
rifice. We have close relations with the ASEAN countries, and critical relations with
China and with Taiwan. Our strategy is fourfold — to maintain our forward presence
of approximately 100,000 military personnel in Japan, Korea, and afloat; to main-
tain our alliances; to build on multilateral initiatives such as the ASEAN Regional
Forum, and Secretary Perry's call for a meeting of regional defense ministers; and
to continue a policy of constructive engagement with China consistent with the
three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, challenges and opportunities abound.

We must maintain our fundamental commitment to Israel, forged on moral, politi-
cal, and historic grounds. We seek to assist Israel in its quest for peace in which
it has made such great strides with Egypt, with the Palestinians, and with Jordan.
We must assure tnat Israel has military qualitative superiority over any combina-

38-225 97 - 4

tion of potential enemies it might face, and we must support them in dealing with
the problems of terrorism which they have so graphically faced in recent days. We
must work closely with the other countries of the region who have supported the
peace process — particularly Egypt and Jordan — and maintain our critical relations
in the Arabian Gulf with the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. We must
make every effort to contain and reduce those sources of danger, terrorism and in-
stability represented by Iraq, Iran, and Libya. We must strive to avoid the prolifera-
tion of weapons of mass destruction in the Southwest Asian Subcontinent, and we
continue to work with the governments of India and Pakistan in an effort to per-
suade each not to take actions that would precipitate regional nuclear and missile
arms races.

In other areas of the world, we similarly face opportunities and challenges. In
Latin America and the Caribbean, we must continue our progress as partners in se-
curity, to consolidate democracy, to oppose narco-terrorism, to encourage the contin-
ued leadership of military forces by elected civilian officials, to promote trans-
parency and mechanisms lor peaceful conflict resolution, and to advance cooperation
on global peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Last year Secretary Perry
hosted the first ever Defense Ministerial of the Americas. It was a remarkably suc-
cessful enterprise, and a tradition on which to build.

In Africa we need to continue to help resolve old conflicts and prevent new ones.
We maintain the military capacity to respond to unpredictable circumstances, but
our focus should be to work with African states to have them deal with the respon-
sibilities of the continent and to help regional organizations, like the Organization
for African Unity, and regional powers, such as the new South Africa, resolve the
conflicts of sub-oaiharan Africa.

I want to close with one commitment and one challenge. International Security
AfTairs includes within its offices the responsibility for POW/MIA affairs. It is a re-
sponsibility that I know this committee takes very seriously, and it is a responsibil-
ity which I want the committee to know that I take very seriously. This administra-
tion has consistently reaffirmed that this issue is of highest priority and that is the
context in which we will pursue this effort diligently in Southeast Asia, in Korea,
in Russia — wherever this critical work takes us. The American people and the fami-
lies of unaccounted for servicemen deserve no less than the fullest possible account-
ing. Finally, although not traditionally within this committee's purview but within
the Congress's, of course, is the issue of security assistance. Security assistance in-
cludes both the well established forms of Foreign Military Funding and Inter-
national Military Education and Training and those more recent evolutions such as
the Warsaw Initiative funding for the Central European states and countries of the
former Soviet Union. I know from prior personal experience the impact such funds
can have, and I cannot too strongly encourage their support by the members of this
committee and the Congress.

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee, and I hope
that, if I am confirmed, we will have the chance to work together on the important
issues facing our country.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you.
Mr. Aim.

STATEMENT OF ALVIN L. ALM, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGE-
MENT

Mr. AlJvi. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appre-
ciate the opportunity to appear before this committee as the nomi-
nee for Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Manage-
ment. I am honored to have been nominated by President Clinton
to serve in this critical position. If confirmed, I look forward to
serving at the Department of Energy, under Secretary O'Leary's
leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record. I would like
to just summarize a few of the major points in the testimony. First
of all, I think that the Congress and the American people have a
right to expect that the taxpayer dollars that go into this program
are prudently invested, that results are achieved, and that the pub-
lic and workers are protected. The task that I would undertake, if

confirmed, is one of the most daunting and most difficult jobs in
the Government. Certainly, it is one that I would devote all my en-
ergies to.

I would like to just make five quick points. First, I believe it is
important that we reduce the most serious risks as quickly as pos-
sible. Some of these risks pose threats to the environment, to com-
munities and to workers. The risk-based priority system initiated
last year should play a major role in budgeting and in actions
taken in the field. In many cases, risks can be dramatically re-
duced by stabilizing waste and by removal actions while awaiting
permanent solutions.

Second, we must reduce the so-called mortgage costs as soon as
possible. A very large amount of the total funds for this program
are used merely to keep current facilities safe. To the extent we
can get in and clean these facilities up, a major savings can be
made in future surveillance and maintenance costs.

Third, we must take our regulatory obligations seriously. The
Federal Government cannot play by a different set of rules than
the private sector. If we establish the credibility that DOE takes
these obligations seriously, then we should be in a position to nego-
tiate changes when it makes sense to do so. It is very important
that in taking actions we have the support of the Congress, of the
stakeholders, the States, and all interested parties as we move
ahead, particularly in a period of tight budgetary limitations.

Fourth, we must improve the cost-effectiveness of the program.
We must assure that we are not only doing the right thing, but
also that we are doing it right. Even when we have chosen a cost-
effective course of action, we need to make sure we are achieving
the objective in the most efficient way through sound project man-
agement and cost control.

Finally, we need to apply the best science to the environmental
management program. There are many opportunities. The cost sav-
ings could be very substantial if we could begin to deploy many of
the new technologies that have been developed under the program.

Mr. Chairman, let me just close by saying that, if confirmed, I
would pledge to work closely with this committee, the members and
the staff, in carrying out these duties. Thank you very much, and
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aim follows:]

Prepared Statement by Alvin L. Alm

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Al Aim. I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before this committee as the nominee for Assistant Sec-
retary of Energy for Environmental Management. I am honored to have been nomi-
nated by President Clinton to serve in this critical position. If confirmed, I look for-
ward to serving at the Department of Energy under Secretary O'Leary's leadership.

Few positions in the Federal establishment offer greater challenges. The Depart-
ment 01 Energy's Environmental Management program was established to manage
and clean-up wastes generated from 45 years of production of nuclear weapons. This
program is the largest single environmental activity in the world, with an unsur-
passed technical and management challenge.

The Congress and the American people have the right to expect that taxpayer dol-
lars are prudently invested, that results are achieved and the public and workers
are protected. This task of managing and cleaning-up the weapons complex sites
must be achieved during a period when discretionary budget resources will be in-
creasingly scarce. To succeed, it is critical to retain the support and help of the Con-
gress, the States and the stakeholders at DOE's facilities. It is clearly a tall order.

I believe success is possible. From its beginnings in the late 1980's, the Environ-
mental Management program has evolved into a major undertaking. The first As-
sistant Secretary, Ix?o DufTy, shaped the program during its early years. Tom
Crumbly, who has been nominatea by President Clinton to be Under Secretary of
the Department, has accomplished a great deal over the last 3 years in this position.
Incentive contracts are in place at most of the facilities, costs have been reduced,
advisory committees have been established at the sites and comparative risk assess-
ment is being used to establish priorities. These accomplishments are not only at-
tributable to leadership at the top, but also through dedicated work by DOE employ-
ees and contractors. I have been impressed with the dedication and competence of
many of the DOE employees and contractor staff that I have met recently, as well
as over the years. Success in the position for which I have been nominated would
be impossible without their efforts.

I subscribe to the direction and goals that Tom Crumbly has established for the
program. The task is now to translate this momentum into lasting achievements at
the sites, based on the following priorities.

First, we must reduce the most serious risks as quickly as possible. Some of these
risks pose threats to the environment, to communities and to workers. The risk-
based prioritization system initiated last year should play a maior role in budgeting
and in actions taken in the field. In many cases, risk can be dramatically reduced
by stabilizing wastes and by removal actions, while awaiting permanent solutions.
Putting off actions awaiting "final" solutions only exposes the public and workers
to unnecessary risk in the interim.

Second, we must reduce the so-called mortgage costs as quickly as possible. These
mortgage costs include the surveillance and maintenance costs necessary to keep fa-
cilities safe. In many cases, investments made today could be paid off in a few years
by dramatically reducing these costs. These costs savings would occur upon decon-
taminating, and in some cases, decommissioning these facilities. A private business
would never hesitate to make such investments. Savings from mortgage reduction
would allow for funding more risk reduction projects in the future.

Third, we must take our regulatory obligations seriously. TTie Federal Covem-
ment cannot play by a different set oi rules than the private sector. If we establish
the credibility that DOE takes these obligations seriously, then we should be in a
position to negotiate changes when it makes sense to do so. As I implied earlier,
support of stakeholders, the States and Congress will be key as we move ahead, par-
ticularly in light of tight budgetary limitations.

Fourth, we must improve the cost-efTectiveness of the program. We must assure
that we are not only doing the right thing, but also that we are doing it right.
Through Hfe-cycle analysis, risk analysis and other tools, we need to assure that the
actions we are taking represent the most cost-effective option. Even when we have
chosen a course of action, we need to make sure we are achieving the objective the
most efiicient way through sound project management and cost controls.

Today, many new tools are being used to create a more cost-effective clean-up pro-
gram. Some of these include incentive contracts, re-engineering, benchmarking, pri-
vatization, activity-based costing, overhead analysis and life-cycle analysis. Their
use is resulting in solid accomplishments across the weapons complex. I would in-
tend to rely strongly on these tools to assure we are doing the right things effi-
ciently.

Fifth, we need to apply the best science to the Environmental Management pro-
gram. There are substantial opportunities to characterize wastes more efficiently
and deploy new, more cost-effective technologies. New technology will allow DOE to
conduct the program at lower costs and, by allowing it to tackle some currently in-
tractable proolems, win result in greater health protection.

I firmly believe that streamlining processes and shortening the deadlines for final
actions will be less costly and more protective to the puolic and workers than
searching for a "perfect" solution. Moving ahead with clean-up actions, even if they
are interim in nature, will reduce risk and future costs. To the extent that mortgage
costs are reduced, more funds would be available for future clear-up. This is greatly
preferable to spending money continuously on surveillance and maintenance at ex-
isting facilities. In my brief review of the program to date, it appears that a phase
I effort — aimed at reducing most of the risK and mortgage costs — could be achieved
within a decade. Such a goal could mobilize DOE staff, contractors and stakeholders
toward a realistic interim end point that would demonstrate large benefits within
a finite period of time.

Before discussing my qualifications for this position, I would like to make one
final observation. The current debate about the budget deficit rcfiects a concern by
the President and the Congress that the current generation is placing unfair obliga-
tions on future generations. Covcrnment cxpenaitures that result only in current

consumption raise that issue. Many of the investments made in the Environmental
Management program, however, have the opfX)site effect ; they reduce future obliga-
tions by a much greater amount than the current investment. I would hope that we
can demonstrate that these investments will burden our children and grandchildren
with smaller health and ecological risks and of less costly future obligations to
maintain deteriorating facilities.

I believe that my previous experience in both Government and the private sector
have provided me a solid basis for taking on the challenges of the Environmental
Management program. My many years in the environmental area have acquainted
me with the complete range of environmental issues, from public health concerns
to ecological values. As Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency during the tenure of William Ruckelshaus, I acted as chief operating officer
for a program of comparable size to that of DOE's Environmental Management pro-
gram. In that position, I learned how to establish goals for an organization, how to
make decisions rapidly and how to assure program results. My private sector em-
ployment has provided me further management experience, including understanding
the importance of being efficient. My service on EISA's Science Advisory Board and
National Academy of Sciences panels have given me an understanding of the sci-
entific community. On nuclear issues, I am currently co-chairman of the Environ-
mental Management Advisory Board and have previously served at both the Atomic
Energy Commission and The Department of Elnergy.

If I am confirmed by the Congress, I pledge to devote all my energies to clean-
up of the weapons complex and to work closely with members of this committee. I
realize the magnitude of this task and am humbled that the President and the Sec-
retary have expressed their confidence in me to undertake this endeavor.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to make this statement and I look for-
ward to answering your questions. I also look forward to working with you in the
future if you see fit to confirm me. Thank you very much.

Chairman Thurmond. Mr. Aim, General Fogleman, the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, is out there to see me, so I am going to have
to go out for a few minutes. I am going to ask Senator Warner to
take over, and he wanted to make some remarks about you, too.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN W. WARNER

Senator Warner [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
privilege to join in the introduction of Mr. Aim this morning. He
has been a Virginia resident for over 6 years, and has an outstand-
ing background in both public and private service. He is currently
the Senior Vice President — I guess that should be a Senior Vice
President or is it the Senior Vice President?

Mr. Alm. a Senior Vice President.

Senator Warner. A Senior Vice President for the Environmental
Business Area at Science Applications International Corporation's
SAIC, a very well-known and very prestigious organization. In the
public sector, the nominee has held positions as the Deputy Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as Assist-
ant Secretary for Policy and Evaluation at the Department of En-
ergy. He established an excellent reputation throughout the energy
and environmental communities, and I am confident that he will
succeed in the challenging position to which the President has des-
ignated him.

We are fortunate, i^ I may say, just as an American citizen, for
all three of you stepping forward and serving your country and
your President, and indeed, working with the Congress.

In looking over the background, each of you are very, very well-
qualified, and you will have my support.

I would like, however, to lead off with one or two questions, and
the first, to you, Mr. Kramer. I do not have the article in front of
me. I put it in the Congressional Record, but we will get you the

citation. It is a very interesting article in the Washington Times
within the past 10 days, describing the future of the principal
NATO partners today, Great Britain, Germany, France, and per-
haps others who were in the article, of how they are beginning to
address their manpower requirements, how some are thinking of
suspending the drafting and taking other modifications to those
procedures which result in acquiring sufficient men and women to
man their force structure.

But clearly, from the article, there is sort of a message out there
that tough times are ahead for these countries, particularly those
have relied on conscription. The reader is left with a doubt as to
whether they can, frankly, get the quality and the quantity they
need to man their force structure. I forwarded the article to the
Secretary of Defense, and asked him some questions. Undoubtedly,
it is within your Department somewhere, so I expect you can track
it down.

Because, if that is the case, is there a greater burden, then, to
be thrust upon the United States in carrying forward our
participatory responsibilities in NATO? That leads me, of course, to
this question of the NATO expansion. Speaking for myself, indeed,
I would like to see, at the appropriate time, NATO expanded to
allow certain Warsaw Pact countries to join.

But I do have some conditions. One is that that procedure clearly
indicate that a requirement to join would be a manifestation by
those countries of a military capability to carry a proportionate
part of the burden associated with membership in NATO. Because,
given this other foundation I laid, and you add on additional coun-
tries, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the United
States being called upon.

Do they have the military hardware which is modern, which is
capable of providing a defense force to any aggression? Can that
hardware be integrated with existing NATO hardware? What about
the level of training of the personnel, the level of their professional
commitment to do or die, in the immortal words of Rudyard Kip-
ling, I beheve? Then, of course, it is the question of the timing as
it relates to Russia.

We do not want to inject into that increasingly unstable situation
a development which could precipitate a reaction that would be to
the detriment of NATO and the current partnership. So, take a
minute or two, and give us your thoughts on that.

Mr. Kramkr. Senator, that is a large question, and I hope that,
actually, you and I can discuss that, and will discuss that, if I am
confirmed in the forthcoming months. Even that will be a question
to discuss in the forthcoming years, regardless of who is sitting in
this chair. But let me give you some thoughts as to each of the
three major portions of the question: One, the manpower; two, the
NATO expansion aspect with the potential countries; and, three,
the issue with respect to Russia.

As you are aware. Senator, NATO itself, I think, has begun a
process of potentially historic transformation, both looking at the
issues as to the areas in which it might be engaged. It was always,
and appropriately so, always purely a collective defense organiza-
tion, and that certainly was the right thing to be, prior to the de-

mise of the Soviet Union. NATO is now considering looking beyond,
if you will, the old NATO area.

In this regard, I personally am greatly heartened by the changes
and the statements made by President Chirac and his staff with re-
spect to France's willingness to come closer to NATO — to work
more closely with us. I think NATO has to look very carefully in
the overall at working out, in a militarily effective way, a revised
approach to security as we go forward into the new century.

With respect to the specific point on manpower, the French in
particular, have announced what they call a great national debate
on the draft. They have always had conscription. I believe that they
will in fact do away with the draft — perhaps not in the entirety,
but in substantial part. One of the things President Chirac said in
his speech to the French nation was that they found in the Gulf
War that they were only able to project approximately — I may have
the number wrong, but approximately 10,000 — forces into the Gulf.
They are hoping, with the restructuring — and I have had personal
discussions on this point — to create a much more effective force
that could go beyond France's own borders and be more valuable.

Now, the British have had a professional force, essentially a pro-
fessional force, for a long time. I have spoken with the counterparts
in Geimany. I had the honor to actually be a meeting with Chan-
cellor Kohl when he met with Secretary Perry. I believe the Ger-
mans will maintain conscription for the foreseeable future, but ob-
viously there can always be an issue.

I think, if the countries do as France is doing there, and if we
do NATO adaptation appropriately, we will fmd that we have a
greater capability. It is certainly our policy and NATO's to enhance
the European component of defense.

On NATO expansion, I could not agree with you more. We cannot
just have, if you will, consumer nations. We have to have producer
nations. We also have to have nations that share our values, that
truly are democracies, that have the same strategic approach. In
the Partnership for Peace, as you are aware, those are criteria to
which we are working. The Secretary is very committed to that.
Again, I have been in meetings, and that point is very, very clearly
made.

Another aspect with respect to the Partnership for Peace is inter-
operability, the ability to work with NATO nations. We are work-
ing very hard on that. Obviously, as you said, these were, most of
them — all of them, really — were Warsaw Pact nations, and so inter-
operability is not built in a day. But it is a clear goal of the Part-
nership for Peace.

With respect to Russia, I, too, agree that NATO expansion, as-
suming the appropriate criteria are met — that they are true democ-
racies, that there is civil control of the military, that they have free
market economies, that they do not have border disputes with their
neighbors, that they have interoperability — I think that will be ap-
propriate for some countries.

NATO has a quite deliberate timetable. We certainly cannot give
the Russians a veto. At the same time, we certainly have to treat
the Russians sensibly and appropriately. We are sticking with our
timetable. This year, we have what is called an intensified dialogue
with the countries that have indicated particular interest in joining

100

NATO. That is really starting up right now. Towards the end of
this year, we will be able to make some decisions or preliminary
decisions.

All these decisions, I might say, obviously, have to be done in
consultation with the Congress, and they have to be done, essen-
tially, in consultation with the parliaments of all the countries, be-
cause NATO operates by consensus. There will be a ratification
process. So this is something that we are at the front end of, not
the back end of, and we need to go forward steadily, neither step-
ping away from the decisions nor acting precipitously.

I could spend a much longer time talking to you.

Senator Warner. Well, I recognize that. But I think, as I lis-
tened very carefully, that you recognize my concerns.

Mr. Kram1']R. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. In a very adroit policy manner, you have sort
of said. Yes, Senator, I think I sort of agree. Would that be correct?

Mr. Kramer. Yes, it would.

Senator Warn?:r. You have got enough exit there, but basically
I think you are proceeding in the right direction.

Now, Mr. Bacon, that is an impossible job that you are about to
take on. One must ask what level of sanity you nave to get into
this, but you are well-experienced. I think you have developed a lot
of respect in the manner in which you have handled current as-
signments up to date.

One thing that always sort of lingers back in mind, and I guess
I am sort of a product of the World War II and Korea era, but I
must say, when we went into Somalia and we were greeted on the
beaches by all the television, everybody had their weapons on safe-
ty, and it was hard to understand. Then I had the task, together
with my good friend and distinguished colleague. Senator Levin, to
go to Somalia in the very closing days, and to write a fairly tough
report on that situation. This committee heard from, I think it was
from Greneral Zinni, was it not, that took the troops out, and how
they were fired upon as we left. This is quite different than when
we arrived.

How do you want to deal with those situations? There is no real
pattern, but each is different. But it seems to me that when the
American people commit their sons and daughters, and have to
have them go ashore or wherever, go in with weapons, prepared to
defend themselves, that is darn serious business. That message
should start from the very, very beginning. Possibly your area of
responsibility can set a framework so that a very serious message
is conveyed back to the families and to the men themselves and the
women.

Mr. Bacon. You have raised a very serious issue. Let me deal
with it in three sections. The first is that when we initially went
into Somalia, I was not in my current job, but Pete Williams had
my job then. I have talked to Pete about this actually, and I think
there was a feeling that perhaps the media was little over-exuber-
ant in its photogpraphy of the troops coming ashore. However, this
was arranged with the Pentagon. Had we to do it over again, I
think we would do it differently.

Second, I read the report on Somalia. It was a good and tough
report. It followed a number of internal reports. It focused pri-

101

marily, as I recall on, the news headlines, on the decision within
the Pentagon to deny the commander's request for more armor and
other equipment. The Somalia experience was a searing experience
for America. Those television images, as much as anything, showed
why public affairs is such an important part of the battlefield
today.

Following our initial Somalia involvement, the Clinton adminis-
tration revised its policy for peacekeeping operations in Presi-
dential Decision Directive 25. The administration adopted much
stronger standards for getting involved in peacekeeping operations.
There has to be a clear goal. There has to be a clear exit strategy.
There has to be a clear appreciation of what America can bring to
the table, how America can help an important mission succeed.
There has to be, first of all, of course, a real reason for getting in-
volved.

When we pulled out of Somalia last year, under General Zinni's
direction, I think we had an entirely different press operation. We
invoked the pool. It was well-controlled. It was well-covered. There
was some shooting at the very end. I do not think the troops ever
felt they were in terrific danger. The shooting was pretty much
over their heads as they were pulling off the beach.

Senator Warner. I talked to General Zinni about when he lost
power in his vehicle.

Mr. Bacon. Now that was a much scarier operation. I under-
stand that, when he was floating at sea for a while.

Senator Warner. Take the record and work on that record a lit-
tle bit there.

Mr. Bacon. Yes.

Senator Warner. I got your point.

I am going to yield now to my colleague, Senator Smith. But I
would like to say, Mr. Aim, I take note that Colonel Anthony
Aldwell is with you. I notice that you have with you Colonel An-
thony Aldwell, is that correct? Maybe I am wrong. Mr. Kramer
does.

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. A well-qualified colonel. Do not promote him,
keep him right there, and get the last ounce of energy. He is a
well-qualified professional. I saw him under some seriously tough
situations in traveling with the Secretary from Saudi Arabia to Ku-
wait to China. You are fortunate.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I've completed my questions.

Chairman Thurmond [presiding]. I will ask these questions.

Senator Warner. I would ask that you designate Mr. Smith. I
have to depart.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator, can you take over, after I ask
these four questions?

Senator Smith. Yes, go ahead.

Chairman Thurmond. I would like to ask each of you these ques-
tions. They are a series of questions we ask each nominee, prior to
confirmation, that I must ask each of you. These questions concern
your activities prior to the hearing, in relation to the Department
of Defense. I need a response from each of you to each question.
Would you please answer the questions one at a time, from my left
to right?

102

First, Mr. Bacon, what is your current position? What association
have you had with the Department of Defense since you learned of
your possible nomination to your position?

Mr. Bacon. My current position is assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs. This had been my position since I start-
ed on September 19, 1994.

Chairman Thurmond. Mr. Kramer?

Mr. Kramer. Sir, my current position is Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of Defense for Europe and NATO Affairs in the Inter-
national Security Affairs Section of the Pentagon. That has been
my position since January 31st of this year, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Mr. Aim?

Mr. Alm. Mr. Chairman, since being nominated, I have had no
direct relationships with the Department of Defense. I obviously
have with the Department of Energy, for which I am being nomi-
nated.

Chairman Thurmond. Second question: Have you adhered to the
applicable laws and regulations governing conflict of interest?

Mr. Bacon. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. Alm. Yes, sir, I have.

Chairman Thurmond. Third question: Have you made any au-
thoritative decisions or provided authoritative guidance?

Mr. Bacon. Yes, in my current job, I have done so. Senator.

Mr. Kramer. Yes, I have, as the Deputy Assistant Secretary, but
not beyond that, sir.

Mr. Alm. No, sir.

Chairman THURMOND. Fourth, have you assumed any duties or
undertaken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome
of the confirmation process?

Mr. Bacon. No, Senator, I have not.

Mr. Kramer. No, Mr. Chairman, I have not.

Mr. Alm. I have not, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Now, I have another engagement sched-
uled, and I am going to have to leave. Senator, if you will take
over. I have some questions here, if you care to ask them.

Senator Smith [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have
a couple of questions and comments for each of you, and then I
think we can wrap it up. There may be a period of time — Mr.
Chairman, do you want to leave a period of time open for — how
much, a week, 3 days? There will be a period of 3 days, where
members may submit questions to you in writing.

Mr. Bacon, I did not know your former boss very well. I met him
a couple of times. He, of course, was finishing his Senate career in-
voluntarily at the time I was just getting into politics in New
Hampshire. But there is a great story about him that is legendary
in New Hampshire, and I never really asked anybody if it was true,
but I hope it is, because it is a great story. But maybe you can ver-
ify. It is a little bit off the subject, but just to be light for a mo-
ment.

Senator Mclntyre was interviewed after the election allegedly
and was asked what he thought happened in the loss to Senator
Humphrey. He said, "Senator Mclntyre, did not the polls indicate
to you that you were leading?" He said — this was about a week or

103

so after the election — he said, "Yes, they did." "As a matter of fact,
I took a poll after the election and it was still indicating that I was
in the lead." [Laughter.]

Is that a true story?

Mr. Bacon. I have heard that story. I never asked him. But I
have heard the story. Senator.

Senator Smith. I have corresponded a number of times with Mrs.
Mclntyre over the years. She is a delightful person and still keeps
in contact with me.

I would like to pick up, just for a moment, sir, on the question
that Senator Warner asked you. How much of a right to know is
there in the media, to the media, regarding battlefield and strate-
gic actions now? We are seeing now a sophistication that was be-
yond anyone's imagination. The press has a right to know, but
there would have to be limits, it would seem to me. I mean, we saw
examples in the Persian Gulf, with correspondents literally in posi-
tions in Baghdad that could have influenced the military actions
taken — I am not saying it did, but it could have.

For example, they were staying in such-and-such a hotel or they
may have been on the ground in some area where it may have been
a prospective target — not necessarily the hotel, but some other
area. How much information should they have in advance to a stra-
tegic or a tactical action in your opinion?

Mr. Bacon. The short answer is they should have as much infor-
mation as they can without jeopardizing the lives of the troops or
the success of the mission. Where that balance is, of course, is how
public affairs people and commanders spend their time in the days
just before an operation and during an operation. There is no firm
answer, because it varies with every operation. The only way to
reach the answer, I believe, is to work closely with the commanders
and to gain an appreciation of what type of operational security
they need to be successful, and then try to provide everything up
to tnat point, but not beyond it.

Senator Smith. I think that is a fair answer. But the devil is in
the deed, is it not? How do you make that happen? I mean, there
is a great amount of demand placed on the military today. There
was criticism, I remember, during the Grenada situation. The press
was critical of the fact that they did not know in advance, so they
could sit there. I mean, there is no element of surprise.

Mr. Bacon. There has been a lot of evolution since Grenada, in
1983 or 1984. The press, as you point out, was completely excluded
from covering that as it was happening. Since then, we have set
up a very elaborate pool operation, which is a group of pre-identi-
fied news people who are called to go in with troops in an oper-
ationally secure environment. We have activated this pool a num-
ber of times, I think five or six times, in 1994 and 1995.

It was used, for instance, when we extracted the United Nations
troops from Somalia with the Marines in the spring of 1995. We
did not activate it in Bosnia, because there were already several
thousand journalists in Bosnia, and it would have been futile to
bring them in. But, there again, because we work very closely with
bureau chiefs and with reporters, I think we have established a de-
gree of trust and understanding that we lacked back in the early
eighties.

104

This has been a good vehicle for sitting down before operations,
or as operations are unfolding, and saying, OK, this is how we are
going to arrange it, this is the type of access we can set up for you.
So far, it has worked. But, as you say, the devil is always in the
detail, and it is a process of negotiation.

Senator Smith. Yes, I think once forces are on the ground and
there is a conflict occurring, of course it is a little different. It basi-
cally becomes a logistical situation. But when you get into the sur-
prise, the element of surprise, when in fact any type of leak at all —
not necessarily deliberately — I mean, the fact that the press may
take action to get there, even though you have told them that it
has to be held in confidence, any type of action that could in some
way tip off the so-called enemy could be a serious problem.

Then you get into this ethical question, in terms of the constitu-
tional right to know.

Mr. Bacon. Absolutely, I agree. That is what makes it challeng-
ing.

Senator Smith. The reason I brought it up is I think it is going
to even be more challenging in the future, with the technology and
computers. It is just going to be incredible, and certainly a big chal-
lenge for your successors, I think, as well as yourself, in the future.

Mr. Aim, we have some common concerns. I chair the Superfund
subcommittee in the Environment and Public Works Committee,
and we are now in the process of trying to draft a bill. One of those
areas of great controversy is natural resource damages. Your pred-
ecessor, Mr. Grumbly, stated that natural resource damages is a
gorilla in the closet for the Department of Energy. Do you share
that analogy? Is that a good analogy?

Mr. Alm. Senator, unfortunately, I have not reviewed that par-
ticular issue. I reviewed some of the issues of CERCLA as it ap-
plies to the DOE cleanup program, like the need for lead regulator
flexibility in some of the measures, taking land use into account.
But I have not studied the natural resource claims section as it ap-
plies to DOE. I will be glad to do that, if confirmed.

Senator Smith. The hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars,
if not maybe a trillion — it would certainly be tens of billions of dol-
lars in potential Federal liability for natural resource damage, just
under Superfund. So it is going to be a huge problem.

Another example that I would just call your attention to, and
this is a very poor copy of a photograph here, but this is Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, where you have a 40-acre building — the building
itself is 40 acres — the K-25 site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where
you are just looking at a huge cost to decontaminate these build-
ings. How do you address this? Where do you start? What do you
do to address something that astronomical? First of all, it is a huge
problem; second, the cost.

We get criticized, and you will hear, I am sure, if you are con-
firmed, that we are not acting. Here is a building that is contami-
nated. Is it really harming anybody right now, because it is fenced
off, quote, unquote? Probably not. But, yet, the pressure is on us
to clean it up because it is there. So we get into the question of
prioritization. Do we clean up a 40-acre building full of contami-
nants or do we go someplace else where there may be an aquifer

105

under a site somewhere that is polluting wells, that is an imme-
diate threat?

Do you clean up something that is not an immediate health
threat, because it is there?

Mr. Alm. Senator, you have asked a very good question. I think
that the two priorities that play off against each other are, on the
one hand, as I indicated in the testimony, risk — and there is a risk
prioritization system. The other concern is the mortgage cost. We
spend a huge amount in this program just keeping buildings safe.
I do not know the facts on K-25, but I assume that there is prob-
ably very, very high continuing surveillance and maintenance
costs.

To the extent to which we can decontaminate those buildings,
you can drop those costs down to almost nothing. There are invest-
ments I have looked at where the payoff period is 1 year. So I
would say that where you have opportunities to clean up these
buildings and drive down the mortgage costs, that is the most cost-
effective thing that can be done. That would have the effect of re-
ducing obligations on future generations, not increasing them.

Senator Smith. You are talking about an amortization?

Mr. Alm. That is correct. Senator. In other words, where you
have high current operating costs, it makes good business sense to
clean them up and get out. That would be one of my objectives, if
confirmed.

Senator Smith. Whether or not they have an immediate health
threat? Would you assess that risk first or would you just do it?

Mr. Alm. Yes, Senator, they would all have some health threat
or you obviously would not have a high maintenance cost in the
first place. But, again, you would continually look, in terms of pri-
orities, between the risk and the ability to drive down the mortgage
costs.

Senator Smith. I do not know how much you have looked into
the NRD issue, but are you familiar with the terms "lost use" and
"non-use" in natural resource damages?

Mr. Alm. I am not an expert in natural resource damage claims.
It is one part of CERCLA that I was never really involved with.

Senator Smith. Do you believe that your ability to prioritize risks
at these sites has been adversely affected by the tri-part agree-
ments that DOE has entered into?

Mr. Alm. Senator, that is a third consideration that goes into the
budgetary process, namely, the agreements that have been
reached, some of which were reached many years ago. It is my
hope, if confirmed, that in cases where the regulatory agreements
do not make sense, either in terms of risk or in terms of the ability
to drive down mortgage costs, that we can meet with the regu-
lators, with the regulators and the stakeholders, and come up with
a more sensible plan.

Now, I think there is a little bit more than just optimism behind
my comment. There have been some very good cases, like at the
Fernald works in Ohio, where a consensus was agreed among the
stakeholders. They came up with an option that was not the most
the most protective. It was substantially less costly than some of
the options. I have heard that they have saved about $2 billion.

106

So I think if you can develop the information and work with the
regulators and stakeholders, we can hopefully reach a more sen-
sible conclusion. If confirmed, this is something I would plan to do
at the major DOE facilities.

Senator Smith. Do you support final Federal say or would you
involve the States more in the decisionmaking process?

Mr. Alm. Senator, my feeling is that there should be a lead regu-
lator at all the facilities. In manv cases, that would be the State.
Now, most of the environmental programs are delegated to the
States. With the DOE facilities, there is a greater chance of work-
ing with EPA than you would if it were a private facility.

Senator Smith. I just want to leave you with this point. There
is great concern by me and many others about the potential liabil-
ity out here for NRD, and where the parameters ought to be on it.
I nope that, if you do get confirmed, you could spend some time on
this and get back, certainly, to myself or to the environment and
public works committee. I am sure at some point you will probably
be asked to testify over there on what that cost may be, because
it is astronomical.

I do not see how you can plan or amortize or lay out amortization
schedules unless you know what the numbers are. At this point, I
do not think anybody does know. They are just beginning now to
get into the court cases on NRD. So it will be challenging.

Just one area of concern for you, Mr. Kramer, that I have that
has long been an interest. Your shop is involved in the supervision
of the POW/MIA office.

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir.

Senator Smith. You will probably hear a lot of things about me
as you get into that, not all of it true, but you may want to take
whatever you hear with a grain of salt. But I think that there is
a clear difference between what you will hear in the MIA shop, in
terms of what information we are getting or not getting from the
Vietnamese, in terms of, quote, unquote, full cooperation. You will
hear a big difference between what is stated in the State Depart-
ment and by the administration policy folks about cooperation with
Vietnam, on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, what you
are hearing from your analysts in the POW/MIA shop.

I would encourage you to look very closely at that. There is a
schism, and I think it is something that has not been addressed,
frankly, in the administration. I think it has been ignored. I say
this because this is not just opinion.

If you look at the testimony over the past several years before
Congress by the DOD POW/MIA analysts and folks who worked
these issues with the Vietnamese over the years, you will find them
saying constantly, over and over again, almost without exception,
that the Vietnamese are not cooperating, have not been cooperat-
ing, and certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, are they fully
cooperating. Yet, the information that comes from the State De-
partment folks and the policy folks who really have pushed the nor-
malization and restoration of diplomatic relations say the opposite.

I would very much encourage you to look at the cases, case by
case, look at them, and see where you will see evidence that the
Vietnamese have information about resolving these cases that they
are not sharing with us, in spite of what you hear. I can tell you

107

that if you look at those cases, you will see it, and your analysts
will tell you that, either off the record or probably on the record.

Mr. Kramer. I suspect they will tell me it on the record. Senator,
I know you have the interest. I have the interest, too. We have not
had occasion to work together. I hope you will find that I work on
the basis of facts, and that I really will look into it. I will do my
very best.

Senator Smith. Sure, I understand. On that, the battle of res-
toration of relations with Vietnam is lost, or won, depending on
which side you are on. But, in my opinion, it was lost.

Mr. Kramer. It has happened.

Senator Smith. So I am not trying to replay that. I am just say-
ing we can make the best of that, but to move on. But I think it
is very important that we continue to press the Vietnamese, be-
cause there are families who still await information that the Viet-
namese have.

Mr. Kramer. Yes, sir.

Senator Smith. I can assure you they have it, and they are not
giving it to you — not all of it. They have given some, and they have
been more cooperative lately than they have in the past.

Let me just add one more point that I hope that you would look
at. I have visited Pyongyang. As far as I know, I am the first U.S.
Senator, and maybe the only one, to go there and talk with the
North Koreans on MIA/POW issues. They told me in those meet-
ings that I held with Kong Suk Chu and other leaders of the For-
eign Ministry of North Korea that the Chinese not only took Amer-
ican prisoners across the Yalung River into China, but manned the
camps and have a huge amount of information that could be pro-
vided on American service personnel from the Korean War.

The Chinese have literally shut the door in our faces on this. The
North Koreans have been more cooperative than the Chinese have,
and that is not saying much. I would just encourage you, as we go
through all of these other issues of MFN and others, that probably
have a higher priority level for obvious reasons, that we not forget
that issue. Because the Chinese do have information, there is no
question about it. I do not know what kind of archival data they
have, but I would encourage you to explore that avenue, of opening
up contact.

Mr. Kramer. I will. Senator. It is interesting, I had not known
that you had been to North Korea. It is an area in which I

Senator Smith. A lovely place for a vacation.

Mr. Kramer. I am sure it is quite wonderful for a vacation. It
is a country in which I am told that, just as you said, there have
been limited indications that they may be more forthcoming, but
there's nothing really happening yet — would be the way I would
say it.

With respect to the Chinese, I simply will have to look into that,
and I will.

Senator Smith. Thank you very much.

I have no further questions. I would like to thank all of you for
being here today. This tends to be a long, drawn-out process some-
times, in awaiting confirmation, but I do not think we will be de-
laying it here at the committee too much longer. So, beyond that,
we cannot speak what will happen on the fioor, but I think action

108

should be forthcoming very quickly, based on the information I
have seen.

Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.!

[Prepared questions submitted to Kenneth H. Bacon by Senator
Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:!

Dkpartmknt of Defense
assictant to the secretary of defense,

1400 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC. March 5, 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Thurmond: This is in response to your letter posing a series of
questions concerning the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Pub-
lic Affairs. Your questions and my responses are set forth below.
Sincerely,

Kenneth H. Bacon,
Assistant to the Secretary of

Defense for Public Affairs.

QuE^iONS AND Rf;sponses

Question. From your service as an Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs, what do you consider to be the most serious problems in the management
and operation of the public affairs activities of the Department of Defense? What
management activities and timetables would you establish to address these prob-
lems?

Answer. The office has two primary missions: to provide timely and accurate in-
formation about the activities of the Department of Defense to the media and to the
American public and to help keep the men and women in the U.S. military in-
formed. I have not identified any serious management problems that affect our abil-
ity to accomplish these missions. Still, there are always management challenges.

One of my concerns is how to get more and better quality photography and video
imagery from military operations and exercises. The Department deploys combat
photographers to document these activities, but we need to do a better job of train-
ing these photographers, defining their missions, clearing imagery for release, and
centralizing the storage and distribution of that imagery. My staff met in January
with senior military public affairs officers to discuss these problems. I have asked
my principal deputy to lead this project. He plans to have specific oversight and pol-
icy recommendations to the Services and the Joint Staff in the next few months.

Another challenge is how to cope with the rising demand for documents under the
Freedom of Information Act and Mandatory Declassification Review. We are looking
at a range of management steps that will enable us to provide timely service within
staff limits. Among those are reorganizations and reallocation of assets, and tech-
nology enhancements, such as bar code scanning, to reduce some of the manpower-
intensive aspects of the FOI and security review processes.

Question. Why is it important to you to be an "Assistant Secretary of Defense"
rather than an "Assistant to the Secretary of Defense"?

Answer. The senior spokesman for the Department of Defense must have the stat-
ure and authority to set and enforce the principles of openness, accuracy, and timeli-
ness in providing information to the public and the media. When this position was
downgraded from an Assistant Secretary of Defense in 1993, the Pentagon press
corps voiced concern about possible reduced access to the Secretary and other lead-
ers. I enjoy an excellent working relationship with Secretary Perry, his senior staff
and the Joint Staff, but this relationship is personality-based. Elevating the job by
making it subject to Senate confirmation would strengthen the public affairs func-
tion in two ways. P^irst, it would institutionalize necessary access to senior civilian
and military leadership. Second, it would make it easier for me and my .successors
to represent the Department in dealings with other Government agencies and with
foreign governments.

109

Question. Should you be confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs, what would you view as your principle responsibilities to the Secretary of
Defense?

Answer. My principle responsibility is to help the Secretary and the defense lead-
ership keep the public informed about the activities of the Department. I will con-
tinue to make as much information as possible available to the public and to our
Armed Forces, constrained only by operational and intelligence needs and statutes
such as the Privacy Act of 1974.

Question. How would you describe your access to Secretary Perry? How often do
you see him and what activities are you routinely included in?

Answer. My access to Secretary Perry is excellent and extensive. I usually see him
several times a day, both in regular meetings and as-needed. I generally brief him
before every dealing with the press. Last year he talked to the press 173 times in
the United States and more than 130 times on foreign trips. A direct telephone line
links our desks, making communication quick and easy.

Question. DOD directives provide that the ASD(PA) shall "ensure a free flow of
news and information to the media, appropriate forums, and the American people
limited only by national security constraints and statutory mandates." What guide-
lines would you use to determine what information can and cannot be released to
the news media and the public?

Answer. I will continue to ensure that the release of information is consistent
with the provisions of applicable statutes, executive orders and Department of De-
fense directives and instructions. Our goal is to release all useful information, un-
less specifically exempted by law, national security requirements, or privacy consid-
erations.

Question. The ASD(PA) has responsibility for the security review of DOD mate-
rials for publication or public release, including testimony before congressional com-
mittees. What policy would you intend to follow in carrying out these responsibil-
ities?

Answer. I intend to continue to use the procedures prescribed under executive
order and to ensure that information will not be classified unless the disclosure
could reasonably be expected to damage national security.

Question. Aside from restrictions related to classified and sensitive source-related
information, what restrictions, if any, would you apply in approving material pre-
pared for publication by DOD personnel?

Answer. In order to protect the Department and the author, our review should
ensure that publication does not violate the law or codes of conduct. Our review
should also ensure that the information published does not constitute, or even ap-
pear to constitute, a misuse of official information.

Question. The ASD(PA) has responsibility for overseeing the provision of news
analysis and news clipping services for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint
StalT, and the military Departments' headquarters. What policy would you intend
to follow in providing this news analysis and in determining what news media re-
ports should be disseminated throughout the DOD's Washington headquarters?

Answer. The goal of our news clipping and broadcast transcript service is to give
senior defense leaders an unvarnished selection of international, national and com-
munity coverage of defense issues. I intend to continue this policy, which gives us
the bad news with the good. This helps the department respond appropriately to
public issues.

Question. Allegations of censorship and news management by military command-
ers of Stars and Stripes newspapers led to a requirement in the fiscal year 1988/
89 Defense Authorization Act that the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) inves-
tigate the validity of these allegations. GAO reported that, according to a panel
formed by the Society of Professional Journalists, evidence of censorship and inap-
propriate news management was conclusive at Stars and Stripes in the Pacific, but
inconclusive for Stars and Stripes in Europe. What do you believe is the role of the
Stars and Stripes newspapers? Do you believe that the military chain of command
should be allowed to interfere with, or influence the news content of the articles in
these newspapers?

Answer. The role of the Stars and Stripes is to provide an unbiased, free flow of
news and information to military service members, DOD civilians, and their fami-
lies, who are serving in the European and Pacific theaters. The newspapers help to:

• Provide a free fiow of news from the United States,

• Foster a sense of community within the theater,

• Keep personnel educated and informed, thereby making them better serv-
ice memoers, and better citizens.

The military chain of command should not interfere with news coverage of the
Stars and Stripes and should not attempt to influence the news content.

The only circumstances under which the military command may order information
withheld from the Stars and Stripes are in matters involving (1) the disclosure of
classified information, (2) threats to national security, or (3) endangerment of the
lives of U.S. personnel. In any such case, the matter must be immediately referred
to me and to the Secretary of Defense.

These principles are reflected in the Department's internal regulations governing
Stars and Stripes operations.

I believe that the steps taken since 1989 have strengthened the independence of
the Stars and Stripes and minimized the potential of undue command influence.

Question. Do you believe that there is a need for an ombudsman to investigate
and report independently to the Director of the American Forces Information Serv-
ice or to the ASD(PA) on questions of censorship in the Stars and Stripes news-
papers?

Answer. Yes, I believe the ombudsman to the Stars and Stripes plays an essential,
continuing role in maintaining the editorial integrity of the newspapers.

The ornbudsman position was created in 1990 in an effort to guarantee the edi-
torial integrity of the newspapjer. The three individuals who have held the position
since then have been seasoned professionals who were well known and respected in
thejournalism community.

The ombudsmen have served as a vital safeguard. I know of no substantive allega-
tions of censorship at the Stars and Stripes while ombudsmen have been serving.
The ombudsman position should be continued.

Question. What role do you currently play in monitoring the activities of the oper-
ations of Stars and Stripes and other service publications, and do you plan to
change this role?

Answer. As the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on public affairs mat-
ters, I direct the activities of the American Forces Information Service (AFIS). AFIS
exercises policy guidance and oversight of the Stars and Stripes, and military serv-
ice command information publications.

AFIS also provides management assistance, and controls the disbursement of ap-
propriated fund financial supfwrt to the Stars and Stripes. This is particularly cru-
cial at the present time, when Stars and Stripes faces severe financial problems in
the wake of troop reductions and the transfer of the Stars and Stripes bookstores
to the military exchanges.

It should be noted that neither my office, nor AFIS exercise control over the edi-
torial content of the Stars and Stripes.

I do not anticipate changing my role or the current structure for overseeing the
operations of the Stars and Stripes and service command information publications.

Question. If confirmed as ASD(PA), do vou intend to employ the "pooling" arrange-
ment that the Defense Department developed during Desert Shield/Desert Storm to
permit selected members of the news meaia to accompany DOD operations? What,
if any, modifications would you make to this process based on past experience and
your own views?

Answer. Whenever possible, I will continue to advocate free and open media cov-
erage of military operations, as we are currently doing in Bosnia. However, when
access to a military operation is not otherwise available to the totality of the media
desiring coverage, the pool system has proven to be an acceptable alternative to the
media and to military commanders. When pool coverage is required, I will continue
to monitor the situation and ensure that tne pool is as large as the operation will
permit and is terminated in favor of free and open coverage as soon as the situation
permits, as we did in Haiti. We work closely with news bureau chiefs and reporters
to refine and improve pool operations. We have instituted regular meetings with the
bureau chiefs and quarterly meetings for media "on call" for pools. We convene
afler-action meetings with the media after each deployment to discuss lessons
learned and to make needed modifications. We have also upgraded and standardized
our satellite and computer technology to mesh with the media's equipment. I will
continue this trend of working closely with the media to improve pool operations
and the overall relationship between the Department and the media.

Question. Has the Department of Defense encountered any significant difficulties
in recent years in the administration of the Freedom of Information Act or the ac-
cess provisions of the IVivacy Act?

Answer. We have not yet encountered significant problems; however, as indicated
in my response to Question 1, if the trend toward increased caseload and decreased

f)ersonnel continues, a problem could arise. We are attempting to resolve this prob-
em before it occurs.

Ill

Question. What role, if any, do you foresee for the ASD(PA) in the formulation
and articulation of national defense policy?

Answer. The ASD(PA) is charged with formulating policies to ensure a free flow
of news and information to the public and the news media, consistent with national
security reauirements and other legal and regulatory requirements. While I do not
anticipate airect participation in policy development, as the Defense spokesman, I
do work closely with the Secretary and his stall on the articulation of that policy.

Question. How many civilian employees and military personnel are assigned to
the OfTice of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for I\iblic Affairs? How is the Office
organized? What other DOD components does the Assistant Secretary oversee?

Answer.

(a) The OfTice of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense employs:

Civilian — 64
Military— 50
Total— 114

(b) See organizational chart below.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TO THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)

CKIord K Btma*

COL Mxk A. Bmxnswsld

Dia FOBFHEEDOMOF
INPORUATIOH AND

SECURrnr review

Mr. Anthony PaasarvHi

Mr Jordan E. mar

COL Joseph Gordon

)

Hr. MaroM MfII^Ii

(FIELD ACTIVITY)

lOtJ

AMERICAN FORCES INFORMATION SERVICE (AFIS)

Civilian

Militaiy

Total

Washington DC

94
82
59
12
132
30

50
35
211
87

10
0

144

AFRTS/BC CA

117

DINFOS MO

270

Photo Sch, FL

T-ASA CA

142

DVIS MD

AFIS Totals

409

393

802

Question. Which management positions are occupied by civilians and which by
military? What determines this breakout?

112

Answer. As indicated on the organizational chart, the leadership of the Office of
the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs includes the ATSD(PA),
who is a civilian; 3 deputies (2 civilians and one military); and 8 directorates. Three
of these directorates are headed by military personnel (Management, Defense Infor-
mation, and Plans). The rest are headed by civilians. There is no regulatory reason
for designating a position as military or civilian. However, I believe that the deputy
spokesman should be a military officer. Traditionally, the Directorates for Defense
Information and Plans have been led by military officers, and they are staffed pri-
marily by military officers.

Question. What percentage of public affairs management personnel are political
appointees and what are their roles in the following areas?

Answer. The OATSD(PA) has 2 non-career SES employees (counting myself) and
9 Schedule C employees. No such appointees are assigned to the American Forces
Information Service. Assignment to tne roles in question are:

• Media Relations: 3

• I'ublic Relations: 3

• Information Dissemination: 4

• Other (Administrative) 1

Question. What is the difference between directors and Deputy Assistant Secretar-
ies?

Answer. As seen in the organizational chart, the Deputy Assistants to the Sec-
retary work directly for the ATSD(PA), supervise and coordinate the overall activi-
ties of the individual directorates, and have broader responsibilities than the direc-
tors in establishing and implementing policies and proceaures.

Question. What ability do directors nave to make policy within the public affairs
field?

Answer. As the people who implement public affairs policy on a day-to-day basis,
the directors are normally the first to determine when policy needs to be adjusted.
Directors normally have a primary role in drafting new policies for coordination;
however, overall PA policy is the responsibility of the ATSD(PA). Directors do have
the authority to implement policies and procedures within their directorates to en-
sure efficient, effective and equitable operations.

Question. Some believe you have too many 'layers" in your organization. Do you
agree, and if not, why not? If you agree, how do you plan to restructure?

Answer. Our personnel strength has fallen from 126 people (72 civilian; 54 mili-
tary) in 1988 to 114 people now. By the end of fiscal year 2001, we are scheduled
to lose another 17 civilian slots. In response, we are streamlining the organization.
We have already eliminated 2 deputy director positions and combined 2 directorates
into one and eliminated the extra director position.

Question. Usually at the end of a Presidential term, employees begin to "burrow
in" to avoid losing their iobs during an administration change. Have you witnessed
any of this recently within I\iblic Affairs? Do you have a program for promotion
from within this organization? (i.e. "upward mobility" similar to Army provisions).

Answer. I am not aware of any "burrowing in" from either this administration or
the previous one. All hiring and promotions within this organization are conducted
in strict compliance with Civilian Personnel Regulations and are based on merit and
Qualifications, we provide pathways for upward mobility but do not make personnel
aecisions based solely on that factor.

Question. Are you aware of anyone within the OSD/I'A organization who received
a senior level political appointment and then converted their employment to a ca-
reer civil service position;

Answer. No, however, I am aware of two instances that may appear to fall within
the scope of this question, one involves one of my deputies, Clifford Bemath. He was
a career civilian employee, with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense at
the GS-15 level from August 1990 until August 1993. In March 1993, he was asked
by then ATSD(PA) Vernon Guidry to assist in the transition to the new administra-
tion. He was given a Limited Term Senior Executive Service appointment to per-
form those duties in August 1993.

In August 1994, Dennis Boxx, the Acting ATSD(PA), requested re-establishment
of the position of Deputy ATSD(PA). The position was competitively recruited and
advertised to "all qualified persons" for a 30-day period. Twenty-three candidates
applied for the position. Two professional review panels reduced the list to six "Best
Qualified" candidates and referred them to me for consideration. I interviewed them
all and selected Mr. Bemath, based on his proven leadership, managerial, and tech-
nical skills. His career SES appointment was approved by the Office of Personnel
Management Qualification Review Board in March 1995 and he was appointed to
the position.

113

The second case involves a deputy under the previous administration, Robert Tay-
lor. Mr. Taylor served under an SES noncareer appointment from December 1989
through June 27, 1993. Initially, he was appointed to the position of Deputy Assist-
ant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Upon leaving this position at the change
of the administration, Mr. Taylor was asked to serve intermittently as a consultant
to the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. He was subse-
quently appointed to a career-conditional position based on merit competition, which
included subsequent certification from the Office of Personnel Management, at the
American Forces Information Service.

Question. Please give us your philosophy on hiring practices and promotions with-
in Public Affairs.

Answer. As stated in my response to question 21, all hiring and promotions within
this organization are conducted in strict compliance with Civilian Personnel Regula-
tions and are based on merit and qualifications. I do not tolerate any favorable or
unfavorable decisions made on the basis of race, gender, age or other factors which
are unrelated to job performance and qualifications. I want my organization to be
known as one in whicn qualified people can achieve notice and promotions.

Question. What other public affairs offices exist in the Washington headquarters
of the Department of Defense? What is the relationship of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Public Affairs to each of these offices?

Answer. Each of the Military Services (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps)
has a public affairs office, as does the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. In addition, several of the Defense Agencies have public affairs staffs: De-
fense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Mapping Agency, Defense Finance and Ac-
counting Service, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Nuclear Agency, and the On-
site Inspection Agency.

The Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs provides
policy oversight and guidance to these activities in the areas of media relations,
community relations, internal information, and Freedom of Information and Secu-
rity Review.

Question. The perception on Capitol Hill is that the number of news sources with-
in DOD is increasing. Can you give us an idea of how many sources there were 10
years ago and how many there are now? If there is a substantial change, can you
explain it?

Answer. We work closely with the Defense Agencies, the Unified Commands and
the military Services, and those organizations nave not changed significantly over
the past 10 years. In fact, almost every organization's PA staff has decreased in size.
My office does maintain some control over public affairs slots in OSD. Every request
to establish a public affairs position must be coordinated with my staff. Over the
years, very few new requests have been approved. That said, due to the growth and
demands of the media itself, many organizations have made one or more persons
responsible for direct coordination with my staff on public affairs related matters.
These people do not, however, serve as "media outlets" or as spokesf>ersons and do
not, normally, work public affairs as full-time duties.

There have been substantial changes over the last 10 years in how the news
media cover the Department of Defense. Most importantly, the success of CNN has
driven most national based news media into a 24 hour news cycle. This need for
around the clock information, when coupled with the numerous technological ad-
vances available to the media, puts added pressure on the DOD to provide factual,
coordinated responses as quickly as possible. The proliferation of trade journals and
newsletters over the past 10 years has also added to the public affairs challenge —
there are many more deadline -pressured reporters looking for very detailed tech-
nical data. In response, the Public AfTairs office has launched DefenseLINK,
BosniaLINK and GulfljINK to provide information over the internet.

Question. Not long ago, you finished a "Joint Public Affairs Doctrine." When was
it begun and finished? Who was it coordinated with? What lines of authority does
it establish in a joint operation environment What is the current status?

Answer. Joint Publication 1-07, "Doctrine for F*ublic Affairs in Joint Operations,"
has not yet been completed. The project was begun in mid-1992 and took about a
year to research and write. Since the doctrine would affect other wartime doctrine,
both in all of the military services and with the Joint Staff, the coordination process
for this doctrine has been extensive. It was formally stafTed within Service and
CINC PA channels twice before it was ready for formal staffing at the Service Chief
of Staff, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff and CINC level. It is now completing its
third — and, I hope, last — staffing. The suspense to the Joint Staff is Marcn 8, 1996.
We expect publication within a few months from that date. The doctrine states that
the ATSD(rA) "retains primary responsibility for the development and consistent
implementation of DOD information policy" and lists the furtner responsibilities of

114

this office. The doctrine also defines the responsibilities of the Joint Staff, the Mili-
tary Services and the Combatant Commanders.

Questions Submitted by Senator Strom Thurmond

Senator Tjiurmond. You stated in your answers to policy questions that there are
about eleven other public affairs offices existing in the Washington headquarters of
the Department of Defense. What do you have to coordinate the activities of these
offices?

Mr. Bacon. Although each of the Military Services and the other organizations
listed in my response to Question 24 have public affairs offices, my office is respon-
sible for the public affairs policies of the entire Department of Defense. That means
that all activities must adhere to the Departments IVinciples of Information, DOD
Principles for News Media Coverage of DOD Operations, and other policies defined
in DOD Directive 5122.5 which defines the duties and responsibilities of the Assist-
ant Secretary of Defense for l\iblic Affairs. My staff and I work regularly and close-
ly with each of these public affairs offices to ensure the timely and accurate release
of information to the media and the public.

Senator THURMOND. In your answers to the committee, you indicated you are try-
ing to resolve problems with the increasing number of Freedom of Information re-
quests. Give us some idea of how serious this problem has become and how your
solutions, such as bar code scanning, would help.

Mr. Bacon. In my answer, I wrote that "another challenge is how to cope with
the rising demand for documents under the Freedom of Information Act and Manda-
tory Declassification Review." This is not a current problem. But, as the Department
and my office continue to downsize, and as requests continue to rise, I must ensure
that these functions continue to operate effectively. So I am exploring a range of
options, including bar code scanning, to use technology to reduce manpower inten-
sive activities.

Senator THURMOND. How do you plan to keep Members of Congress informed
prior to news releases that will impact them?

Mr. Bacon. I work closely with our Assistant Secretary of Defense for I>egislative
Affairs. In almost every case, as my staff is developing public affairs guidance and
information for release to the media, we are also coordinating with Legislative Af-
fairs so that they can keep Members of Congress informed.

Senator Thur.mond. During time of conflict. Congress receives information brief-
ings from both Department of Defense and Department of State. How will your of-
fice interface with these briefings in the future?

Mr. Bacon. My staff and I coordinate regularly with Department of State and
other Government agencies, both in times of conflict and during day-to-day activi-
ties. We also work closely with DOD representatives who brief Congress.

Senator Thur.mond. In your answer to question 17, you listed a number of indi-
viduals you supervise in Public Affairs. One of the roles you listed for these people
is that of "Public Relations." Are there any restrictions on the use of appropriated
funds for "public relations?"

Mr. Bacon. We used the category "I'ublic Relations" because it was listed in your
original question. I am aware that public law prohibits the use of appropriated
funds for payment for publicity experts unless specifically appropriated for that pur-
pose. The three people listed in this category coordinate with veterans organizations
and other groups that have an interest in the Department of Defense. They provide
information and authorized support as requested by those organizations ana in ac-
cordance with DOD directives; therefore their roles can be loosely defined as "public
relations." However, they have no publicity function or responsibility. I will continue
to ensure our compliance with public law in this matter.

[The nomination reference of Kenneth H. Bacon follows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

May 25, 1995.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

Kenneth H. Bacon, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense. (New Position)

115

[The biographical sketch of Kenneth H. Bacon, which was trans-
mitted to the committee at the time the nomination was referred,
follows:]

Biographical Sketch of Kenneth H. Bacon

Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon was appointed by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry
as Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for I^ublic Affairs on September 20, 1994.
Prior to his appointment, he was an Assistant News Editor for the Wall Street Jour-
nal.

Mr. Bacon was born November 21, 1944, in Bronxville, New York. He attended
Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire, and graduated in 1962. He re-
ceiveci his B.A. in English in 1966 from Amherst College, and an M.S. in Journalism
and an M.B.A. from Columbia University in 1969.

From 1968 to 1974, Mr. Bacon served in a civil affairs unit of the U.S. Army Re-
serve as an enlisted man.

In 1968 and 1969, Mr. Bacon served as the Legislative Assistant to Senator
Thomas J. Mclntyre of New Hampshire. He then moved to the Wall Street Journal
to cover regulatory agencies, economics and the Nixon wage-price control program.
From 1976 to 1980, he covered the Pentagon, including the Iranian hostage crisis,
the development of the cruise missile and the beginning of the effort to rebuild the
military.

From 1980 to 1983, Mr. Bacon was an economics reporter and a regular author
of the weekly "Outlook" column. He became an assistant news editor in 1983, super-
vising economics and foreign policy coverage out of Washington and continued as
one of the "Outlook" authors. From 1988 to 1990 he covered health and education.

Covering the banking industry from 1990 to 1993, he covered the political crisis
in confidence in the deposit insurance fund's ability to meet the cost oi bank failures
and the passage of the 1991 law tightening bank regulation. He then became a glob-
al financial correspondent covering banking, the IMF and World Bank and U.S. dol-
lar policy in 1993. From June 1993, until his appointment, he was Wall Street Jour-
nal's assistant news editor supervising health, crime and other coverage.

He is married to Darcy Bacon, who is a producer for a public radio program. They
have two daughters, Katharine and Sarah.

[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals nomi-
nated from civilian life by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial, and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Kenneth H. Bacon 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

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

116

to the hearings and will also be published in any hearing record as well as made
available to the public.

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Kenneth Hogate Bacon.

2. Position to which nominated:
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs

3. Date of nomination:
May 26, 1995.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
November 21, 1944; Bronxville, NY.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married since June 14, 1966 to Dorothy Tufls Wheeler.

7. Names and ages of children:

Katharine Day Bacon, 24; Sarah Hogate Bacon, 20.

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

1959-1962. Phillips Exeter Academy, High School Diploma

1962-1966. Amherst College, B.A. (Cum laude)

1966-1968. Columbia University, MBA, M.S. (Journalism)

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.

1984-September 16, 1994. Assistant News Editor, The Wall Street Journal,
1025 Connecticut Ave., Washington, DC 20036.

September 20, 1994— Present. Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Public
Affairs, 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400.

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

None.

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

None.

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

Trustee, Amherst College, Amherst, MA.

Trustee, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC.

Member, MetrofX)litan Club, Washington, DC.

13. Political affiliations and activities:

(a) List all ofTices 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, po-
litical party, political action committee, or similar entity of $100 or more for the past
5 years.

1993— $100.00 to Kidspal, Cambridge, MA

1994 — $200.00 to Lisle Baker, Candidate for Mayor, Newton, MA

1994— $100.00 to Ed Bradley, Candidate for Maine House.

14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements.

N/A

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

117

During 25 years wilh the Wall Street Journal, I wrote thousands of articles on
a wide range of topics.

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 con-
firmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly constituted committee
of the Senater

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

Kenneth H. Bacon.

This 7th day of June, 1995.

[The nomination of Kenneth H. Bacon was reported to the Senate
by Senator Strom Thurmond on May 25, 1995, with the rec-
ommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on March 28, 1996.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Franklin D. Kramer by Senator
Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

Questions and Responses
i. regarding duties

Question. Having served in the International Security Affairs ofTice currently and
on previous occasions, please share with us what you see as your biggest challenges
and your highest priorities, if you are confirmed as ASD/ISA.

Answer. If confirmed as ASD(ISA), my biggest challenges and highest priorities
would include:

In Europe, NATO has begun to adapt its structures and missions to the chal-
lenges of the post-Cold War world. As the deployment in Bosnia demonstrates,
NATO will look increasingly beyond its traditional collective defense mission. The
recent announcement by France of its desire to move closer to NATO provides the
Alliance a great opportunity. A thoughtful restructuring of the Alliance military
structure which maintains tne concepts of unity of command and military efTective-
ness while allowing NATO to deal with the new missions it will face will be chal-
lenging and productive.

Beyond its internal restructuring, NATO is engaged in the transformation of Eu-
ropean security architecture through the Partnership for Peace and NATO enlarge-
ment. The 27 Partnership for Peace nations are promoting democracy, civilian con-
trol of the military, marKet economics, resolution of disputes with neighbors, and
NATO interoperability. It is a task well-started but with much yet to be done.

NATO enlargement is both appropriate and inevitable for the nations which truly
share the values of the North Atlantic Alliance. This year NATO will engage in an
intensive dialogue with nations seeking membership. Decisions on who and when
will promptly and steadily follow according to NATO's current timetable.

Although not within the purview of the ASD(ISA), relations with Russia are obvi-
ously critical. In this regard, ISA works closely with the Assistant Secretary of De-
fense for International Security Policy in promoting a constructive Russian policy,
particularly as undertaken in conjunction with our allies and friends.

In the Asia-Pacific region, we lace some of our most promising opportunities and
difficult challenges. On tne one hand, it is the world's most dynamic economic region

118

and America's largest collective trading partner. I^ongstanding, well-developed trea-
ty relationships with five countries in the region form a strong network that pro-
motes U.S. security interests. At the same time, Asia-Pacific is characterized by di-
versity and historical animosities, which, in turn, have inhibited a sense of cohesion
among countries in the region. Although the United States no longer faces a hege-
monic Soviet threat, we still confront a challenging military threat on the Korean
peninsula, as well as a complex array of tensions and uncertainties.

There is no more important bilateral relationship than that with Japan. Over the
past year, we have engaged in a dialogue to reaffirm and strengthen the U.S. -Japan
security relationship and improve overall cooperation in bilateral, regional, and
global areas. As our security relationship developed to protect mutual interests dur-
ing the 50 years since the end of World War II, the security dialogue addresses the
direction in which our security relationship will evolve into the next century. The
U.S. -Japan partnership has become the cornerstone of U.S. security policy in East
Asia. Several programs will be highlighted at the bilateral Summit in Tokyo in
April. First, the President and Prime Minister will conclude a joint Security Dec-
laration reaffirming the importance of the security alliance for the next century.
Second, progress will be made on arms cooperation with an agreement to coproduce
the F-2 fighter. Finally, significant progress will be presented by the bilateral Spe-
cial Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO), which addresses the concerns of the
people of Okinawa regarding the impact placed upon them by the U.S. military
presence on Okinawa.

The rapid growth of Chinese material strength has raised the importance of
China in Asia and, increasingly, in the global security equation. China is a nuclear
weapons state, a leading regional military power, and a global f>ower with a perma-
nent seat on the UN Security Council. Altnough it still has a low GNP per capita
compared to other leading economic powers, it has one of the largest and fastest
growing economies in the world. It is thus essential for peace, stability, and eco-
nomic growth in the Asia-Pacific region that China is stable and continues to de-
velop friendly relations with its neighbors. In support of this objective, the Defense
Department pursues a dialogue with the People s Liberation Army designed to in-
crease transparency, avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations, and gain oper-
ational insights. This is done through high-level visits, functional exchanges, iniple-
mentation of confidence-building measures such as ship visits, and encouraging PLA

6articipation in Asia-Pacific regional multinational military activities sponsored by
rSCINCPAC.

At the same time, the Department of Defense carries out its responsibilities under
the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act by providing Taiwan with sufficient defensive arms
and by maintaining our own capabilities at levels necessary to deal appropriately
with any threat to stability in the Taiwan Strait. Beijing's recent announcement of
missile tests in the vicinity of Taiwan from 8-15 March nas caused the administra-
tion. Congress, and the American people great concern. The continuation of intimi-
dation tactics would inevitably have a profound effect on U.S.-PRC relations. We are
counseling all parties to avoid provocative actions.

On the Korean fxjninsula, the United States confronts its most direct and chal-
lenging security threat in the region. Therefore, our focus in Korea continues to be
on deterring aggression and maintaining readiness. Recently, a new dimension of
this challenge has emerged in the spiraling decline and increasing fragility of the
internal situation in North Korea, while the United States and South Korea con-
tinue to closely coordinate our assessments and approaches to North Korea, we are
moving ahead with implementation of all aspects of the vitally important Agreed
Framework on North Korea's nuclear program.

We have enduring commitments to Australia, where we are bound by treaty, cul-
ture, and shared sacrifice. Southeast Asia is also an important component of our
Asia-Pacific security strategy. In addition to including two of our five Asian treaty
allies, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) provides military access
necessary for a long-term regional presence; has been the driving force behind the
evolution of regional security dialogue, most importantly the ASEAN Regional
Forum (ARF); and has taken the leaa in addressing specific regional security issues
such as Cambodia and the South China Sea. We enjoy good bilateral military ties
with the ASEAN states (though not yet with the newest member, Vietnam). We
must continue to remind the region just how important Southeast Asian security is
to the United States, and to deepen our engagement in regional security through
training, joint exercises, ship visits, and public statements such as the East Asia
Strategy Report. The U.S. understands the importance of remaining attuned to the
strategic thinking, political dynamics, and regional sensitivities of these countries.
We are committed to addressing country and regional concerns, building useful pol-
icy dialogues, and reinvigorating valuable defense relationships.

119

In the Middle East, the United States has enduring strategic interests including
our relationship to Israel, maintenance of the unhindered flow of oil from the Per-
sian Gulf and establishing the security of key regional partners.

In furtherance of these objectives, we work m strategic partnership with Israel
in areas that ensure Israel's security and qualitative military edge while accommo-
dating any regional security arrangements that may emerge from the peace process.
We will continue to work closely with Israel on security assistance to maintain the
necessary flow of arms, on cooperative research and developments (such as the
Arrow ATBM system), and on combined planning and exercises. We take extremely
seriously the recent terrorist blows against Israeland the peace process, and we will
strongly support Israel to counter sucn terrorism.

In Egypt, we have established a strategic partnership, fostered in part by our sub-
11 foreign military financing program. Egyp
the peace process and a crucial friend to the United States, particularly in the coali-

stantial foreign military financing program. Egypt has been a critical participant in

tion in Desert Storm, and actively undertaking peacekeeping efforts. In Jordan, we
are committed to help the King meet Jordan's legitimate defense needs in the con-
text of the risks he has taken for regional peace.

With the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC), we promote a three-tier cooperative
approach, including strengthening local self-defense capabilities, promoting GCC de-
fense cooperation, and enhancing the ability of U.S. and Western forces to return
and fight efTectively alongside local forces in a crisis. These efforts are well estab-
lished, and we have extensive exercise and prepositioning programs underway with
our Gulf partners which significantly enhance our ability to aeter aggression from
Iraq and Iran.

In South Asia, the potential for a nuclear dimension to any future Indo-Pakistani
conflict makes it essential for the U.S. to remain actively engaged. We seek to lessen
the tensions between these two. To that end, I will support an active DOD efTort
to maintain and expand contacts between the U.S. Armed Forces and those of India
and Pakistan. Active U.S. engagement can serve a facilitating role in the resolution
of their differences and will require them to deal with their problems bilaterally.

We also seek to deal with the dangers posed by Iran and Iraq. While our current
military posture in the Gulf is designed primarily to counter the threat posed by
Iraq, our forces, in concert with those of coalition partners, are engaged in a care-
fully constructed regional strategy to ensure that neither Iraq nor Iran can domi-
nate the Gulf. The peacetime forward presence of U.S. naval, air, and land forces
in the Gulf, and our prepositioning program are essential elements of this strategy.
These also provide an initial capability to deal immediately with any direct chal-
lenge and serve as key symbols of our commitment to deter regional aggressors. In
adcTition, Iran is clearly dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruction, in-
cluding chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, a prospect that would have seri-
ous regional repercussions.

Despite its humiliating defeat by Coalition forces during Operation Desert Storm,
Iraq retains a sizable military and remains a serious threat to American interests
in tne Gulf region. To contain this threat, the U.S. must ensure that Iraq complies
with all applicable UN Security Council resolutions — particularly those relating to
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs — before tnere is any relaxation in UN
sanctions. In addition, the U.S. should seek the emergence in Baghdad of a govern-
ment that respects human rights, does not threaten the peace and stability of the
Gulf, and can preserve Iraq's territorial integrity.

In other areas of the world, we similarly face opportunities and challenges. In
Latin America and the Caribbean, we must continue our progress as partners in se-
curity, to consolidate democracy, to oppose narcoterrorism, to encourage the contin-
ued leadership of military forces by elected civilian ofTicials, to promote trans-
parency and mechanisms for peaceful conflict resolution, and to advance cooperation
on global peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.

Finally, in connection with our unaccounted for servicemen, we need to ensure the
American people and the families no less than the fullest possible accounting.

Question. Please share with the Committee the tasks you have undertaken since
assuming your position as Deputy Assistant Secretary ol*^ Defense for European and
NATO AH'airs.

Answer. Since I only returned to the Pentagon in Januaiy, my activities as the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs have been

120

necessarily modest. However, in the past 2 months, I have been able to focus heavily
on the twin questions of NATO adaptation and enlargement in the post-Cold War
environment, including the Partnership for Peace initiative and a reinvigorated role
for France in the alliance. In a multilateral context, I traveled to Munich with Sec-
retary Perry for the annual Wehrkunde conference to examine the future of Euro-
pean security after Bosnia, including meetings there with German Chancellor Kohl;
the UK, French, German, and Dutch Ministers of Defense; and the NATO Secretary
General. I have engaged in informal multilateral meetings with British, French, and
German colleagues. I also participated actively in the separate visits of the Czech
and Bulgarian Ministers of Defense, the NATO Secretary General, and the Sec-
retary General of the WEU to Washington for meetings with the Secretary and have
been fully engaged in preparations for the Secretary's participation in the South
Balkans Defense Ministerial. I have been involved in bilateral discussions with the
British, the Danes, the Portuguese, and the Norwegians. The tensions in the Aegean
between our two allies, Greece and Turkey, compelled my attention and ensure that
the challenge of building a climate of confidence in the Eastern Mediterranean will
be high on our agenda.

Question. How do you see the duties of the ASD/ISA in the interagency setting?
How is business conducted? How do you insure that the best interests of the Depart-
ment of Defense, our Armed Forces, and this Nation's international security inter-
ests are best served?

Answer. The fundamental task of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Inter-
national Security AfTairs is to support the Secretary of Defense and the Under Sec-
retary of Defense for Policy in ensuring that matters of defense and military power
are appropriately considered in our international security strategy. These matters
are reviewed under the auspices of the National Security Council at various levels
of Government, including Cabinet and lower-level meetings. While different institu-
tions in the interagency arena bring different perspectives to the National security
and foreign affairs challenges our nation faces, there is a common objective in ad-
vancing our nation's well-being. To ensure that the best interests of the Department
of Defense and our Armed Forces are met, ISA works very closely with the joint
Staff and through them the Unified Commanders to develop critical defense perspec-
tives. By ensuring that these defense and military issues are appropriately pre-
sented and considered in the process, ISA undertakes to advance our nation's inter-
national security interests. ISA's perspective is further developed by, on the one
hand, freauent and candid consultations with the Congress ana, on the other, fre-
quent ana candid consultations with our allies, our friends, and officials of other
countries. Taken together, these efforts support the role of the Secretary of Defense
in the interagency process.

Question. Please review specifically the relationships and functions of the ASD/
ISA with regard to the Department of State, the joint Chiefs of Staff, and the com-
manders (especially the CENCS) in the unified ana specified commands?

Answer. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs is
the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
and the Secretary of Defense for formulating and coordinating international security
strategy and policy and political-military issues of interest to the Department of De-
fense that relate to foreign regions and nations, their governments and defense es-
tablishments, except for the non-Baltic states of the former Soviet Union. While
there is extensive informal communications and consultation at all levels among the
ISA organization and its counterparts in the joint Staff, the Department of State,
and the National Security Council staff, there is also a formal structure established
by Presidential Decision Directive I that was issued by the President at the opening
of the administration to govern the NSC system. The structure is one of hierarchical
committees ranging from interagency "working groups" to the National Security
Council itself, with the I-*resident in the chair, anogroups in between that are com-
posed of deputy or under secretary level ofTicials. The ASD/ISA or his deputies nor-
mally represent the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the Interagency Working
Group (IvVG) level; IWGs can be convened and chaired by any of the three major
national security players — Defense, State, or the NSC staff — as appropriate to the
issue at hand. The joint Chiefs of Staff are represented at all levels of interagency
coordination, ranging from the Chairman in his statutory responsibility as military
advisor to the NSC itself, to the Vice Chairman at the level of the Deputies Commit-
tee, to other senior fiag or general officers from the joint Staff at the working group
level. The views of the Unified and Specified Commands are represented by tne JCS
participant, although members of the CINC staffs frequently participate directly at
the rWG level.

Question. In practical terms, explain specifically how U.S. security policy is imple-
mented with the various friendly countries around the world. How are these ex-

121

changes conducted, agreements made, and joint readiness between the U.S. and
other countries undertaken?

Answer. The modalities of implementing U.S. security policy with friends and al-
lies around the world are as varied as the relationships themselves. The NATO trea-
ty relationship is the most structured, with formal committees and a permanent sec-
retariat to complement alliance meetings throughout the year at all levels of both
the civilian and military defense establishments. Our long-standing bilateral treaty
relationships, such as with Japan and Korea, also have regularly scheduled meet-
ings at the Secretarial level. Elsewhere around the world, we have regularly sched-
uled meetings with friends at the Under, Assistant, or Deputy Assistant Secretary
level that are labeled variously as "Joint Military Committees," "Military Consult-
ative Commissions," "Consultative Groups," "Bilateral Working Groups," and the
like. Whatever they are called, there is a common structure that includes both pol-
icy-level exchanges, military planning sessions, and topical working groups that ad-
dress specific areas of cooperation. Issues as broad as NATO expansion or as narrow
as mapping, charting and geodesy may be addressed. Discussions may include re-
views of multilateral or bilateral strategic goals, analyses of foreign military sales
and security assistance, and consideration of specific defense topics ranging from
status of forces agreements to the actions of other countries. In these meetings, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense is oflen joined by representatives from the key
national security agencies, including the Department of State, the National Security
Council staff, the joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified Commands, and the U.S. country
teams.

Question. What sort of business is conducted at the bilateral U.S. -foreign meet-
ings? How are the agreements made and business conducted conveyed to the execu-
tive branch and Congress? Is this information adequately conveyed to Congress?

Answer. As noted above, the business conducted at bilateral U.S. -foreign meetings
ranges from high-level strategy and policy exchanges to military planning sessions
to foreign military sales and security assistance to topical matters such as mapping,
charting and geodesy. How agreements are conveyed to the executive branch and
Congress depends on the nature of the agreement. The interested agencies of the
executive branch would normally have been involved in reaching any such agree-
ments as members of the U.S. delegations and/or through approval in the inter-
agency process. Both informal and formal consultations with the Congress by mem-
bers of the ISA organization, something which 1 intend to emphasize if confirmed
as ASD/ISA, serve to convey an understanding of what has developed in the inter-
national arena. Agreements on arms sales issues are communicated to the Congress
formally as required by the Arms Export Control Act and informally by mutual ar-
rangement in the normal notification process. Formal international agreements en-
tered into by the Executive Branch that are not subject to the advice and consent
of the Senate are also notified to Congress by the Department of State as required
by the Case-Zablocki Act.

Question. Many who have testified before this Committee assert that there are no

?uick fixes for the overwhelming majority of internal conflicts, such as the former
ugoslavia. Once armed intervention occurs, the challenge becomes one of avoiding
interminable entanglement in the confiict, protecting peacekeeping forces, and en-
suring a modicum of stability and order. The latter requirement, however, may lead
to the temptation for intervening powers, such as the U.S., to try their hand at in-
stitution-building, particularly when dealing with failed states — a process oflen
dubbed "mission creep." Are we headed in this direction in Bosnia or other parts
of the world? Please explain.

Answer. As far as Bosnia is concerned, IFOR's mission was deliberately and tight-
ly circumscribed, both in the Dayton agreement and in the NATO OPLAN, to pre-
vent mission creep. IFOR's primary task is to ensure implementation of the military
aspects of the Dayton agreement. This mandate was clearly delineated in the agree-
ment itself and refiected in NATO's plans. The Dayton accord also authorized IFOR
to fialfiU certain supporting tasks "within the limits of its assigned principal tasks
and available resources." These subsidiary tasks include: helping create secure con-
ditions for civilian aspects of the peace settlement such as the holding of free and
fair elections; assisting the movement of organizations in the accomplishment of hu-
manitarian missions; assisting the United Nations High Commissoner for Refugees
(UNHCR) and other international organizations in their humanitarian missions; ob-
serving and preventing interference with the movement of civilian populations, refu-
gees and displaced persons, and responding to deliberate violence to life and person;
and monitoring the clearing of minefields and obstacles. The Secretary and the

\ Chairman have made clear their determination to keep the mission limited to 1 year

\and to avoid being drawn into expanded missions.

122

Question. DOD's Defense Security Assistance Agency reports to the ASD/ISA. This
agency directs, administers, and supervises the execution of approved security as-
sistance plans and programs, such as military assistance, IMET, and foreign mili-
tary sales. DSAA is an important tool for implementing U.S. defense policy inter-
nationally. How do you see your role with DSAA and what are some of the chal-
lenges this Agency is having?"

Answer. Security assistance is an extremely important tool of U.S. foreign and na-
tional security policy. It is oflen a key tangible expression of U.S. military relations
with the governments of friendly and allied countries. The military side of security
assistance, which DSAA administers, has concrete benefits to national security. F'or-
eign Military Sales (FMS) and grant aid through the Foreign Military Financing
(FMF) program promote interoperability with our friends and allies — the benefits of
which were spectacularly demonstrated in the Gulf War. FMS can also lengthen
production runs, which can result in lower unit costs for DOD purchases while sup-
porting American jobs.

IMET is probably the most cost-effective component of security assistance. In ad-
dition to offering foreign students an opportunity to establish and improve profes-
sional proficiency in their military skills, it provides for U.S. access to and influence
with a critical sector of society. Our regional CINCs consistently reinforce the impor-
tance of this program.

Currently, DSAA and the security assistance program face the same budgetary re-
source problems as does any program that falls under the foreign aid rubric. Foreign
aid budgets have been cut drastically over the last few years, even as the challenges
we face overseas have increased. If confirmed, I would appreciate your continued
support for robust, fully funded IMR^T and IMF programs in this year's foreign aid
bill.

I expect to take an active role in the policy aspects of security assistance field
through daily interactions with the DSAA Director, LTG Tom Rhame.

Question. Defense IVisoner of War/Missing in Action Office: The Defense Prisoner
of War/Missing in Action OfTice (DPMO) was established in July 1993, under the
authority, direction, and control of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Inter-
national Security Affairs. What do you plan to do in further resolving the MIA prob-
lem?

Answer. With the creation of the Defense POW/MIA Office, the U.S. Government
developed a central mechanism with which to correct deficiencies regarding how this
country has handled the issue of American POWs/MIAs during past wars. The guid-
ance provided by the recent missing persons legislation will help us to continue this
process, as well as provide a focus for future conflicts.

We continue to work hard to attain the fullest possible accounting for the 2,157
missing Americans in Southeast Asia. The completion of the comprehensive case re-
view is the most recent example of that effort, identifying next step actions to pur-
sue the resolution of cases of unaccounted for Americans with the governments of
Vietnam, I^aos, and Cambodia. We are aggressively pursuing these actions through
joint field activities and unilaterally with each country's government.

With regard to Korea, we have made some progress in the last few years in gain-
ing increased cooperation from the North Koreans on the POW/MIA issue. We con-
tinue to push for joint recovery operations which should lead to significantly more
identifications. We are also receiving indications the North Koreans are willing to
grant us access to their war museums and archival collections. Additionally, the
joint U.S. -Russia Commission on POW/MlAs provides the U.S. Government (USG)
a mechanism for investigating possible Soviet involvement with Korean War miss-
ing, as well as men lost on Cold War missions over Soviet territory.

We are striving to improve communications with the families, the Congress, and
other interested Americans through weekly updates, quarterly newsletters and an-
nual family briefings. In addition, we also conduct family forums throughout the
country which have been well received. During the past year, our representatives
met with families in IjOS Angeles, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Orlando.

The Department is also actively pursuing new technologies that may help ensure
we do not have unaccounted for Americans again. We are now the leading experts
in the use of mitochondrial DNA technology as a forensic identification tool, which
is already being applied to remains from WWlI, Korea and Vietnam.

The Department is moving proactively to establish a U.S. Government program
that is more responsive and better prepared to reduce the likelihood of personnel
becoming unaccounted for and to protect those who do in future confiicts. I look for-
ward to overseeing this effort.

123

II. REGARDING RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND TOWARD THE ARMED

FORCES

Question. After 50 years of being able to easily identify the chief threat to the
United States, the U.S. military may be turning to planning with the view that the
world is full of dangers but no one knows where or how the U.S. military will get
involved in combating those dangers. In your view, what is the best way to plan
in a world with unknown enemies? How should we identify the sorts of tasks that
the military will be called upon to do? Should we be specific about under what terms
and where and with whom tne military will be asked to fight?

Answer. While the post-Cold War environment presents far less certainty than we
were accustomed to during most of the last 50 years, there are known, identifiable
threats, such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, that require us to plan intelligently
for future challenges to our interests. Beyond those specifics, the U.S. may not know
with certainty who the enemy will be, how the enemy will fight, or how a conflict
might unfold. What is important is for the U.S. to maintain the military capability
to keep threats to our interests from emerging, if possible; to deter the threats that
do emerge and threaten ourselves, our allies, or our friends; and to defeat those
threats if active military power is required as promptly and decisively as possible.
The Secretary of Defense's planning guidance for fighting and winning two nearly
simultaneous Major Regional Conflicts provides the framework to ensure these ca-
pabilities are available to the Commander in Chief. The United States sets forth the
conditions under which its forces will be used through a combination of its formal
alliances and its declaratory policy as set forth in the President's National Security
Strategy, the Secretary of Defense's Annual Report to the President and the Con-
gress, and the JCS Chairman's National Military Strategy. In response to section
III, Q-2, I have discussed that guidance at greater length.

Question. Regional instability is increasing, nations are more threatened by
heightened nationalism, and there is a potential resurgence of communist factions
in Russia. We must have clarity about what is or is not a threat and what is or
is not in our Nation's best interest. Are you confident that policy guidance that you
receive is not blindly and irresponsibly setting our Armed Forces on an ill-conceived
path? Please explain.

Answer. The policy guidance that the National Command Authorities, the Presi-
dent, and the Secretary of Defense have provided the Department is set forth in the
documents noted above, but is also reviewed in the crucible of the interagency proc-
ess where broad jwlicy is required to interact with particularized facts. Policy is con-
tinually tested by results, and when policy requires review, it receives that review
at appropriate levels of government. Accordingly, the policy guidance that is set
forth is neither blindly nor irresponsibly applied. Instead, it is shaped, reviewed,
and continually considered to ensure that its application will be in the best interests
of the United States.

Question. Nationalism and ethnic conflict are on the rise and may bring into Ques-
tion using our military in more nontraditional missions. We are concerned aoout
these developments, and believe such trends will present a different future chal-
lenge to the unity of commands. In the past 10 years, our military has proven that
operational missions can be improved vastly under a clear chain-of-command. With
the same objectivity and clarity, this same unity must also advise the President as
Commander-in-Chief and the Congress on the appropriate use of military interven-
tion and foreign policy objectives. How would you see yourself as ASD/ISA contribut-
ing to this vital effort?

Answer. There can be no doubt that the military advice presented to the President
as Commander-in-Chief and to the Congress must be clear and unfiltered. The role
of the Secretary of Defense is to receive and analyze that advice in the context of
our national security objectives and, as part of the National Security Council, to
present recommendations to the President. The ASD(ISA) supports the Secretary of
Defense in the role of integrating military advice and national security objectives
in a geopolitical context.

Question. Unclear policy is unfair to all Americans, senior military officers who
become saddled with seeking foreign policy solutions rather than military solutions,
and most importantly our service members who are placed in peril performing in
situations which are bewildering and many times unresolvable. Are our National in-
terests sufficiently clear to avoid having those in uniform left holding the bag?
Please explain.

Answer. To ensure that U.S. national security strategy and defense policy are
clearly and widely understood, the administration has devoted considerable atten-
tion to the preparation of public and internal documents that identify U.S. security
objectives, resources, and the strategies that link them. Important guidance is pro-

124

vided in the President's National Security Strategy Report, the Secretary of De-
fense's Annual Report to the President and the Congress, and the JCS Chairman's
National Military Strategy. In addition to these annual reports, the Defense Depart-
ment, through tne Office of International Security Affairs, recently completed a se-
ries of five public reports on U.S. regional security strategies.

The U.S. military views infiuence the development of defense jaolicy in several
ways. First, section 151 of title 10, United States Code, provides that the Chairman
ana other members of the joint Chiefs of Staff are military advisors to the President,
the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. In that capacity, the
Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the Service Chiefs of Staff significantly affect de-
fense policy. Second, the combatant commanders influence defense policy — throu^
frequent contact with the Secretary of Defense and other senior civilian Defense De-
partment officials. In addition, the JCS Chairman has the statutory responsibility
to serve as the combatant commanders' spwkesman, especially on their operational
requirements. Third, many military officers serve in policy positions in the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and on the National Security Council staff.

Accordingly, through the combination of broad policy guidance as applied in the
interagency process to specific situations, our national interests are explicitly clari-
fied to proviae guidance to our uniformed military.

Question. Military involvement ought to be an instrument of policy, never an end
in itself. Political calculations are the tasks of the statesman, military operations
that of the commander. We must not involve the military in circumstances where
the mission was not founded on sound policy. This is why honest and direct ex-
changes must precede crucial decisions on military involvement. Do you agree that
while it is fair to say that the world remains uncertain, it is also fair to say that
American interests should and can be defined with more certainty? Please explain.

Answer. In my answers to the preceding questions, I explained the measures that
the administration takes to identify clear, attainable security objectives that are in-
formed by the views of the military personnel who share responsibility for achieving
them. There can be no doubt that such a process of review and clarification is criti-
cal to ensure that the use of military power serves the goals of policy. While consen-
sus on broad policy goals is necessary, it is in the review of specific, particular is-
sues that the policy guidance to the military commander must be provided to allow
him to understand and accomplish the task of his military operation. Only with clar-
ity of policy and intent can the commander achieve the desired result.

Question. The issue of unity of command in international organizations, such as
the UN, and other regional organizations is difficult to resolve. The general reluc-
tance to place our forces under a foreign commander is shared by other nations with
regard to their forces. When the United States is the lead nation, as in the 1991
Gulf War, it will assume primary responsibility for planning and coordinating oper-
ations with military representatives from other nations. In such situations, negotiat-
ing skills and appreciation of differing military traditions are crucial. In cir-
cumstances where the U.S. is not the leading partner, however, planning and com-
mand-and-control arrangements may prove more contentious from the point of view
of the U.S. military. How do you suggest we deal with this issue?

Answer. The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, never relin-
quishes command of U.S. troops. In select circumstances, including coalition or UN
operations, the U.S. will delegate limited, temp)orary operational control of U.S.
units to a competent foreign commander. This is done to maximize the effectiveness
of our forces, is supported by our senior military, and has been undertaken in well-
established circumstances such as our alliance arrangements in NATO and the Re-
public of Korea. In general, the greater the U.S. contribution or potential for U.S.
involvement in combat, the greater the likelihood of U.S. leadership. Therefore,
when the U.S. has the most at stake, the likelihood of a command and control prob-
lem will be minimized. The command arrangements in both the Gulf War and the
IFOR deployment in Bosnia are illustrations of this principle. In those limited cir-
cumstances where the U.S. would not be in the lead but still involved in the mis-
sion, temporary operational control will only be allowed if U.S. commanders are sat-
isfied that the appropriate requirements of military command and military effective-
ness are satisfied.

Question. The U.S. is seeking a transfer of up to $100M worth of military equip-
ment to the Bosnian Federation. The administration is leading an international ef-
fort to equip and train the Bosnian Federation's army to the same level as its
Bosnian Serb counterpart. The Serbs control the other half of Bosnia and outgun
the numerically superior Muslim forces. The U.S. traveled a similar path in Beirut
during 1983 when nearly 250 marines were killed with a truck bomb. The Long
Commission report, which investigated this tragedy, concluded that our forces in
Beirut were targeted by terrorists because the U!s. failed to maintain its neutrality.

125

Given the fact that U.S. aircraft bombed Serbian positions during the UNPROFOR
days and we are now about to arm and train the P^ederation's Army, are we not
moving further toward the dangers in Bosnia that we found ourselves in Beirut over
a decade ago? Please explain.

Answer. The U.S. is leading an international effort to provide the Bosnian Federa-
tion with the capability of acnieving a stable balance and providing for its own de-
fense if deterrence fails. To reach a balance, it is necessary to reduce the military
advantage of the Bosnian Serbs in heavy weapons and training. To the extent pos-
sible, the Bosnian Serb edge should be reduced through arms control and
confidence- and security-building measures. This is one of the major objectives of
Dayton Annex 1-B, now being negotiated under OSCE auspices in Vienna by the
former warring parties. As significant as arms control measures are, however, they
likely will not be sufficient to achieve the balance we seek.

Training and equipping the Federation under U.S. leadership is an insurance pol-
icy guaranteeing that a decision to resume the war will not succeed — and will there-
fore not be made — when IFOR withdraws from Bosnia. A stable military balance
will also facilitate the safe departure of IFOR, including U.S. military forces.

We believe that key leaders in the region understand that military stabilization
is in their best interests. U.S. efforts are directed toward a deterrence and defense
capability for Federation forces, not an offensive capability. The program, moreover,
will be transparent to all parties in the former Yugoslavia and will fall well within
the arms control limits established at Dayton. Training and eauipping the Federa-
tion under U.S. leadership is not a threat to anyone who complies with the Dayton
agreements.

Nonetheless, given the importance of maintaining IFOR's impartiality in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, the train and equip program is being kept completely separate from
IFOR. The international effort will be managed by a private contractor hired by the
Federation. No IFOR military personnel and no U.S. military personnel in Bosnia
will be directly involved in the program. In this context. Section 54(Kb) of the fiscal
year 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act authorizes the IVesident to trans-
fer up to $100 million in military articles from DOD stocks and services to assist
the Bosnian Federation in strengthening its self defense.

Finally, it should be noted that the train and equip program being planned is con-
tingent on the removal of radical Islamic forces from Bosnia. Their removal will de-
crease the chances of a terrorist attack on U.S. or other IFOR forces in Bosnia.

Question. With each day the polarity of all the factions in the Balkans seems to
become more pronounced. In addition to arming the Federation Army, we are also
on the verge of becoming involved in helping find and arrest those who have been
accused of war crimes. Generally, those reported to be war criminals are Bosnian
Serbs. What kind of problem does this pose for us and what should we do?

Answer. On the question of increasing polarity, the parties have been through a
brutal and devastating war. Despite this and with some difficulties, the fact is that
all, the formerly warring factions have complied generally with the key provisions
of Dayton. The ceasefire has held for almost 6 months and the fighting has not re-
sumed. This, in itself, is a major accomplishment and demonstrates that Bosnians
are tired of war. In addition, the parties are complying with most of the other provi-
sions of the agreement.

On the subject of support to the International War Crimes Tribunal, IFOR — with-
in the limits of its principal military tasks and available resources and if re-
quested— has the authority to conduct supporting tasks, including providing assist-
ance to the International War Crimes and other international organizations in their
humanitarian missions. At a meeting in Sarajevo on January 26, Justice Richard
Goldstone, Chief Prosecutor of the International Tribunal on War Crimes for the
Former Yugoslavia, and IFOR Commander Admiral Smith agreed on the modalities
to coordinate their respective missions under the Dayton peace agreements. This in-
cludes, for example, appropriate IFOR assistance to ensure security for Tribunal
teams carrying out investigations and activities at mass grave sites. IFOR also has
discretionary authority to detain individuals already indicted and for whom an ar-
rest warrant was issued by the Tribunal only if such individuals are encountered
in the course of IF'OR's primary military mission and if it is practical at the time
to do so. IF'OR will not be searching for war criminals.

III. REGARDING U.S. INVOLVEMKNT IN ARMED CONFLICTS AND REGIONAL SECURITY

Question. In 1994, among the 31 major armed confiicts in 27 locations around the
world, no classical interstate war was waged. All of them were intrastate confiicts.
However, there were interstate components in several confiicts, such as Nagorno-
Karabkh, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Tajikistan. Listed below are areas of armed

126

conflict or having a great potential for conflict. As ASD/ISA, you will participate in
formulating U.S. security policy regarding the world's troubled areas. The troubled
areas listed below will likely tome to your attention if you are confirmed as ASD/
ISA. What are your views and thoughts on how to deal with each?

Answer. The countries identified are each discussed in the annex to these re-
sponses.

Question. Treaties will remain central to serving U.S. security interests. However,
because of today's fast-breaking and sometimes unpredictable hot spots, the U.S.
may become more reliant on inter-operability and quick coalition-building with other
nations to quickly meet emerging or unpredictable threats. Give us some idea as to
how you intend working with the State Department, JCS, and the CINCs to foster
greater military-to-military relationships which enhance inter-operability and coali-
tion-building with friendly nations.

Answer. Coalition-building with friendly nations and enhancement of interoper-
ability are crucial elements in United States national security strategy. Coalitions
are built best among countries which have common interests and common national
security strategies. Reviews of these interests, analyses of pxitential threats, and de-
velopments of common approaches arc important to laying the basis for effective,
future coalitions. One critical forum in which these matters are discussed is NATO,
and NATO has become the central element of the coalition of forces now operating
in Bosnia as IF'OR. In other circumstances, coalitions may develop outside the trea-
ty context. Frequent and substantive consultations as undertaken in bilateral and
multilateral fora provide the foundations for necessary coalitions. For example, the
United States had discussed security issues for many years with the Nations in-
volved in the Gulf War coalition.

Interoperability is a key functional element in making any coalition effective.
Prior discussion and coordination in acquisition and operational matters are the key
elements of interoperability. One significant aspect of the Partnership for Peace is
enhancing interoperability between Partnership nations and NATO.

International Security Affairs is very significantly involved in the discussions and
activities which are key to achieving the relationships imf)ortant to effective coali-
tions and interoperability. Likewise, numerous military-to-military contacts support
these actions. ISA will facilitate and support those activities in order to strengthen
our security efforts.

Question. The U.S. faces some vexing challenges when faced with Haiti-type inter-
vention situations. One relates to consistency. In late 1994, there were 18 civil wars
in progress, all with numerous civilian casualties and little immediate prospect of
conclusion through a negotiated settlement. It does not seem likely that either the
international community or the U.S. will intervene in all these conflicts. What do
you see as the criteria for selecting where to intervene?

Answer. The President's National Security Strategy sets forth three categories of
national interests, which justify the use of U.S. armed forces.

The first category involves America's vital interests; that is, interests that are of
broad, overriding importance to our country's survival, security, and vitality. We
should do whatever it takes to defend these interests, including — when necessary —
the unilateral and decisive use of military power. This was demonstrated clearly in
Operation Desert Storm and, more recently, in Operations Vigilant Warrior and
Vigilant Sentinel.

The second category includes cases in which important, but not vital, U.S. inter-
ests are threatened. That is, the interests at stake do not affect our national sur-
vival, but they do affect importantly our national well-being and the character of
the world in which we live. In such cases, military forces should only be used if they
advance U.S. interests, they are likely to accomplish their objectives, the costs and
risks of their employment correspond to the interests at stake, and other means
have been tried and have failed to achieve our objectives. Such uses of force should
also be selective and limited, refiecting the interests at stake. The U.S. military op-
eration in Haiti is a recent example in this category.

The third category involves primarily humanitarian interests. Here, our decisions
should focus on the resources we can bring to bear by using the unique capabilities
of the U.S. military rather than on the combat power of military force. Generally,
the military is not the most appropriate tool to address humanitarian concerns.
However, under certain conditions, the use of our armed forces may be appropriate:
when a humanitarian catastrophe dwarfs the ability of civilian relief agencies to re-
spond; when the need for relief is urgent and only the military has the ability to
jump-start the longer-term response to the disaster; when the response requires re-
sources unique to the military; and when the risk to American troops is minimal.
The relief operation in Rwanda is a good case in point.

127

Beyond the decision on when to use U.S. military force is the decision on how to
use it. That decision should be guided by a similar set of considerations. First, when
we send American troops abroad, we should send them with a clear mission and,
for those operations that are likely to involve combat, the means to achieve their
objectives aecisively. We should have answered the questions: What types of U.S.
military capabilities should be brought to bear, and is the use of military force care-
fully matched to our political objectives?

&;cond, as much as possible, we should seek the help of our allies and friends
or of relevant international institutions. If our most important national interests are
at stake, we should be prepared to act alone. But especially on those matters touch-
ing directly the interests of our allies, there should oe a proportionate commitment
from them.

One final consideration: the United States cannot long sustain the use of military
force without the support of the public, and close consultations with Congress are
important to this effort. This is true for humanitarian and other non-traditional
interventions, as well as war.

Question. Another problem is the likelihood that armed intervention will be
viewed by one or more of the contending parties as lacking legitimacy or prejudicial
to their interests — as in Somalia and Bosnia. In due course, the intervening forces
become targets for local militia. How do you recommend we deal, with sucn prob-
lems?

Answer. The U.S. decision to deploy forces to Bosnia was taken in the context of
a Dayton Accord, which all parties signed and have shown a willingness to imple-
ment. U.S. commanders have taken extraordinary measures to ensure an even-
handed approach to compliance and through the use of joint military commissions
has established good working relations with all the parties. The Bosnian Serb mili-
tary is now meeting with IFOR commanders, and BSA compliance has been gen-
erally good. As mentioned elsewhere, there is always the danger of rogue elements
challenging IFOR units, but we believe that the presence of decisive NATO force
and a wilRngness to use it will deter any serious confrontation with IFOR units.

Question. We are facing an increasing problem as to how to cope with strains on
Department of Defense resources. The growing demand for military intervention in
the internal conflicts of other nations has raised concerns in Washington that peace
operations are placing a heavy burden on some U.S. forces. For example. Marine
and Naval units were operating at a high tempx) in 1994 in order to meet the de-
mands of various peace operations. In addition, concerns have been raised about
budgetary strains and the possible adverse consequences of excessive attention to
peace operations on training, morale, and combat force readiness. How do we bal-
ance the needs of the U.S. Armed Forces' readiness with the demand for the U.S.
to intervene worldwide.

Answer. I have discussed above the criteria governing U.S. involvement in mili-
tary operations. In substance, such operations are appropriate only if they serve
vital or important United States interests. By contrast, readiness is a means to an
end; readiness provides us the capability to accomplish United States interests if the
decision is made to undertake military operations. Thus, readiness and operations
are not in conflict with one another. Rather, readiness supports the ability to accom-
plish missions.

The critical issue raised by the question arises because the United States has
many potential worldwide missions, and thus many potential uses of its military as-
sets. Speaking generally, if we are accomplishing one mission, we will be affecting
our ability to use the assets involved in the first mission to accomplish the second
mission. Necessarily, then, a critical element of our decision to use United States
military force is its impact on our ability — and the risks associated with it — to ac-
complish a potential second mission.

It is the recognition of the risks of a potential second mission that lies behind the
Department's planning strategy of being able to accomplish two nearly simultaneous
major regional contingencies. Maintaining that ability allows us in the judgment of
the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the senior military authorities a suffi-
cient military capability to deal prudently with the risks we are likely to face in
national security environment of today and the reasonable future.

Within this broad policy context, readiness remains the top priority in the Depart-
ment of Defense. Quality personnel, realistic training, sufficient stocks of spare
parts and equipment, timely maintenance and the ability to conduct effective joint
operations are the key ingredients of a high readiness posture.

The Congress and DOD share the responsibility to sustain a consensus on how
to fund America's international commitments without degrading the readiness of its
forces. To that end, maintaining readiness is critically dependent on timely and full
reimbursement of costs associated with unplanned contingency operations. DOD is

128

also working diligently to understand and manage better the complexities of O&M
programs and their funding. With continued attention to assessing the readiness of
its force, and timely funding for contingency operations, the U.S. will continue to
have the world's best trained and equipped force, with the highest quality person-
nel.

Question. There is no overpowering threat that will create enduring alliances the
way the Soviet threat brought NATO into being. Like-minded states, including the
NATO states, will not always agree on which regional crises deserve attention, so
coalitions will shift from case to case. Public opinion, in the U.S. and internation-
ally, will usually insist on intervention by a coalition rather than by U.S. forces
alone, even when coalition partners add nothing to — or even complicate — the mili-
tary effort. Most important, as defense spending declines, the U.S. will increasingly
need to relv on coalition partners. What can we do short of U.S. involvement that
will be useful militarily with the appropriate political impact? Do you foresee situa-
tions in which the U.S. may decide tne most appropriate response to a security prob-
lem is to encourage a coalition in which it does not participate?

Answer. I have discussed above the broad policy parameters which would justify
U.S. military involvement in particular situations. When vital U.S. interests are en-
gaged and use of military power is appropriate, it seems inconceivable that the U.S.
would not be militarily engaged. When truly important U.S. interests are involved
and use of military power is appropriate, it seems improbable that the U.S. would
not be militarily engaged.

It is, however, quite possible to — postulate security problems in which neither
vital nor important U.S. interests are sufficiently engaged to warrant direct U.S.
military involvement in the circumstance. In that event, the United States has
available a variety of mechanisms that would be useful militarily with appropriate
political impact.

At one end of the spectrum would be United States diplomacy, either bilaterally
or multilaterally. For example, the United States can work bilaterally with other
nations to ensure that the proper capabilities are brought to coalition operations by
other states. At a higher level of involvement would be diplomacy backed by eco-
nomic actions, either aid and/or sanctions. At a further increased level of involve-
ment would be security assistance through sale and lease of articles or services,
with potentially associated financing. At tne next level of involvement, the United
States can contribute non-military personnel to an operation to demonstrate U.S.
support and commitment to its objectives, as we are currently doing in the UN oper-
ation in Eastern Slavonia. Finally, the U.S. can support coalition activities by pro-
viding logistical or intelligence support if appropriate.

As a small example of encouragement oi coalitions without U.S. involvement, one
need only look at our efforts on the African continent. In Angola, we have long
played an important role in pressing both parties to the civil war to put their na-
tional reconciliation into practice. More actively, the U.S. military also helped train
staffs of the UN peace operation there in 1995 (UNAVEM II). At another level of
involvement, in Liberia, tne U.S. has extended financial and logistical assistance to
the West African force deployed by the Economic Community of West African states,
especially to the Senegalese contingent (which received $15M in FMF and
"drawdown" support); U.S. military personnel were not, however, deployed.

Question. The world seems to be providing more and more need for assisting
failed states, such as Somalia. What are vour views on this dilemma? Will the U.S.
public be likely to support assistance to failed states in those cases where the mili-
tary intervention is needed, but U.S. interests are either unclear or negligible? What
about local confiicts threatening to spill over into neighboring states? What about
clashing parties agreeing on a political solution but suspicious of the willingness of
the other side to live up to its promi.scs?

Answer. The United States cannot long sustain a substantial military effort with-
out the support of the public and close consultations with the Congress. Vivid im-
ages of humanitarian crises may grip a viewing public, stirring the impulse to inter-
vene. Rut it is neither possible nor advisable for the U.S. to intervene in every re-
gional conflict. In all cases, costs and risks must be judged to be commensurate with
the stakes involved. This is as true of lower level conflicts and humanitarian efforts
as it is of more significant military coalitions. Of the many key questions to be
asked, whether we nave reasonable assurance of support from the American people
and their elected representatives remains critical to an ultimate decision on whether
and when to use force.

Question. There has been much discussion about the U.S. Armed Forces respond-
ing to transnational threats. IVoblems like drug trafficking and terrorism are in-
creasingly becoming transnational in character, as criminals operate across borders
and environmental problems arise on a global scale. These problems have become

129

an important part of the National security agenda because they affect the well-being
of so many American. What are your views as to how the U.S. mihtary should be
involved in dealing with transnational threats?

Answer. Technological advances and democratic societies allow unprecedented
movement of goods, pxjople, and ideas. Though most of these flows are beneficial,
enhancing freedom and an exchange of ideas such as democracy and human rights
to the far corners of the globe, others are not. Threats take many forms — from ter-
rorists exchanging technical data, to internationalization of crime and drug cartels,
to migration resulting from political turmoil or natural disasters. Most important,
if the efforts by irresponsible states and groups to acquire weapons of mass destruc-
tion are successful, it will be difficult for the U.S., or anyone, to be secure.

The significance of borders to protect our citizens from pernicious transnational
threats is deteriorating. U.S. military will continue to be called upon to combat
these transnational threats — primarily to counter terrorism and drug trafficking.
Much of this work calls for specialized units and capabilities under the watchful pol-
icy oversight of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low
Intensity Conflict (SOLIC). Much of their operations take place within the countries
on ASD/ISA's watch.

Though SOLIC has the policy lead on many of the initiatives to combat
transnational threats, I am most cognizant of ISA's need to support this difilcult
mission. For instance, under bilateral arrangements, we share intelligence in
anticorruption and money laundering programs to fight drug trafficking at its
source. At the Defense Ministerial of tne Americas, 34 nations pledged to cooperate
in a supportive role in the fight against narcoterrorism. We continue to play a sup-
portive role to maintain UN Security Council sanctions against Libya lor the Pan
Am 103 and UTA 772 bombings.

It is my intention to continue to support the broad based initiatives to combat
transnational threats, for ultimate success will depend upon partnerships within
government, with the private sector and the public, and with international bodies.

Question. While we are faced with many quickly emerging nontraditional threats,
many have testified before this committee that insuring peace among the major
powers remains most important. In your view, should the most important U.S. in-
terest be to maintain peace among the maior powers? We have heard testimony to
the effect that besides naving good bilateral relations with each of the major powers,
the U.S. should also seek the peaceful resolution of disputes among other major
powers — for example, the Kurile Islands dispute between Russia and Japan. Do you
agree with this notion? If so, how would you approach the matter.

Answer. At the broadest level, U.S. national security strategy includes preserving
our security, bolstering our economic revitalization, and promoting democracy. Pres-
ervation of peace is, of course, an important interest, but so too are the preservation
of freedom, of security, and of democracy.

The role of the United States as the only country with truly global interests and
assets in each of the military, economic, and political arenas oi international rela-
tions is to promote the interests set forth above in an atmosphere of security and
stability. It may be that, in undertaking to achieve those objectives, the United
States will be able to facilitate the peaceful resolution of disputes among other
major powers. However, whether such opportunities exist will depend on the cir-
cumstances, including the relationship of the United States to the relevant parties.
Just as the United States should not be involved as the world's policeman in the
myriad of military confrontations now ongoing, it cannot be the world's mediator
and arbitrator of all the world's disputes. Selectively, however, such involvement
could potentially be beneficial.

Question. In the same regard, some experts cautioned this Committee that U.S.
interests will be primarily and vitally linked to how the world divides into distinct
great power spheres of infiuence, because history suggests that greatpowers tend
eventually to fight over the boundaries of their spheres of infiuence. This seems to
mean that we must calculate the importance of our interests in regional conflicts
against the status of great powers spneres of infiuence. Sometimes tne two are re-
lated and sometimes not. How do you view this particular matter?

Answer. The United States has worldwide national security interests. Part of
achieving these security interests is avoiding the emergence of an international se-
curity system based on great power spheres of infiuence. This is not to suggest that
there will not be major regional powers. There will be, and are. But the thrust of
U.S. security strategy is to be able to achieve our interests in conjunction with
major regional powers (as is obviously true with our allies and friends) or despite
them if necessary (as, for example, is the case with Iran).

Question. Defining U.S. interests is also no easy matter. Some have testified that
the most important U.S. ties are with the other major powers, both in Europe and

130

increasingly in rapidly-growing East Asia. The U.S. has several vital ties in other
parts of tne world, based on access to key resources (the Persian GulO, historic in-
terests (the Korean peninsula and the Arab-Israeli conflict), and concern about prob-
lems in the U.S. backyard (the trans-Caribbean basin). Do you agree with this as-
sertion, and why?

Answer. The United States has fundamental interests that are both clear and
well-defined. These include our traditional interests and relationships in Europe
with the countries of NATO; in East Asia with Japan, the Republic of Korea, and
Australia; in the Middle East with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the countries of the
Gulf Cooperation Council; in the Americas with Canada and our partners in Latin
America. We have important interests in transforming the security architecture of
Europe through the Partnership for Peace, through NATO expansion and adapta-
tion, and through establishing a constructive relationship with Russia based on its
own interests in security and stability if that can be accomplished given the inter-
nal, sometimes plainly negative, stresses that Russia is undergoing. We have key
interests in dealing with China and Taiwan based on the three communiques and
the Taiwan Relations Act. We have important interests in the ASEAN countries. We
have quite significant interests in controlling the dangers posed by North Korea,
Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Worldwide, we have substantial interests in controlling weap-
ons of mass destruction, including means of delivery.

To be sure, this brief description of vital and important U.S. interests will not re-
solve the policy and practice of every geopolitical problem faced by the United
States, but the United States has a central core of interests upon which to base a
consistent worldwide national security strategy. The administration's fundamental
strategy is found in the National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlarge-
ment.

To give greater detail on the regional security dimensions of this strategy, Sec-
retary Perry commissioned ISA to prepare a series of unclassified reports on U.S.
regional security strategies. While copies of these reports have been widely distrib-
uted to SASC Committee members, I would be pleased to provide additional reports,
or answer specific questions on our regional interests and concomitant threats with-
in each region.

IV. THERE ARE SEVERAL LNTERNATIONAL MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH ASD/ISA DUTIES
WHICH HAVE BECOME INCREASI.NGLY NOTEWORTHY RECENTLY. PLEASE SHARE YOUR
VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ON THE FOLLOWING:

Question. India/China/Pakistan: The nuclear issue in India has acquired a politi-
cal dimension, there seems to be a changing attitude to nuclear weapons. The U.S.
is considering imposing economic sanctions against China for shipping nuclear
weapons components to Pakistan. Shots were recently exchanged in Kashmir. India
and Pakistan have fought three wars since attaining independence from Britain in
1947 including two over control of Kashmir, the only Muslim majority state in India.

Answer. The problem of settling the differences between India and Pakistan over
Kashmir is a critical factor in resolving many of the problems in the subcontinent.
As this Committee is well-aware, nuclear issues are also crucial, with the weapons
programs in each country presenting significant challenges. India is also concerned
about ensuring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations move for-
ward, and the results may affect its approach toward nuclear weapons. China is a
major player in any solution to reduce tne tensions in Southern Asia, both as a bi-
lateral player as the India-China dynamic and as a supplier to Pakistan. Our policy
is centered on bilateral engagement that can lead to fruitful direct discussions be-
tween the antagonists. Furthermore, we are trying to reduce the tensions in the re-
gion by seeking talks that can address these issues and others that are the cause
of this stressful situation.

Secretary Perry firmly believes that by staying engaged and by building on our
shared security interest with Pakistan and India, America can be an important force
for peace and stability on the subcontinent. We strive to avoid a future that leads
to an escalation of the arms race and dangers of a fourth India-Pakistan war — pos-
sibly even a nuclear war. Instead, we are working to cap the arms race, lower ten-
sion, and encourage India and Pakistan to work together to resolve the problems
of the region.

Question. Kuwait's Crown IVincc has made public statements warning that Sad-
dam Hussein could be preparing another attack on the emirate.

Answer. Our forwara presence in the region is the key clement of military posture
which demonstrates U.S. commitment, strengthens deterrence, and facilitates tran-
sition from peace to war. This includes naval forces in the form of The Carrier Bat-
tle Group (CJVBG) and Amphibious Ready Group, air force assets to deter aggression

131

and enforce U.N. resolutions under Operation SOUTHERN WATCH, Patriot air de-
fense batteries, and frequent exercises to enhance that presence. Based on our VIGI-
LANT WARRIOR experience in October 1994, prepositioned equipment and supplies
for heavy armed forces, and supporting military construction, have become increas-
ingly important elements of forward oresence. These stocks reduce the strategic lift
demands inherent in deploying comtat force and improve respxDnsiveness for our
forces in the region.

Question. Iran: Iran has been rebuilding its military steadily. It has announced
a massive program of 38 naval exercises over the next several months. Iran has test
fired a Chinese built cruise missile renewing Western concerns about it naval capa-
bilities.

Answer. While overall conventional military capability is limited and will remain
so throughout the 1990's, recent purchases demonstrate Iran's desire to develop an
offensive capability in specific mission areas that endanger U.S. interests. We are
concerned aoout the recent sales of Russian Kilo submarines and tactical aircraft
and Chinese and North Korean missiles to an Iranian government that makes no
secret of its desire to dominate maritime traffic in and out of the Persian gulf. Of
even greater concern, Iran is also dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruc-
tion, including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, a prospect that would
have serious repercussions for regional stability and perhaps our ability to protect
our interests in the area.

Question. Taiwan-China: Chinese military exercises were condemned as provoca-
tive by Taiwan after being held in a neighboring province on the eve of Taiwan's
elections.

Answer. We remain concerned about the PRC's announced plans to conduct exer-
cises near Taiwan that may include missile firings. We have communicated this con-
cern through a strong demarche to the PRC. We reiterated our long-standing policy
that any attempt to resolve the Taiwan Strait dispute by other than peaceful means
as a matter of grave concern to the United States. We continue to believe that PLA
activity will remain at the exercise level, and the greatest danger in the Taiwan
Strait comes from the potential for miscalculation and misperception. Such missteps
could have unintended consequences for both sides.

Our defense obligations to Taiwan continue to be governed by the Taiwan Rela-
tions Act. We will assess the military balance to ascertain Taiwan's defense needs
and provide articles and services necessary to maintain a sufficient self-defense ca-
pability. We will keep Congress informed about Taiwan's security requirements, and
we will maintain a U.S. capacity to resist force or coercion against the people of Tai-
wan.

We have communicated to the PRC on many occasions that any effort to deter-
mine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means would constitute a threat
to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the
United States.

Question. Japan's new defense policy will cut force levels by 20 percent, and main-
tain a purely defensive doctrine. A-5. On November 28, 1995, tne Government of
Japan issued its revised National Defense Program Outline (NDPO) which estab-
lishes the basis for Japan's defense fjolicy into tne next century. This document re-
places the first NDPO issued in 1976. It describes the post Cold War security envi-
ronment and the Japanese defense strategy to meet future challenges. It outlines
adjustments in force levels and Japan's commitment to a defensive doctrine, as de-
termined by the Japanese constitution.

At the core of the new NDPO is the U.S. -Japan alliance, which it states is "indis-
pensable" to Japan's security. The Japanese press has heralded the NDPO as a com-
plete endorsement of the Pentagon's own East Asia Strategy Report (EASR) released
in February 1995. The strategy report established the U.S. commitment to maintain
a presence of about 100,000 troops in the region, and outlined a strategy emphasiz-
ing strengthening U.S. alliances. The NDPO and the EASR demonstrate clearly not
only that the alliance is on firm footing, but that the U.S. and Japan share a strate-

g'c view of the future. It is no coincidence that the two reports are complementary,
eginning in November 1994, the U.S. and Japan have engaged in an intensive se-
curity dialogue thinking through the basis of the alliance — these reports are the
fruit of that discussion.

Importantly, the NDPO states Japan's willingness to respond to regional situa-
tions with important implications for Japan's security. It restructures forces and
front line equipment and trims anti-submarine and mine warfare forces in response
to the end of the Cold War and technology developments — much as the U.S. Bottom-
Up review adjusted the U.S. military in 1993. It cuts authorized army troop
strength from 180,000 to 160,000 — a level 5,000 more than Japan's current actual
troop number. But it also proposes a ready reserve of 15,000 troops.

132

These cuts do not mean Japan is shying away from the burden of its security.
On the contrary, the NDPO envisions maintaining a flexible defense capability by
creating lighter, more mobile ground forces capable of responding to a wider range
of tasks, including disaster relief operations. It also shows Japan's willingness to
help shoulder the burden of global security through promoting security dialogues,
arms control and disarmament, and participation in peacekeeping operations. At the
same time Japan committed in September 1995 to the Sf>ecial Measures Agreement,
a funding arrangement which contributes to a total Host Nation Support package
for U.S. forces of over $5 billion annually over the next 5 years.

Question. The U.S. is attempting to provide Jordan with F-16A/B aircraft, and
M60 MBTs under a military assistance package.

Answer. King Hussein has taken a very courageous stand for peace not only by
signing the peace treaty with Israel, but also by turning that peace into a very
warm relationship including military to military relations. We have a tremendous
opportunity to nurture this new relationship in the context of new political realities
in the Middle East. Both the late Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Prime Minister
Peres gave unswerving support to the transfer of Fl6s to Jordan. King Hussein re-
quires these aircraft to reinforce a small, aging fleet of fighters which are the first
line of defense for Jordan. As Jordan continues its strategic realignment away from
Saddam Hussein, we believe that Saddam has a greater incentive to exact retribu-
tion from Jordan thus further endangering the Hashemite Kingdom. These aircraft
will serve to identify the interests of Jordan with the United States and which will
serve as a further deterrent against Iraqi aggression in the region.

The USG will provide Jordan with 50 M60A3 Main Battle Tanks as part of the
$100M drawdown package. These tanks augment M60A3s already in the Jordanian
Armed Forces inventory and will replace many obsolete tanks.

Question. Exportation of dual-use technology. Some suggest to the Committee that
the U.S. needs to more closely monitor sales of dual-use equipment and technology
to restricted nations.

Answer. The chief responsibility for monitoring dual-use technology belongs to the
Defense Technology Security Agency, which does not fall within my purview, but
that of the ASD for International Security Policy. However, dual-use technology
cases are reviewed on an interagency basis. The Defense Security Assistance Agen-
cy, which is responsible for foreign military sales, also reviews dual-use cases as
part of the interagency review process. While not my specific responsibility, I strong-
ly support the close monitoring of sales of dual-use equipment and technology.

ANNEX

Angola

U.S. interests in Angola are political, economic and humanitarian. We seek the
establishment of an inclusive multi-party democracy with broad respect for human
and political rights. The attainment of this goal is crucial both for Angola and for
the precedent it establishes for situations elsewhere in the region. The greatest ob-
stacle to successful implementation of the Lusaka. Accords are the attitudes of the
two parties. The level of mutual mistrust is extremely high. As a result none of the
security provisions of the Accords have been fully implemented. However, increased
UN and Troika (U.S. -Russia-Portugal) pressure has resulted in some positive move-
ment in the last 8 weeks, to include the renewal of UNITA troop movement into
UNAVEM controlled quartering areas. This process must be sustained but it is not
an end in itself. The next equally crucial step is the integration of those UNITA
troops into the government armed forces. Until UNITA senior officers and most
troops are fully integrated, the entire peace process will continue to stand at the
edge of a precipice.

DOD has no direct involvement in Angola (although we do have a three person
DAO in Luanda) and we are only peripherally involved in the PKO. No U.S. troops
are assigned to UNAVP]M and we have refused specific requests to provide aerial
surveillance as.sets (either military or contract). We have provided humanitarian
support to the PKO in the form of demining funds and Bailey bridges. It is possible
that we may receive additional requests for humanitarian support (e.g. tents). If the
peace process continues to proceed successfully, we will want to begin to establish
normal military to military relations with Angola, to include activating Angola's
new IMET program.

Burma

The State Law and Order Restoration Committee (SLORC) continues to suppress
domestic opposition, and has steadfastly refused to implement the results of the
1990 elections in which the National League for Democracy garnered the majority

133

of votes, even though its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, was under house arrest at the
time. The military government continues to arrest large numbers of people for any
and all political activity. Periodic releases of political prisoners are token and timed
for maximum political advantage. They do not indicate a change in SLORC treat-
ment of political prisoners.

We hope to see progress in national reconciliation, in particular a direct dialogue
between the State I.^w and Order Restoration Committee (SLORC) and Aung San
Suu Kyi. There is an unprecedented opportunity to begin the process of reconcili-
ation with the National League for Democrats (NLD). it would be desirable if the
Government of Burma should enter into a dialogue with the NLD, which should
have an essential role in the drafting of the new constitution. At this point, how-
ever, the U.S. is concerned that the SLORC is not talking with the NLD in a serious
fashion.

Burundi

The Department of Defense is a key member of USG interagency efTorts at ad-
dressing tne potential crisis in Burundi. DOD bore the brunt of ameliorating the ef-
fects of ethnic violence in Rwanda. We know that the situation in Burundi must be
kept under a spotlight until all concerned realize that we are serious about prevent-
ing any repeat, even on a small scale, of the violence that tore its neighbor to the
north apart. We fully support the Department of State's efforts at preventive diplo-
macy, tne fruits of which we may now be seeing. Ambassador Madeleine Albright's
recent trip to the region drove home to the senior members of the Burundian gov-
ernment and military the seriousness with which the USG views the inflammatory
rhetoric of both Hutu and Tutsi extremists. DOD's follow-on military briefing team
made it clear that Burundi is of paramount concern to the USG. We must maintain
our focus on Burundi, and continue our attempts to bolster the voices of moderation
in Burundian society, particularly those within the military. In this regard, a mili-
tary attache is being assigned to our Embassy in Bujumbura. This will enable us
to strengthen our relationship with the Burundian military and influence mod-
erates. Another important step is to make available to the Burundian military the
opportunity for U.S. training tnat helps contribute to their understanding of the role
of the military in a democratic society. IMET is key to DOD's efforts towards help-
ing to prevent a crisis in Burundi.

Chechnya

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy
takes primary responsibility for this issue

Cyprus

Cyprus occupies a strategic crossroads between Europe, the Middle East and
North Africa and ofTers a growing market for U.S. products and suitable location
from which to expand American exports. A peaceful and stable Cyprus is fundamen-
tally important to our interests in the eastern Mediterranean, and removing it as
a potential flashpoint between close NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, is important.
The U.S. therefore seeks a just, intercommunal settlement which will guarantee a
secure future for both sides and establish a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, firmly
anchored in Europe. The U.S. strongly supports the UN Secretary General's good
ofiices mission, advancing the negotiating process in Cyprus, and controlling ten-
sions between Greece and Turkey which can interfere with that process. The De-
partment of Defense contributes to those objectives through our NATO and bilateral
military relationships with Greece and Turkey, acting as a frequent interlocutor
with both countries during periods of heightened tensions.

East Timor

It is in America's interest to see a peaceful, internationally accepted resolution to
the problem of East Timor achieved under the auspices of the UN Secretary Gen-
eral, as well as significant improvement in human rights conditions there. U.S. ef-
forts to improve human rights conditions in East Timor have included frank discus-
sions at ajl levels, including between IVesident Clinton and Secretary Christopher
and their Indonesian counterparts, and in defense channels. Unfortunately, the GOI
has not followed through on a full accounting of those listed as missing, and the
civilian demonstrators involved in the incident received sentences far harsher than
the military personnel. Some positive developments have occurred over the past
year or so, including greater access to East Timor by human rights groups and the
media; meetings between the Indonesian and Portuguese foreign ministers on con-
fidence-building measures under the auspices of the UNSYG; and announcement by
the military to draw down its heavy security presence (but decreases thus far have
been marginal).

134

Our engagement with the Indonesian military, through the IMET program and
other military activities, seeks to enhance U.S. ability to positively influence Indo-
nesia's human rights policies and behavior. It also serves our broacler security objec-
tives in the region. IMFIT brings the best of the Indonesian officer corps to the U.S.
We have sought to place strong emphasis on our Expanded IMET programs which
are designed to address issues of democracy, human rights, civil-military relations
and the concept of civilian control of the military.

Haiti

Despite the unarguable success of the U.S. -led military intervention in Haiti,
which not only restored elected government but also drastically cut the level of po-
litically-motivated violence, Haiti will remain vulnerable to security challenges for
the foreseeable future. While DOD has a role in preserving and consolidating recent
democratic gains, our future role will be constrained by several factors, the most ob-
vious being that Haiti possesses no military forces and faces no credible external
threat. The principal challenges to security and stability in Haiti arise instead from
internal economic, social and environmental pressures — pressures with which the
Haitian state will have difficulty coping alone, and for which the DOD has no rem-
edy.

Haiti's international donors must take the lead in providing the short-term assist-
ance to avoid humanitarian crises while private markets supply the longer-term
capital investment needed to grow the Haitian economy. Unless means can be found
to spur genuine economic renewal — and, moreover, a renewal which narrows the
tremendous gap between rich and poor that earmarks Haitian society— we may at
some future point once again face migrant outfiows to which the DOD, in conjunc-
tion with the Coast Guard, could be called upon to respond.

The other principal determinant of Haiti's internal security calculus is the ability
of the new Haitian National Police (HNI') to respond to the challenges imposed by
a centuries-old culture of political violence. The principal response to HNP shortfalls
must again come from non-Defense agencies, such as the 5-year program for profes-
sional education and development of the HNP operated by the Department of Jus-
tice's International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP).
DOD has played a modest supporting role to ICITAP in developing and equipping
the HNP, and should continue to the extent we may do so within the legal limits
imposed on DOD participation in support to police and other internal security
forces. DOD support in developing a Haitian coast guard is one example of the type
of assistance in which DOD's unique expertise can be applied to an area for which
the GOH presently has no domestic capability. Contributions in such areas are like-
ly to serve the common interests of Haiti and the U.S., while drawing on fields in
which DOD possesses singular expertise.

India-Pakistan

The potential for a nuclear dimension to any future Indo-Pakistani confiict makes
it essential for the U.S. to remain actively engaged in South Asia. We seek to lessen
the tensions between these two and ultimately, we hope, to persuade them to aban-
don their nuclear and missile programs. To tnat end, 1 will support an active DOD
effort to maintain and expand contacts between the U.S. Armed Forces and those
of India and Pakistan. We are also supporting U.S. efforts to persuade both India
and Pakistan to become signatories to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the
Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty — their agreement to these two treaties would be key
to preventing a nuclear arms race in South Asia. Active U.S. engagement can serve
a facilitating role, but resolution of their differences will require them to deal with
their problems bilaterally.

Middle East

The U.S. and its friends and allies in the Middle East face a range of serious
threats that are diverse and often interrelated. While 1 have reviewed a number of
these points in my testimony and in response to other questions, four challenges de-
serve comment.

• Iran and Iraa are the most serious dangers to the secure fiow of oil from
the Persian Gulf to world markets. Thev pose a direct military threat indi-
vidually and their rivalry for regional hegemony could spill over into the
countries of the Arabian Peninsula.

• Although the external threat to Israel is at an historic low as a result
of the coalition defeat of Iraq and the peace accords between Israel and Jor-
dan, the recent blows against the Peace IVocess must be taken extremely
seriously and we must support Israel in its efforts to counter such terror-
ism.

135

• Several of the countries in the region face challenges from radical Islamic
movements. While these are internal concerns that the countries them-
selves must ultimately resolve, our supfxirt to friends facing such issues can
be important.

• Traditional efforts to control the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction
and missile delivery systems — which are often overlooked as part of the
problem — in this region have been largely unsuccessful. However, we must
continue to work with our friends and allies, and the international commu-
nity including multilateral control regimes, to support their efforts. The in-
definite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty last year was
particularly noteworthy, but there is far to go.

Northern Ireland

As the President's December visit clearly showed, British and Irish officials have
increasingly recognized Washington's role in the peace process. London and Dublin
have actively sought U.S. help to encourage all sides, especially Sinn F'ein, to ad-
vance the Northern Ireland peace negotiations. While the August 1994 IRA cease-
fire may appear severely jeopardized, the peace process is not dead. Undoubtedly,
London, Dublin and Washington must continue in earnest to look for a way to bring
all parties together for talks. The resumption of the IRA's terrorist campaign has
enormously complicated the process, not least by casting severe doubt on Sinn Fein's
commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and its willingness to abide by the
democratic process.

A key objective of U.S. policy over the last 2 years has been to encourage the Re-
publican movement to seek legitimate political means of expression rather than ter-
rorist tactics. This should remain our policy; to cut off all political dialogue with
Sinn Fein could encourage those who see violence as the only means of achieving
their political goals. At the same time, however, we cannot relax our firm policy
against terrorism. We must make it very clear that there are demonstrable negative
consequences for the Republican movement resulting from the IRA's return to vio-
lence. We should follow the lead of the British and Irish Governments by maintain-
ing lower level discussions with Sinn Fein, but refusing high-level, high-profile con-
tact. Waivers of visa ineligibility for Sinn Fein members, including Gerry Adams,
should be considered on a case-by-case basis for single-entry admittance, as was the
case before the cease-fire.

We should encourage all parties to focus on the political track of the twin-track
process in order to move rapidly to all-party talks.

Peru-Ecuador

The U.S. is a guarantor of the 1942 Rio Protocol along with Argentina, Brazil and
Chile. The protocol committed the guarantors to assist the parties, including by
means of military observers, to resolve any disagreements arising from the execu-
tion of the protocol until completion of definitive demarcation of the frontiers. There
are approximately 65 military personnel assigned to Task Force Operation Safe Bor-
der in support of the Guarantor Observer Mission. Their mission is to observe the
terms of agreement between Ecuador and Peru. They are not involved in a combat
role. If separation of forces is not maintained or Peru and Ecuador initiate armed
conflict, the Observer Force will pull out. U.S. military personnel will not be in-
volved in armed conflict in any manner along the Peru-Ecuador border.

Somalia

The Department of Defense has already expended a great deal of both blood and
treasure over the problems in Somalia. We are proud of the fact that our interven-
tion there saved hundreds of thousands of lives. But only Somalis can solve SomaH
problems. Until the Somali people are able to decide for themselves what direction
they want their country to take, we can only encourage them from the sidelines. The
clan and faction leaders must overcome the limiting influence of internecine warfare
and personal political agendas. Perhaps one day there will be a government to deal
with and we can resume a normal relationship.

Sri Lanka

The current Sri Lankan government is a freely elected People's Alliance that was
elected to find a solution to the 12 year insurgency action by the Tamil Tigers. It
is making progress and has a devolution plan to share power with the Tamil Tigers;
however, a recent Tiger attack against the financial district in downtown Colombo,
raises new concern for achieving progress.

136

Rwanda

The Department of Defense has made a commitment to the GOR to assist it in
its efforts to rebuild its society in the aftermath of the genocide. We have provided
humanitarian assistance to us schools, hospitals and refugee repatriation programs.
We were instrumental in having the UN arms embargo lilted in order that the GOR
would be better able to defend itself against the forces of the former genocidal re-
gime. We have brought Rwandan military officers to this country for training in the
role they must play in a democratic society. Those same officers are now conducting
their own seminars for other officers around their country. We have much more
joint training scheduled for the remainder of this year. Rwanda still faces very sig-
nificant problems; however, progress needs to be made on both the prisons and the
trials for those being held on suspicion of genocide. We believe that we can best help
the GOR address tnese problems by remaining engaged and continuing to build
upon our past successes.

The Former Yugoslavia

The best way to prevent a resumption of the confiict in the former Yugoslavia is
our current policy which is based on a two-track approach of military and civilian
actions. A large and well-armed force led by NATO is implementing the military
provisions of the settlement agreed to by the warring parties. This n as proven to
be an effective way to separate the armed forces of the various factions and main-
tain a cease-fire. &) far tne number of casualties has been light, and the few losses
that have been incurred have been the result of accidents or small-scale attacks by
rogue elements. The second track is a series of civilian actions that are made pos-
sible by the peaceful conditions created by the military implementation force. These
civilian measures include economic reconstruction, refugee resettlement, and elec-
tions among others. We expect the military implementation to be accomplished
within a year, leading to the withdrawal of the NATO-led force. Civilian implemen-
tation, on the other hand, is likely to take several years.

Algeria

The administration considers the impressive turnout in the November 1995 elec-
tions as a signal that most Algerians support a peaceful resolution of the current
political crisis. An opportunity now exists for the Zeroual government to move for-
ward with a process of national reconciliation. Our policy nas been one of consist-
ently encouraging — in close coordination with the French and other friends of Alge-
ria— this political process leading to national reconciliation. We will use the political
and economic means at our disposal to help Algeria move toward a more open and
inclusive political system and economy.

Cambodia

Though there are still serious problems, security conditions in Cambodia have im-
proved. The Royal Cambodian Government (RCG) has outlived two ill-fated coup at-
tempts. The military has remained loyal and obedient to the coalition. The threat
posed by a seriously weakened Khmer Rouge has receded. The dismal performance
of the RCAF against Khmer Rouge (KR) targets in February and May 1994 under-
scored serious institutional weaknesses including corruption, incompetent leader-
ship, poor training, weak logistics, and lingering factional and political differences
within the unified military. In June 1994, the RCAF began to discuss a reform plan
that would reduce the 120,000-strong military to half that size and cut the size of
the officer corps; establish effective basic training institutions; attract external sup-
port for the efforts to professionalize the RCAJ<; and modernize an extremely old
weapons inventory. The Khmer Rouge remains organized for, and capable of, little
more than low-level guerrilla actions in an increasingly confined set of areas in the
Cardamon mountains, around the Great I^ake, and in the northern border area. The
Department of Defense remains committed to assisting the Cambodian military pri-
marily in the areas of English -language training, demining training, engineering
road building equipment and training, and excess property support for the defector
program (primarily in the form of deliveries of humanitarian daily rations and medi-
cal consumables). By helping to instill democratic values and professional discipline
in the military, these programs contribute to Cambodia's stability and it's capacity
to hew to a democratic course.

Colombia

Colombia is involved in an internal conflict between government forces and insur-
gency/narco-terrorist forces. Because of the strength of the narco-terrorist forces and
their involvement with President Samper, we have recently decertified Columbia as
a recipient of U.S. aid. There is no plan to involve U.S. military forces in any oper-
ation in Colombia.

137

Cuba

The U.S. has a strategic interest in the consolidation of democracy in the region,
including Cuba. However, recent events show the limits of building a civil society
in Cuba. DOD strongly supports the steps that the President and the Congress are
taking in response to the unwarranted killings.

Iran

While our current military posture in the Gulf is designed primarily to counter
the threat posed by Iraq, our forces, in concert with those of coalition partners, are
engaged in a carefully constructed regional strategy to ensure that neither Iraq nor
Iran can dominate the Gulf. The peacetime forward presence of U.S. naval, air, and
land forces in the Gulf, and our prepositioning program are essential elements of
this strategy. These also provide an initial capability to deal immediately with any
direct challenge and serve as key symbols of our commitment to deter regional ag-
gressors. In addition, Iran is clearly dedicated to developing weapons of mass de-
struction, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, a prospect that would
have serious regional repercussions.

Iraq

Despite its humiliating defeat by Coalition forces during Operation Desert Storm,
Iraa retains a sizable military and remains a serious threat to American interests
in tne Gulf region. To contain this threat, the U.S. must ensure that Iraq complies
with all applicable UN Security Council resolutions — particularly those relating to
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs — before tnere is any relaxation in UN
sanctions. In addition, the U.S. should seek the emergence in Baghdad of a govern-
ment that respxK;ts human rights, does not threaten the peace and stability of the
Gulf, and can preserve Iraq's territorial integrity.

Israel — Neighbors

This administration is unswervingly committed to ensuring Israeli security while
fostering an atmosphere conducive to progress in Israel's quest for peace with its
neighbors. By preserving Israel's qualitative/technological edge while simultaneously
bolstering ties and trade with those countries which make a comprehensive and just
peace witn Israel, the U.S. continues to make significant progress toward peace in
the region. Moreover, OSD/ISA continues to work side-by-side with Israel to further
advance the forces of peace in order to craft a truly regional settlement. In response
to the recent horrific terrorist attacks, DOD is providing assistance to the GOI and
will work closely with Israel to prevent future acts of terrorism.

Korea

Our first priority on the Korean-peninsula is maintaining a strong deterrent pos-
ture and, if necessary, defending the Republic of Korea against external aggression.
We fulfill this mission through our security alliance with the ROK, which is a
central pillar of our defense presence in East Asia and has served the interests of
both states admirably for many decades. The U.S. will work to maintain this strong
security relationship into the foreseeable future. We also seek to ensure a Korean
peninsula free of nuclear weapon's and look forward to a time of peaceful reconcili-
ation between the two Koreas. To that end, the U.S. has begun a process of limited
engagement with North Korea in an efibrt to freeze its potentially destabilizing nu-
clear weapons program and create circumstances conducive to South-North dialogue.
Eliminating tensions on the peninsula, which will enhance all of Asia's stability, can
only come from a permanent peace between the central parties. South and North
Korea.

South Africa

The successful transition to majority rule in South Africa is critical to sub-Saha-
ran Africa's future. A healthy South African economy and political base will have
a major positive impact on regional stability. Failure means disaster for the region,
threatening an eruption of civil war with concomitant destruction of infrastructure
and cross border spill over. DOD views on South Africa are guided by two key prem-
ises. First, the new South African National Defense Force (SANDF") has the poten-
tial to become a sub-Saharan Africa power capable of acting as a cornerstone for
regional military cooperation in confiict resolution, thus raising significantly the
threshold of international community involvement. Second, the SANDF is unable to
assume that role unless South Africa remains internally stable and internal stabil-
ity depends, in large part, on successful integration of South Africa's disparate mili-
tary forces into the SANDF'.

While we have no military requirement for southern Africa facilities or even ac-
cess to South African airfields or ports, we will derive considerable benefit from in-

138

creased military to military exchanges. Consequently, DOD is seeking to play a
modest, constructive but non-prescriptive role in helping to further the SANDF
transformation, insure the maintenance of a competent, capable, professional mili-
tary and help develop an effective mechanism for civilian control. Although great
progress has been made, there is still much to be done to put our relationship on
a "normal" footing. A normal defense relationship could include personnel exchanges
and contacts at all levels; provision of security assistance to address legitimate de-
fense needs; exchange of information; researcn and development cooperation where
applicable and appropriate; and conduct of joint exercises and joint training.

Tibet

Our firm policy is that Tibet is a part of China. Although we do not believe the
United States should have a direct role in resolving the dispute, the USG urges (1)
direct and serious negotiations between Beijing and Dharamsala; and (2) better
treatment for ethnic TiDctans in China and the protection of Tibet's unique cultural,
linguistic, and religious heritage.

Turkey

Our challenge in dealing with Turkey is to maintain strong defense relations with
a vital NATO ally in a time of diminished security assistance, while promoting

Progress in key areas of interest to the United States Government, including Greek-
urkish relations, Iraq, the Middle East peace process, and human rights. We have
been encouraged by progress to date and Turkisn willingness to discuss these issues
with us openly and frankly, and we are optimistic that further progress will be
made in the coming months. We are pleased that the two center-right political par-
ties (True Path ana Motherland) appear to have resolved their diflerences and are
ready to form a coalition government. We have worked well with both parties indi-
vidually in the past, and look forward to the fruits of their combined eflorts to keep
Turkey's international focus on Europe and the West. With this new government we
anticipate further progress in the areas of human rights and Greek-Turkish rela-
tions. We also hope to continue our joint effort to maintain pressure on Saddam
Hussein through enforcement of relevant UN resolutions and Operation Provide
Comfort.

A key objective in the post-Soviet era is to help Turkey deal with instability along
its borders, and ensure that Turkey plays a positive role in the region as the only
secular democracy governing a predominantly Muslim population. Given the close
cultural ties among Turkey and many of the newly-formea states of the former So-
viet Union, many states will look to Turkey for assistance in a variety of areas, from
economic development to assistance with state-building. Additionally, Turkey's long-
standing ties with Israel and border with Syria place it in a position to influence
the Middle East peace process, both by serving as an example of a Muslim nation
with excellent relations with Israel and by alleviating Syria's concerns over access
to water from the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Vietnam

Vietnam appears intent on avoiding the entangling alliances that characterized its
relationship with Moscow in the late 197()'s. Vietnam will therefore continue to
place great stock in expanding its relations with all countries to avoid the possibility
of becoming the captive of any relationship. The President has firmly communicated
that continued progress toward the fullest possible accounting for unaccounted for
servicemen must be understood by the Vietnamese as our highest national priority,
and the most important issue in our bilateral relationship. The key to keeping
Hanoi focused on appropriate regional behavior and peaceful resolution of conilict,
as well as continued integration into the region, is to press forward with normaliza-
tion, to seek contacts and dialogue on security issues of mutual interest, and to
gradually involve the Vietnamese in the regional approaches to conflict resolution
and confidence building through the mechanisms of tne ASEAN Regional Forum.

[The nomination reference of Franklin D. Kramer follows:]

Nomination Rkkkrenck

As In Exkcutivk Session,
Sknatk ok tmk Unitki) States,

February 6, 1996.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

139

Franklin D. Kramer of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Defense, vice Joseph Nye.

[The biographical sketch of Franklin D. Kramer, which was
transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was re-
ferred, follows:]

Biographical Sketch of Franklin D. Kramer

Mr. Franklin D. Kramer was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
European and NATO Affairs, Omce of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Inter-
national Security Affairs on January 31, 1996.

Prior to assuming this position, he served as a partner in the Washington, DC,
law firm of Shea and Gardner. Mr. Kramer served at the Department oi Defense
as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Af-
fairs from 1979 to 1981 and as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of De-
fense for International Security Affairs from 1977 to 1979. In 1992, he advised the
Democratic Presidential campaign on defense and politico-military matters. Mr.
Kramer was the President of the World Affairs Council of Washington, DC; on the
advisory board for the Center for Nation Policy; on the Technical Advisory Commit-
tee for the Center for Naval Analyses' Strategic Policy Analysis Group; currently a
member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies; and a principal of the
Council for Excellence in government.

Mr. Kramer received a B.A. degree cum laude from Yale University in 1967 and
a J.D. degree magna cum laude Irom Harvard Law School in 1971. He was Execu-
tive Editor of the Harvard Law Review in 1970-71. He was law clerk to the Honor-
able J. Edward Lumbard of the Untied States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir-
cuit in 1971-72.

He is married to Noel Anketell Kramer, a Washington DC Judge, and has two
children, Katherine and Christopher.

[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals nomi-
nated from civilian life by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate, and certain senior military offi-
cers as determined by the committee, to complete a form that de-
tails the biographical, financial and other information of the nomi-
nee. The form executed by Franklin D. Kramer 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

Part A— Biographical Information

Instructions to the Nominee: Biographical information furnished in this part
of the form will be made available in committee olTices 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.)

140

Franklin D. Kramer.

2. Position to which nominated:

Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

3. Date of nomination:
February 6, 1996.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and tne information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
November 13, 1945; Liberty, New York.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married — Noel Anketell Kramer (Anketell)

7. Names and ages of children:

Katherine Anketell Kramer, 19; Christopher Anketell Kramer, 15

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

Harvard Uw School, 1967-1971, J.D.
Yale University, 1963-1967, B.A.
Andrew Jackson High School, 1959-1963

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs, Washing-
ton, DC, January 1996-Present

Partner, Shea & Garner, Washington, DC, 1972-1977, 1981-January 1996 (part-
ner since 1982)

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.

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs,
1979-1981

Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Af-
fairs, 1977-1979

None.

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

Yale Club, Washington, DC (Approximately 1975 to present)

Harvard Law School Association, Washington, DC (Intermittent since 1970's)

International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, England (Approximately
1978 to present)

Cleveland Park Club, Washington, DC, (Approximately 1983 to present) (Board of
Directors in 1980's)

American Arbitration Association, Washington, DC (Approximately 1985 to
present)

American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois (Approximately 1972 to present)

St. Alban's Church, Washington, DC (Approximately 1985 to present)

St. Alban's School, Washington, DC (1990 to present)

District of Columbia Bar, Washington, DC (1972 to present)

Council for Excellence in (jovemment, Washington, DC (Approximately 1992 to
present)

13. Political afifiliations 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 election committees during the last 5 years.

Democrat: I advised the 1992 Democratic Presidential Campaign on national secu-
rity issues and the 1992 Kerry for President Campaign on national security issues.

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, po-
litical party, political action committee, or similar entity of $100 or more for the past
5 years.

141

None.

14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements.

Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished I*ublic Service

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

David E. McGiffert and Franklin D. Kramer, "U.S. Military Strategy," in China
Policy for the Next Decade

Walter B. Slocombe and Franklin D. Kramer, 'The Secretary of Defense and the
National Security Process" in Public Policy and Political Institutions

Franklin D. Kramer, 'The Government's Approach to Security Assistance" in U.S.
Security Assistance in the 1980's

Franklin D. Kramer, et al.. Defense Chapter of Democratic Fact Book (1986)

Franklin D. Kramer, The Logic of Mobile Missiles, New York Times (July 17,
1989)

Franklin D. Kramer, Defense Spending: It's the How That's Bad, Los Angeles
Times (May 18, 1982)

Franklin D. Kramer, op-ed on criminal sentencing; op-ed on intermediate court of
appeals, Washington Post (approximately 1975)

1 have testified for Congress in a nongovernmental capacity on the following occa-
sions:

Testimony of John G. Kester and Franklin D. Kramer, Subcommittee on Defense
Appropriations, Senate Committee on Appropriations (March 19, 1985) (defense
budget)

Testimony on Military Assistance Programs before Military Assistance Overview
Panel, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, House Committee on Appropriations
(March 26, 1985) (military assistance)

Testimony of John G. Kester and Franklin D. Kramer, Subcommittee on Depart-
ment of Defense Appropriations, House Committee on Appropriations (May 15,
1985) (defense budget)

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 con-
firmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly constituted committee
of the Senate?

Yes.

Signature and Date

Franklin D. Kramer.

This 8th day of February, 1996.

[The nomination of Franklin D. Kramer was reported to the Sen-
ate by Senator Strom Thurmond on February 6, 1996, with the rec-
ommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on March 28, 1996.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Alvin L. Aim by Senator Strom
Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

142

QUK^lONS AND RKSPONSES

Question. Should you be confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environ-
mental Management, what would you view as your principal responsibilities to the
Secretary of Energy?

Answer. The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management has five major
responsibilities to the Secretary:

• Recommendations for major policies, budgetary levels and other matters
requiring secretarial approval

• Establishing priorities for the Environmental Management pro-am

• Establishing accountable objectives and metrics for the EM staiT

• Follow-up to assure achievement of goals

• Working closely with the Congress, states, regulators and stakeholders to
develop consensus on programs and policies

Question. What is your understanding of the specific responsibilities of the Office
of the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management? Should you
be confirmed, what would be in carrying out these responsibilities, what would your
relationship be to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, the
Assistant Secretary for Defense Program,, and the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Safety? How do these responsibilities compare to previous positions that you have
held in your career? What background and experience do you possess that you be-
lieve qualify you to perform these duties? Do you believe that there are any steps
that you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform these duties?

Answer. The Assistant Secretary has a number of responsibilities in managing the
Office of Environmental Management. The most important functions of the Office
include the following:

• Treating, storing, and disposing of legacy wastes

• Managing wastes from ongoing operations

• Stabilizing, storing and preparing spent nuclear fuels, as well as other
nuclear materials such as plutonium, for disposition

• Remediation to meet regulatory requirements

• Protecting workers from radiation and from accidents

• Development of new characterization, treatment and robotics technologies
The Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and Health has re-
sponsibility for policy development, independent internal oversight, technical assist-
ance, NEPA policy and technical assistance. (The Office of Nuclear Safety is part
of this organization.) The Assistant Secretary for EM would have the following rela-
tionships with ES&H:

• Participating in the development of policy

• Following-up on any ES&H recommendations dealing with worker safety,
environment, NEPA, etc.

• Implementing ES&H policies and procedures

• Seeking out and teaming with ES&H on technical assistance activities,
such as training

The Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs has responsibility for management
of the nuclear stockpile, including production of components used for weapons. Cur-
rently, when a facility is no longer needed for production purposes, it would be
transferred to EM for stabilization, disposition of surplus nuclear materials and re-
mediation.

The Assistant Secretary for P]M would have the following interactions with the
Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs:

• Development of charge-back policies and technical assistance to encour-
age reduction of wastes at the source

• Assuring an orderly transition from production to stabilization, remedi-
ation and decommissioning of sites

• Determining the most appropriate DP responsibility for preparing facili-
ties and materials for transfer

During my career, I have been involved with virtually all environmental problems
and issues. As Deputy Administrator of EPA, I served as the chief operating officer
of a program of comparable size. I am well acquainted with environmental laws and
remediation activities. As staff director at the Council on Environmental Quality,
I gained familiarity with the NEPA process. As co-chair of the Environmental Man-
agement Advisory Board, I have kept abreast of DOE EM issues and initiatives. My
earlier experience as DOE Assistant Secretary for Policy and p]valuation and as a
management intern for the Atomic Energy Commission give me background on both
issues and the culture of DOE.

143

Although I believe I am well-qualified for this position, the EM program provides
daunting challenges. I intend to work hard to understand the policy and manage-
ment issues facing this program.

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Assist-
ant Secretary for Environmental Management? Assuming you are confirmed, what
plans do you have for addressing these problems?

Answer. The major challenges to the new Assistant Secretary will be to create a
cost effective, environmentally protective program that has the confidence of the
Congress, state officials and the stakeholders at the sites. To gain this confidence,
DOE needs to work toward developing a consensus on what needs to be done and
to show real performance quickly. I believe that most of the risks to the public and
workers and the ongoing costs of managing facilities, waste, and nuclear materials
can be dramatically reduced in a phase I program over the next decade. The phase
I program would consist of a tangible plan of action to achieve these goals within
a decade.

To succeed, I will need to work with DOE staff to develop the vision and program
to carry this out. I will also need to convince Congress that the program makes
sense in a period when discretionary resources will be limited. I will also need to
develop a consensus with regulators and stakeholders at the sites on the best course
of action.

The pieces are in place. Incentive contracts are in place at most of the facilities,
costs have been reduced, advisory committees have been established at the sites, a
number of privatization efforts have been undertaken-and comparative risk assess-
ment is being used to set priorities.

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the perform-
ance of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management function in the De-
partment of Energy? Assuming that you are confirmed, what management actions
and timetables would you establish to address these problems?

Answer. This program faces the following major hurdles:

• Sustaining support for a program that has a currently projected baseline
cost of $235 billion over 70 years

• The lack of precedent for undertaking an endeavor of this magnitude

• The number of regulators and other interested parties

• The unavailability of cost-effective technology to address some of the
problems

I believe a 10-year set of goals and actions should be formulated to reduce most
of the mortgages and most of the risk to the public and workers. Major efforts need
to be undertaken to forge consensus with regulators and stakeholders at the sites.
New technologies need to be employed, using more performance-based procurements
to encourage their deployment.

Question. What steps will you take to ensure that protection of the environment
is a key component of the projects and activities of the Department of Energy?

Answer. The most important steps include the following:

• Eliminate the most serious risks first

• Use removal actions to reduce risk in an expeditious fashion

• Dramatically reduce surveillance and maintenance costs by stabilizing
and disposing of wastes

I believe that aggressive management can result in greater protection of the envi-
ronment By setting priorities, tne most serious risks can be addressed quickly.
Using removal actions can result in protecting public health much earlier and, by
avoiding costly studies, can release funds for more remediation projects. Also by re-
ducing surveillance and maintenance costs, the funds saved can be appHed to reme-
diation projects in subsequent years.

Question. The Department of Energy's Environmental Management Program grew
very rapidly, but recently has been declining. What are your greatest challenges in
dealing with this situation?

Answer. The biggest challenge will be to fund activities consistent with agree-
ments entered into with EPA and the states. Lower budgets will likely require nego-
tiated adjustments to some of these agreements. Hopefully, it will be possible to
meet the intent of the regulatory agreements within tne amounts appropriated, as-
suming that a level of general financial stability can be maintained.

DOE needs to work very closely with stakeholders to reach agreement on the best
approach to implement the regulatory agreements. It will take cooperation on all
sides to avoid gridlock.

Question. In the past, the Department of Energy Environmental Management
Program has experienced funding shortages. How have these arisen and how do you
intend to prevent funding shortages in the future?

144

Answer. The out-year budget estimates in last year's budget should allow achieve-
ment of most program objectives, assuming substantial improvements in productiv-
ity. Any further reductions by the Congress could cause substantial disruptions to
the program. I pledge to work hard to create a clear rationale for the program and
to sell that rationale to the Congress.

I believe that the EM program represents an investment that will reduce obliga-
tions on future generations. Currently DOE spends a large portion of its funds just
to maintain facilities, waste and nuclear materials in a sale manner. Investments
to reduce these "mortgage" costs will result in a smaller set of obligations on future
generations, as well as much less risk.

Question. In responding to this question, would you please address plans to antici-
pate necessary funding levels for signed environmental agreements and for environ-
mental agreements that are not yet finalized or signed, but that will be finalized
or signed during the current or coming fiscal year?

Answer. I have not been privy to discussions concerning the level of funding pro-
posed for fiscal year 1997. If confirmed, I will review this question and report back
to the committee. I do not currently have enough knowledge to provide an intel-
ligent answer.

Question. Periodically there are press reports indicating that the Environmental
Management budget for fiscal year 1997 may be inadequate to meet the Depart-
ment's responsibilities. Are you aware of any shortages in the fiscal year 1997?

Answer. If confirmed, I will review this question and report back to the commit-
tee. I do not currently have enough information to provide an intelligent answer.

Question. What are the criteria oeing used to determine the Department's Envi-
ronmental Management IVogram for fiscal year 1998?

Answer. The fiscal year 1998 budget will represent an optimum mix of projects
that meet four criteria: risk reduction, mortgage reduction, regulatory requirements
(including recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board), and
stakeholder concerns. Such a budget is designed to achieve the following:

• Eliminating the highest risks, particularly those that are near at hand

• Reducing mortgages by funding projects that would result in substantial,
near-term savings

• Meeting regulatory agreements

• Undergoing projects that have the greatest concern to stakeholders

In addition to these programmatic considerations, every effort will be made to im-
prove productivity and reduce overhead costs.

Question. The Department of Energy has the difficult challenge of ensuring that
the Environmental Management budget is sufficient to meet its obligations, but at
the same time must take every effort to reduce the skyrocketing costs of the pro-
gram. How would you meet this challenge?

Answer. Strong management efforts must be continued and strengthened in the
following areas:

• Fund mortgage reduction projects that reduce future surveillance and
maintenance costs

• Use life-cycle costing to develop more cost-effective solutions. (For exam-
ple, an INEL study showed that it was cheaper to treat wastes destined for
WIPP, rather than to characterize and separate them. The savings in char-
acterization, storage, transportation and WIPP storage offset the costs of
treatment.)

• Eliminate unnecessary studies on remedial actions that are common
around the complex

• Use benchmarking as a way to emulate best practices

• Use process re-engineering to reduce redundant requirements

• Streamline the NEPA process

• Use privatization wherever feasible

• Eliminate unnecessary overhead costs

Overall, costs can be reduced through sequencing of projects to reduce mortgages,
by choosing cost-effective approaches, by employing privatization and by efficiency
improvements. In order to succeed, DOE managers must be given clear direction
and be held accountable and contractors need to oe incentivizea. Contractors should
not be rewarded when they fail. On the other hand, when they succeed, particularly
when they identify and execute cost savings, they should be rewarded for their ef-
forts.

Question. How would you deal with mixed waste strcanu for which no treatment
and disposal methods are either in place or identified?

Answer. DOE is developing site treatment plans for all of its mixed wastes. These
plans assume treatment for over 95 percent of the mixed waste, with the majority

145

of the remaining 5 percent requiring additional characterization before treatment
can be identifiecT

Most DOE mixed wastes include nuclear materials and various forms of solvents.
Technologies such as plasma torches, molten metal, incineration and vitrification
are available to eliminate the organic materials and concentrate the residuals.

DOE faces the unique problem that a large percentage of the volume of these
stored wastes contain mercury. To prevent mercury vapors from being vented to the
atmosphere, some form of pretreatment and monitoring will most likely be needed.
In the request for privatization proposals for the Idaho mixed waste facility, DOE
is hopeful that the private sector will come up with solutions. If not, DOE will fund
demonstrations of such technologv.

Question. If you are confirmed, what will you do to ensure open, frequent, and

F)ositive communication with the Environmental Protection Agency and State regu-
ators at the headquarters, field and regional levels, as well as with t he general
public?

Answer. If confirmed, I would meet regularly with regulators, both at the Federal
and State level. I already know some of these regulators personally. I would plan
to visit the major sites frequently, meeting with local stakeholders as well as L)OE
staff and contractors. I will also strongly encourage EM staff to be opx^n and have
frequent interaction with the public. Our decision-making process must provide
ample opportunity for input — from states and EPA as well as interested citizens —
at tne formative stages, not after the decisions are made. I believe open and contin-
uous dialogue with the public is crucial to attaining credibility for the program.

Question. If you are confirmed, would you include the concept of prioritization in
the DOE Environmental Management Program, and how woula you plan to do this?

Answer. As I indicated in question 8a, priorities would be a function of risk reduc-
tion, mortgage reduction, regulatory requirements and stakeholder concerns. Risk
priorities would be established, based on the system developed in the report to the
Congress last year. (That report is currently being updated.) Mortgage reduction
would be based on analyses conducted by the sites. For each of the four consider-
ations above, a budget would be prepared optimizing each of the four values. A fmal
case would optimize among the four cases. The overall budget would not only en-
compass these site specific priorities; it would also deal with priorities among the
sites. To the extent possible, budgetary shifts between sites would be held to a mini-
mum.

If confirmed, I would like to move toward development of 10 year plans for each
site designed to reduce most of the mortgages and risks. These plans could eventu-
ally be the baseline for each annual budget.

Question. In the future, fewer DOE weapons sites mav be needed for weapons pro-
duction, and thus management responsibility for some of these sites will snifl from
the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs to the Assistant Secretary for Envi-
ronmental Management. How would you deal with the existing workforce? Would
you work to retrain these individuals andplace them in new jobs7

Answer. I believe that efforts should definitely be made to retrain workers trans-
ferred from production sites.

Question. The environmental cleanup process must become more efficient faster
and cheaper. One of the keys to achieving this is R&D. How would you organize
and fund the environmental R&D of the program for DOE?

Answer. The Environmental Management Advisory Board has created a tech-
nology committee that will recommend ways to improve the technology development
program. The work of that committee, combined with an indepxjndent review, should
provide the basis for improvements to the technology development program.

As a result of the EMAB technology committee's preliminary findings, 10 new
demonstrations of innovative technology have been authorized by DOE. Moreover,
new procurements will be "performance-based" to encourage the use of new tech-
nology.

I support the focus group approach used by EM's Office of Science and Tech-
nology, out believe steps could oe undertaken to improve its efiectiveness. I also
support DOE's technology outreach efforts with stakeholders to assure that new
technologies have markets and deployment possibilities. Overall, the technology' de-
velopment program could result in savings of billions of dollars if we can get more
innovative technologies deployed. I would foresee stable funding for the next few
years at a minimum.

Question. Will you work to maintain a stable Environmental Management Pro-
gram budget at the $6 Billion/year level, or do you think that annual decrements
are appropriate?

Answer. I agree that stability in this program is absolutely critical and that safil-
cient funding must be provided to prevent disruption and avoid larger costs being

146

imposed on future generations. I also believe that it is imfx)rtant to take all meas-
ures possible to ensure a cost-effective program. Given the overall constraints on the
Federal budget, it is importan that the budget for this program be critically evalu-
ated to ensure its cost eifectiveness.

I have not been privy to discussions on the level of funding proposed for fiscal
years 1997 and beyond. If confirmed, I would be committed to supporting the Presi-
dent's budget and to working within the administration and with this committee to
ensure that sufficient and stable funding is provided to carry out the EM program.

Question. Will you work to support chemical processing of spent fuel rods in the
canyons at the Savannah River Site followed by vitrification of the resulting high
level radioactive waste?

Answer. I support the current effort to reprocess the Mark 31 targets and the
Mark 16 and 22 spent fuel and vitrify the resulting waste. I also support the devel-
opment of other alternatives to stabilize spent fuel. I believe that Savannah River
should not be a permanent repository for spent fuel. The alternative chosen to get
wastes "road ready" would be oased on a number of criteria, including total system
costs, proliferation concerns, safety, and total environmental impact.

Question. DOE has stated that its preferred alternative for dealing with the for-
eign spent nuclear fuel rods to be sent to the Savannah River Site is dry storage.
Do you agree with this approach or will you work to formally reexamine this conclu-
sion and consider processing these foreign spent fuel rods in the Savannah River
Site canyons?

Answer. I do not understand that dry storage is necessarily the preferred alter-
native for dealing with the foreign spent nuclear fuel rods that could be sent to the
Savannah River site. As I understand it, the Department is evaluating a number
of technological alternatives to put the fuel in a 'road ready" condition. The even-
tual choice should be based on total system costs, proliferation concerns, safety, and
total environmental impact.

Reprocessing technology will be retained as a backup contingency until a final de-
cision is made on the proper technology. If a new treatment or packaging technology
is not ready for implementation by the year 2000, DOE might use the F-Canyon to
reprocess some foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel elements. I understand
the Department win conduct an indepenaent study of the policy, technology, and
schedule implications of reprocessing the foreign research reactor spent fuel.

Question. What is your opinion on the desirability of external regulation of the
Department of Energy's nuclear clean-up and nuclear weapons programs?

Answer. I have not studied the implications of external regulation on the Environ-
mental Management program. On the one hand, I understand the premise that
DOE should not regulate itself. On the other hand, I believe that external regulation
could, if not implemented properly, create uncertainty and confusion during a tran-
sition period-something that should be avoided just as the program is gaining mo-
mentum. Regardless of whether DOE becomes externally regulated, it must ensure
that a strong internal safety management system is in place. If confirmed, I would
give this issue immediate attention.

Question. Do you know whether the Aheame report unanimous on this rec-
ommendation? If not, what was the committee vote on this matter?

Answer. The committee vote was unanimous in favor of external regulation. There
was, however, a wide divergence among the committee on whether the NRC or the
DNFSB should assume that role. As I understand it, there were nine votes for NRC,
seven for DNFSB and six abstentions.

Question. Is there another management approach than external regulation to as-
sure safe management of the DOE clean-up program while meeting program goals
in a cost effective manner?

Answer. DOE currently takes the recommendations of the Defense Nuclear Facili-
ties Safety Board seriously. An even stronger management effort to implement these
recommendations might be appropriate, coupled with increased effort to improve the
DOE's Safety Management System.

Question. Do you believe that external regulation will open the door to citizen law-
suits on federal decisions in this program?

Answer. I do not have the legal background for making a judgment on this mat-
ter.

Question. What would you do differently in managing this program, if you are con-
firmed for this position? How do you propose to get this program to show real re-
sults with the highest priority program objectives?

Answer. As I indicated, I believe all the pieces are in place to manage the pro-
gram successfully. If confirmed, I would focus heavily on cutting red tape, drawing
down mortgages, funding the highest risk projects, privatization and improving effi-
ciency.

147

Question. Section 3142(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 provides an additional $45 million for processing and treatment of high-
level nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel rods. $30 million of this amount is des-
ignated for the Savannah River Site (SRS) and $15 million is designated for the
Idaho National Laboratory. A 5-year program plan associated with these activities
is also required. Has DOh allocated these resources to these activities in fiscal year
1996? Will you work to implement this program at least at this level in fiscal year
1996 and following years?

Answer. I understand that funds have been allocated in fiscal year 1996 for the
program authorized in Section 3142 of the National Defense Authorization Act. At
Savannah River, processing of the Mark 31 targets is underway and resources are
being applied to reprocess Mark 16 and Mark 22 spent fuel. In addition, funds have
been allotted to develop and evaluate a range of technologies to make aluminum
clad spent fuel and foreign fuel rods "road ready" for ultimate disposal. The incre-
mental cost for these activities was $26 million in fiscal year 1996.

At Idaho, resources were allocated from the fiscal year 1996 appropriation to meet
the requirements in the Agreement between the Department, Idaho and the Navy
to make the spent fuel and high level waste "road ready." An incremental amount
of more than $10 million has been allotted for this purpose in fiscal year 1996.

The total costs for processing and/or treatment of high level nuclear waste and
spent nuclear fuel rods, at Hanford and INEL, is much larger than the amounts de-
scribed above.

A 5-year plan is being prepared for the overall program. Hence, if confirmed, I
can commit to supporting fiscal years 1996 and 1997 funding of these activities and
to a thorough review of the entire program document.

Question. Section 3142(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1996 provides an additional $25 million electrometalurgical waste treatment
technologies. Is DOE implementing this program? Will you work to support this pro-
gram?

Answer. I understand that during fiscal year 1996, DOE is deploying the $25 mil-
lion authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for electrometalurgical
waste treatment to fund process development and testing at the Argonne West site
in Idaho. The project will be funded in the Nuclear Energy account in the future.
An evaluation of the applicability of this technology will probably be completed
within 2 to 3 months.

Question. DOE has decided to consolidate DOE stainless steel clad spent fuel rods
at INEL, DOE aluminum clad and foreign spent fuel rods at SRS, and will keep
Hanford spent fuel rods at that site. Couplea with the administration's refusal to
meet the deadline date for opening a permanent nuclear waste repository or to open
an interim nuclear waste repository, DOE appears to be making the three sites in
question de facto nuclear waste respositories for the indefinite future. Do you have
a plan for closing the nuclear fuel cycle and alleviating the situation at these three
sites? If so, can you please describe your plans at each site?

Answer. I support the need to open a permanent nuclear disposal facility, pref-
erably an underground repository. If that is not possible, I believe interim, retriev-
able storage should move lorward as quickly as possible.

In the interim, I believe that the Department should move forward on making
spent nuclear fuel "road-ready." DOE is currently evaluating a number of tech-
nologies that could assure that spent nuclear fuel would be moved to a repository
as soon as it opens. I support those efforts.

I do not believe the Savannah River, INEL and Hanford sites should become "de
facto" nuclear waste repositories for the foreseeable future.

Question. What do you think should be the role of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in the DOE EM program?

Answer. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board plays a strong role in mak-
ing recommendations on how to make DOE facilities safer. I endorse the functions
of the Board and, if confirmed, would plan to work closely with it.

Question. The DOE EM program was given a Congressional directive to spend $50
million to accelerate basic science programs by employing the national laboratories.
This program is being managed by the Office of Energy Research, not the office of
Environmental Management. Why;

Answer. The fiscal year 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations con-
ference included language directing that at least $50 million of the technology funds
provided to EM be useato develop a program to stimulate basic research, aevelop-
ment and demonstration efforts to seek new and innovative cleanup methods to re-
place current conventional approaches. The conference report specifically directed
that the program be managed by the Office of Energy Research.

148

Question. Is EM not capable of managing this activity or is this an appropriate
management arrangement? Why?

Answer. I believe that EM is pjerfectly capable of managing this activity. However,
the conferees suggested enhanced utilization of the existing basic research infra-
structure within the Office of Energy Research. Thus, the Department has created
a partnership between EM and Elnergy Research for fiscal year 1996 and will report
back to Congress on how well this partnership has performed and will make rec-
ommendations for the future.

The Environmental Management Advisory Board is establishing a science commit-
tee to evaluate how this program should be managed and how to evaluate success.
That committee, under the leadership of Dr. Frank Parker of Vanderbilt University,
should provide additional guidance as to how to structure this initiative in the fu-
ture.

If confirmed, I will look to the EMAB committee and other sources to determine
the best management structure.

Question. Wnat performance measures will you apply to this program to assure
it yield mission oriented results and does not simply become an entitlement to do
research?

Answer. Performance measures for basic research are considerably different from
those for applied research and technology development. The EMAB science commit-
tee, the National Academy of Sciences, and the science community in general have
been, or will be asked to recommend metrics that can be used. If confirmed, I will
look closely at these metrics to ensure that they will effectively evaluate results.

Question. Do you believe that the large number of lengthy, expensive overlapping
Environmental Impact Statements generated under the EM program are necessary
to meet the intent of NEFA? Do we nave NEPA gridlock in the Em orogram?

Answer. For whatever reason, DOE's past implementation of NEPA has been cost-
ly and the environmental impact statements have taken a great deal of time to com-
plete. Overall, many of the environmental impact statements provided useful guid-
ance for major decisions, but the process was laborious and the statements volumi-
nous. At this point, the major programmatic and site-wide environmental impact
statements are in the pipeline and moving toward completion. In June 1994, Sec-
retary O'Leary created a streamlined EIS process with the goal of reducing the time
to conduct and complete an EIS from 33 months to 15 months, saving an estimated
$26 million over 5 years. I strongly applaud this effort.

Question. The DOE EM baseline report estimated the cost of accomplishing the
EM program goals at $350 billion over 70 years, assuming no significant technology
development. Do you believe that the report's assumptions, methodology and conclu-
sions are correct? How would you do the annual baseline report?

Answer. The $350 billion estimate assumed no productivity improvements. If pro-
ductivity improvements are taken into account, the Baseline Environmental Man-
agement Report estimated a baseline cost of $235 billion. Preliminary field esti-
mates for an updated BFIMR indicate that the productivity improvements assumed
appear realistic.

In my opinion, the BEMR was well-done and an important first step in under-
standing the magnitude of this program. In the future, the BEMR should explore
more alternative scenarios. The application of new technology is an assumption
worth considering, although difficult to quantify. New technology would both reduce
costs by finding cheaper ways to achieve current objectives, but could also raise cost
estimates in cases wnere currently intractable problems could then be dealt with.

[Questions for the record with answers supphed follow:]
Questions Submittkd by Senator Strom Thurmond
environmental management budget

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, news reports are indicating that the DOE is antici-
pating Environmental Management receiving a smaller budget to support its pro-
grams. Do you believe Environmental Management will have a sufficient allocation
of the overall DOE budget in 1997?

Mr. Alm. I have not yet had an opportunity to study the budget in depth. I under-
stand that EM has 36 percent of the overall DOE budget and EM will experience
a reduction of 3.4 percent between fiscal years 1996 and 1997. However, the Depart-
ment expects work at the sites to achieve increased productivity at a rate of 1-2
percent per year and to be 5-10 percent more productive by fiscal year 2000. With
the productivity gains, I understand the President's proposed fiscal year 1997 budg-

149

et for EM will allow DOE to handle the urgent risks in the system and make
progress toward cleanup goals while still essentially maintaining compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Further congressional reductions would make it
more difTicult to achieve these objectives.

Senator THURMOND. What projects could you reasonably accelerate if you had
1020 percent more fiscal year 1997 resources?

Mr. Alm. Again, I would need to give-the issue more review but I would look for
projects where the mortgage could be written down, thereby resulting in savings for
future investment in getting additional work accomplished.

ENVIRONMENTTAL MANAGEMKNT EFFICIENCY

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, do you believe that the Environmental Manage-
ment program will continue to be able to "do more with less" and keep up with ex-
isting compliance agreements for 1997?

Mr. Alm. Although I have not thoroughly reviewed the budget, I understand that
if the President's budget is enacted, the Department should be able to essentially
meet its commitments through productivity and efficiency savings and regulatory
streamlining initiatives.

However, I believe that strong management efforts must be continued and
strengthened in the following areas:

• Fund mortgage reduction projects that reduce future surveillance and
maintenance costs

• Use life-cycle costing to develop more cost-effective solutions. (For exam-
ple, an Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) study showed that
it was cheap)er to treat wastes destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP), rather than to, characterize and separate. The savings in charac-
terization, storage, transportation and WIPP storage offset the costs of
treatment.)

• Eliminate unnecessary studies on remedial actions that are common
around the complex

• Use benchmarking as a way to emulate best practices

• Use process re-engineering and Total Quality Management processes to
reduce redundant requirements

• Streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process

• Use privatization wherever feasible

• Eliminate unnecessary overhead costs

Many of these measures have already been initiated by the Department and it
will be important to continue to move forward with them as quickly as possible.

If Congress substantially reduces the President's budget, compliance with regu-
latory agreements will become much more difficult.

FACILITY COMPLIANCE

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, the Federal Facility Compliance Act allowed a 3
year grace period for DOE to arrange compliance agreements for the handling of
mixed waste. That grace period ended in late 1995, and many of those agreements
were reached. Do you think you will have enough funding to implement those agree-
ments in 1997?

Mr. Alm. Although I have not thoroughly studied the budget, I understand that
the President's fiscal year 1997 budget requests enough funding to essentially im-
plement these compliance agreements. As DOE and the States were negotiating the
compliance orders requiring implementation of the Site Treatment Plans, funding
limitations were recognized as an issue. To prevent ongoing compliance issues, DOE
requested the States to build fiexibility into the agreements, acknowledging that
funding availability is as an important, criterion in the setting and revising of mile-
stones. Language recognizing potential funding shortfalls was incorporated into
most compliance orders.

REPORT

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, the National Academy of Science just issued a re-
port called "Improving the Environment" that made many constructive rec-
ommendations for the Environmental Management program. What are your views
on using responsible Stewardship and Land Use Planning in executing both Waste
Management and Environmental Restoration responsibilities?

Mr. Alm. I agree that stewardship and land use planning are critically important
to efTective management and cleanup of the DOE complex. In fact, many of the com-

150

ments I made in testimony before the Armed Services Committee are consistent
with these concepts.

A key challenge to the new Assistant Secretary will be to demonstrate to all —
Congress, state officials, and stakeholders at the sites— that the Department has a
cost-effective, environmentally protective program. To do this, DOE needs to work
hard on gaining consensus on what needs to be done and then show real perform-
ance. Land use decisions play a key role in defining the clean-up levels necessary
to achieve beneficial uses.

DOE must take action quickly to reduce the most serious risks. In many cases
risks can be dramatically reduced by stabilizing wastes and by removal actions,
until permanent solutions are found. Putting off actions while awaiting "final" solu-
tions only exposes the public and workers to unnecessary risk in the interim.

The Department must also act to reduce mortgage costs as quickly as possible,
while continuing to take its regulatory obligations seriously.

Reduction of the costs to maintain facilities in a safe condition by decontaminat-
ing and decommissioning facilities will free up funds to devote to risJc reduction.

The Department must also improve the cost effectiveness of the program. Through
systems analysis, risk analysis and other tools, the Department. needs to assure that
Actions represent the most cost effective option. Finally, the Department needs to
apply the oest science to the program by using technology that will allow the De-
partment to conduct the program at lower costs.

In summary I firmly believe that reducing mortgages, streamlining processes and
shortening deadlines for final actions will result in less costly and more protective
solutions than searching for a "perfect" solution. Moving ahead with cleanup actions,
even if they are interim in nature, will reduce risks and future costs. I believe that
most of the risk reduction and mortgage reduction can be dealt with in a 10 year
period, which is consistent with the Environmental Stewardship concept.

SUPERFUND

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, the Congress is currently considering reauthoriza-
tion of the Superfund law. What are DOE's recommendations for reforming that
statute to improve the Environmental Management program?

Mr. Alm. a significant portion of the Environmental Management Program budg-
et is driven by compliance agreements. The Superfund law is one of the principal
legal drivers for these agreements. Addressing shortcomings in the law should facili-
tate the Department's effort to achieve greater results more cost effectively. I under-
stand Mr. Crumbly has testified previously that changes to the Comprehensive En-
vironmental Response, Liability and Compensation Act (CERCLA) tnat are of par-
ticular concern to the Department, including:

(1) The Superfund statute needs to codify the requirement that future land
use must be considered in the remedy selection process. Future land use
should be considered throughout the remedy selection process as it is re-
quired to be under current EPA directives.

(2) Better provisions for community involvement are needed. Superfund
should be reformed to incorporate community involvement earlier in the
remedy selection process. Community involvement should be mandated by
statute to be an integral part of the remedy selection process that will, in
the long run, make the risk assessment and management process more
open and more democratic.

(3) To address the problem of overlapping state-federal roles, the EPA Ad-
ministrator should be authorized to delegate certain Superfund authorities
to the states. In the interest of continuing to move forward, however, this
delegation should not slow down ongoing cleanups.

I understand that DOE is also an. active participant in the administration work
group that is looking at possible administrative reforms to Superfund that can in-
crease the program's effectiveness.

OAMAGKS

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, the current Superfund law allows federal and state
trustees to seek damages for environmental contamination beyond the costs of com-
pleting a cleanup. To what extent do you believe DOE will be liable for such claims,
and how would you pay for them if you are?

Mr. Alm. The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liabil-
ity Act (CERCIj\) establishes the basic requirements for natural resource damage
liability with which the Department will comply. I understand that the Department
is in the early stages of assessing the potential, natural resource damages it may
face. To my knowledge, no formal natural resource damage assessments have yet

151

been completed at any DOE sites. Additionally, the General Accounting Office
(GAO), at the request of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
is currently conducting a review of the potential DOE liability for natural resource
damage claims related to CERCIjA remediation activities.

I previousK' committed to Senator Smith that, if confirmed, I will look into,this
issue. I reaffirm that commitment. If there is potential liability and if claims are
assessed, I would expect to address these claims in future budgets.

Senator ThuR-MONO. Mr. Aim, DOE is about to open a major vitrification facility
at the Savannah River Site to isolate high level nuclear waste. Doesn't it make
sense to chemically reduce the foreign fuel rods being sent to the site by chemical

f»rocessing in the canyon facilities and then vitrify the residue in this major new
acility?

Mr. Alm. I have not had a detailed briefing on the various factors surrounding
this issue. But as I understand it, the preferred alternative specified in the FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON A PROPOSED NUCLEAR WEAP-
ONS NONPROLIFERATION POLICY CONCERNING FOREIGN RESEARCH RE-
ACTOR SPENT FUEL includes a commitment that the Department would consider
chemical separation of a oortion of the foreign research reactor spent fuel in the
canyons if a more desirable treatment and/or packaging option is not ready for im-
plementation by the year 2000. If such chemical separation is found to be war-
ranted, I understand that it would be DOE's intent to chemically separate as much
of the foreign research reactor spent fuel as possible, considering the canyon capac-
ity and the other materials that might also need to be processed within the life of
the facility. The high level radioactive wastes from such chemical separation would
be vitrified in the new Defense Waste I^ocessing Facility.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has
emphasized the need to keep both Savannah River canyons in a high state of oper-
ational and safety readiness.for future missions. Do you agree or disagree with the
Board?

Mr. Alm. This is a complex issue and I have not had a chance to review it in
depth. A preliminary DOE study indicates that all necessary reprocessing oper-
ations could be conducted in a single canyon. However, the DNFSB has expressed
concerns about the need for maintaining redundancy in the case of accident or a
change in mission. My understanding is that the Department currently intends to
maintain both. facilities in a high degree of readiness.

Senator Thurmond. Mr. Aim, in your written answer to committee question #17
you indicated that even though you support the current chemical processing of spent
fuel rods in the canyons at the Savannah River Site, you also support the develop-
ment of other alternatives to stabilize the foreign sf)ent fuel and other DOE spent
fuels being sent to the Site. The canyons and the new vitrification facility at the
Site provide the complete set of tools necessary to put the residue from all these
fuel rods in a form which is "road ready" for transport to a permanent repository.
Why invest more money and years in R&D and when we could use these resources
to solve the problem with tools on hand?

Mr. Alm. I have not had an opportunity to fully address the complex issue of
spent nuclear fuel at the Department. As I understand it, the Department is evalu-
ating a number of technological alternatives to put the fuel in a 'road ready" condi-
tion. Because a repository will not be available in the near-term, an investment in
research and development for alternative technologies may have a significant cost
benefit in the long-term. The eventual choice will be based on a total system cost,
proliferation concerns, safety, and total environmental impact. I agree that the De-
partment's current policy regarding chemical processing oispent fuel rods at the Sa-
vannah River Site is desiraole to protect the health and safety of the public and
the Department's workers.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Aim, in your written answer to committee question #17,
you indicated that "proliferation concerns" was a consideration in trying to find an
alternative to chemical processing of spent nuclear fuel rods in the canyons at the
Savannah River Site. Because there is no need to produce anymore weapons grade
material in the U.S., it appears that DOP]'s hypotnetical considerations about nu-
clear proliferation by the United States are impeding use of the Site's most effective
tools lor reducing the real hazard these spent fuel rods present to the people of
South Carolina. Could you explain this DOE policy in relation to your responsibil-
ities and what you mean by "proliferation concerns'?

Mr. Alm. The Department has been looking at a number of alternatives on how
to deal efiectively with the spent nuclear fuel throughout the complex. Proliferation
is one of the criteria the Department is reviewing. But the eventual choice will also
be based on total system costs, safety, and total environmental impact, as well as
proliferation concerns.

152

QUKSTIONS SUBMITTKI) BY SkNATOR DIRK KKMPTHORNE

Senator Kkmpthornk. Mr. Aim, in your prepared statement you stated that you
"subscribe to the direction and goals that Tom Crumbly has established for the pro-
gram." Do you also support the commitments Secretary Crumbly has made regard-
ing full funding for the Navy and DOE agreement with the state of Idaho ana the
INfjL's management role concerning the new basic science and research program in
support of the EM program?

mr. Alm. Yes. I agree with the Department's recent legal commitment to imple-
menting the agreement with the state of Idaho. This is an important agreement for
addressing the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste issues at the Idaho Na-
tional p]ngineering Laboratory, while providing for storage of naval reactor spent
fuel.

DOE's recently announced $50 million science program to advance R&D in the
nuclear weapons cleanup program involves an important partnership between EM
and ER. The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory has important expertise in life
cycle systems engineering, an activity that integrates technology development from
basic research activities tnrough implementation. I support efforts to work with the
Idaho Operations Office to identify the important role that the INEL can have in
this effort.

Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Aim, can you tell me why the electrometallurgical
demonstration project will be funded in the Nuclear Energy program in fiscal year
1997?

Mr. Alm. I am not familiar with this project in detail. However, I understand that
this project is an outgrowth of the continuing mission of Argon ne National labora-
tory-West. The project evolved from the Integral Fast Reactor Pro-am, which has
traditionally been funded by the Office of Nuclear Energy. The project will continue
to be funded by this office in the future.

Senator Kempthorne. Mr. Aim, do you believe external regulation will improve
health and safety in the DOP] complex?

Mr. Alm. I have not studied the implications of external regulation. On the one
hand, I understand the premise that DOE should not regulate itself. On the other
hand, I believe that external regulation could, if not implemented properly, create
uncertainty and confusion during a transition period — something that should be
avoided just as the program is gaining momentum. If confirmed, I would give this
issue immediate attention.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Do you believe the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board
is unable to handle this responsibility?

Mr. Alm. I have the utmost respect for the expertise and experience of the De-
fense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNF'SB). In his recent testimony before this
Committee Mr. John Conway, Chairman of the DNP^SB, testified that he did not be-
lieve safety would be enhanced by having more external regulation imposed on the
Department. Despite these comments, the DNFSB is certainly a viable candidate for
external regulation, if such regulation could be achieved with minimal disruption to
the ongoing program. These views are among the many that will be considered by
the internal DOE task force that is reviewing the Ahearne committee's external reg-
ulation report.

Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond

Senator BoND. Please outline your perspective and priorities for the Formerly
Used Sites Remedial Action IVogram (FUSRAP).

Mr. Alm. The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) was
initiated in 1974 to identify and remediate contaminated, private sites around the
country that were used in the Nation's early atomic energy program for research
and development and refining and machining material usecfin the production of nu-
clear weapons. There arc 41 of these sites. The program also includes five sites as-
signed by Congress which were commercial in nature, bringing the total to 46. In
aodition, there are many contaminated vicinity properties near these sites, some of
which are private residences. To date, the program has successfully remediated 24
of the 46 sites and 205 of the 309 vicinity properties. However, the largest and most
technically challenging sites — involving the majority of the waste — remain to be
cleaned up.

In fiscal year 1998, the Environmental Management (FM) budget request includes
a significant increase for the FUSRAP. The Department expects that this increase
as well as projected outyear funding allocations, will accelerate the completion of ex-
isting F'USRAP sites to fi.scal year 2002. However, as we move into the remediation
phase at the larger FUSRAP sites, we will be faced with extremely high costs for

153

waste transportation and disposal if we implement remedies that require all of the
contaminated material to be removed from these sites. Therefore, EM is working
with affected communities and regulators to reach agreement on appropriate clean-
up strategies that are protective, cost effective, consistent with the expected future
use of the property, and support completion of the program by 2002.

Senator Bond. Are you supportive of community-based, technology-driven cleanup
solutions at FUSRAP sites, as compared to conventional cleanups under existing
DOE contracts?

Mr. Alm. Yes, the Department is encouraging community-based firms to propose
reasonable, proven cleanup technologies that will support the Department in pursu-
ing protective and cost-efTcctive cleanups.

Senator Bond, (a) What are your views concerning expanded use of vitrification
technologies beyond Savannah River and Hanford?

(b) Are such technologies applicable to FUSRAP Sites? (c) In the family of vitri-
fication technologies, which in DOE's view hold the greatest potential in terms of
technical economy and efficiency? Has DOE pilot tested these technologies? If so, at
which locations and with what results?

Mr. Alm. (a) Vitrification technologies have a role at a wide variety of DOE clean-
up sites. Vitrification at the Savannah River Site is being used for both high-level
and low-level mixed radioactive waste, and at West Valley, New York for high-level
waste generated by commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing. The costs of permanently
isolating these wastes in alternative waste forms are extremely high. However, vitri-
fication provides an effective means of waste isolation and does not increase waste
volumes as with some other technologies such as cement grout. These forms of "ex-
situ" vitrification can treat a variety of wastes, and are being actively pursued at
Femald for the radium-bearing K-65 silo wastes, at Idaho for stored mixed waste
and exhumed buried waste, at Oak Ridge for mixed wastes, and at Hanford for
high-level radioactive tank waste.

In situ vitrification, another aspect of the technology that is performed in the
ground to immobilize soil contaminants, has been demonstrated in some cases to be
an effective and lower cost method of permanent waste treatment. The treatment
method can address a wide variety of toxic inorganic, organic and radioactive waste
contamination problems. This treatment method is being considered for the Oak
Ridge site and possibly the Idaho and Hanford sites. Since it is performed in the
ground, expensive waste treatment facilities and waste handling and disposal oper-
ations are avoided.

(b) The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) considers all
possible technologies; however, studies to date indicate that vitrification is not a cost
efTective remedy at FUSRAP sites. Because of the nature (e.g., concentration levels
and waste form) of contaminants at these sites, ex-situ vitrification would be an un-
necessary, significant incremental cost in cases where materials are excavated and
shipped to an approved disposal site. In situ vitrification also would be expensive,
since it would involve application over large areas. It also would leave the material
on-site, a cleanup approach opposed by many stakeholders.

(c) In situ vitrification provides the lowest cost method of vitrification, while pro-
viding a high degree of effectiveness, due to the absence of many of the infrastruc-
ture costs associated with ex-situ treatment. However, ex-situ vitrification in var-
ious melter configurations can be cost-effective, especially with higher activity
wastes or waste that requires costly disposal.

DOE has pilot tested in situ vitrification at Oak Ridge and Hanford. In addition,
the technology is commercially available from private industry and has been used
at private EPA Superfund sites. Ex-situ vitrification technologies have been pilot
tested in several configurations, including plasma furnaces and joule heated melt-
ers. These technologies are also commercially available and in operation at the Sa-
vannah River Site. Both the Savannah River Site (the Defense Waste Processing Fa-
cility) and the West Valley Site are in operation and vitrifying high-level waste. The
mixed low-level waste melter at the Savannah River Site is also in successful oper-
ation. The plasma centrifugal furnace technology being considered for use at Idaho
for treatment of radioactive mixed waste was successfully cold pilot tested at the
Western Environmental Technology Office, Butte, Montana using EPA Superfund
wastes.

At Oak Ridge, the commercially-procured Transportable Vitrification System (to
be used for mixed waste treatment) has not yet successfully completed its pilot test
and is being readied to do so later this year. I-*ilot testing of the vitrification system
at Fernald was completed, but operation of the full scale vitrification system has
not yet been achieved. In addition, a contract at Idaho was recently awarded for
treatment of stored mixed waste which includes plasma vitrification.

154
[The nomination reference of Alvin L. Aim follows:]

NOMINATIOiN RKKERENCE AND REPORT

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

December 22. 1995.
Pursuant to an order of the Senate of June 29, 1990,

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services and Energy and Natural Resources:

Alvin L. Aim, oi Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Environmental
Management), vice Thomas P. Crumbly.

[The biographical sketch of Alvin L. Aim, which was transmitted
to the committee at the time the nomination was referred, follows:]

Biographical Sketch ok Alvin L. Alm

Alvin L. Aim is a Senior Vice IVesident responsible for the Environmental Busi-
ness Area within Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).

Mr. Aim began his professional career in 1961 as a Federal Management intern
with the Atomic Energy Commission. He spent 7 years (1963-1970) at the Bureau
of the Budget (now 0MB) and became a senior budget examiner. In 1970, Mr. Aim
became the first stafT director of the newly created Council on Environmental Qual-
ity. In 1973, Mr. Aim became the EPA Assistant Administrator for Planning and
Management, responsible for strategic planning, budgeting, policy and internal
management. In 1977, after spending 9 months in the Executive Office of the IVesi-
dent, Mr. Aim became Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy and Evaluation.
From 1980 to 1983, Mr. Aim was at the Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government where he managed a research program. In addition, he was
the program director of the Aspen Institute's energy program. In 1983, Mr. Aim was
tapped by William D. Ruckelshaus to be EPA's Deputy Administrator.

From 1985 to earlv 1987, Mr. Aim was the Chairman of the Board and Chief Ex-
ecutive Officer of Thermal Analytical Corporation, an environmental testing com-
pany. Mr. Aim stayed on the Board for Thormo Analytical and later for Thermo En-
vironmental until 1989. From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Aim was Chief Executive Officer
of Alliance Technologies Corporation and Senior Vice-President of the parent com-
pany, TRC Companies, Inc. He became a Senior Vice President and SAIC Board
member in June 1989.

Mr. Aim received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Denver in
1960. He received a Master's Degree in Public Administration from the Maxwell
Graduate School at Syracuse University in 1961.

Mr. Aim is involved with a number of outside activities. Currently he is Co-Chair,
Department of Energy Environmental Management Advisory Board, and a board
member of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, the Environmental Ex-
port Council, the Harvard Environmental Health Council, RHINP^W America and the
Applications Center. He has recently participated in a National Academy of I^ublic
Administration study of EPA and a Defense Science Board study of the DOD envi-
ronmental program. In the past, he was Chairman of the Science Advisory Board's
Research Strategies Advisory Committee, a member of the National Academy of
Science's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, a member of the Board
of Directors of the Environmental I^aw Institute, and a member of the Board of Ad-
visors, Gas Research Institute. He is a member of the National Academy of I\iblic
Administration and the Council for Excellence in Government.

Mr. Aim has received the following awards: Arthur S. Fleming Award, as one of
ten most outstanding young men and women in the Executive Branch, 1975; The
Secretary of Energy's Distinguished Service Medal, 1979; Special Achievement
Award, Environmental I'rotection Agency, 1984; and Outstanding Senior Man, Uni-
versity of Denver, 1960.

Mr. Aim has published many articles, chapters in books and has been the co-au-
thor of two booKs. From 1989 to 1992, he wrote a monthly column for Environ-
mental Science and Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society.

[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals nomi-
nated from civilian life by the President to positions requiring the

155

advice and consent of the Senate, and certain senior military offi-
cers as determined by the committee, to complete a form that de-
tails the biographical, financial and other information of the nomi-
nee. The form executed by Alvin L. Aim 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 ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

Part A— Biographical Information

Instructions to the No.MINEE: 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.)
Alvin L. Aim.

2. Position to which nominated:

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.

3. Date of nomination:

December 22, 1995.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and tne information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
January 27, 1937; Denver, CO.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Divorced (single).

7. Names and ages of children:
Jessica Aim, 21.

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

Institution

Dales attended

Degrees received

Dates of degrees

University of Denver

1955-1950
1960-1951

BJ\

Master of Public Administration

6/60

Maxwell Graduate School, Syracuse University

7/71

Science Applications International Corporation, Director & Sector V.P.,
Alliance Technology Corporation (TRC Companies), President & CEO, Alliance;
Bedford, MA; Senior Vice President, TRC, Windsor, CT, 1/87-6/89

Thermo Analytical Corporation, Chairman & CEO, Waltham, MA, 10/85-1/87

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.

156

DOE Environmental Management Advisory Board 1 1/93 to present Co-Chairman

EPA Science Advisory Board : 7/87 to 10/94

Review of EPA R&D Program 7/87 to 8/88 Chairman

Research Strategies Advisory Board 10/88 to 9/92 Chairman

Executive Committee 10/88 to 10/94 Memt)er

Defense Science Board Task Force on Environmental Security 10/94 to 4/95 Memt)er

Science Applications International Corporation 6/89 to present Board Memt)er

3M Corporation 3/95 to 8/95 Consultant

Hydro Quebec U.S. Advisory Committee 8/89 to 9/95 Member

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

SAIC 6/89 to present Board Member

California Environmental Technology Center 8/94 to 7/95 Interim

Director

RENEW America 4/95 to present Board Member

Task Force on Science and Technology in Judicial and Regulatory Decision-Making 6/91 to 6/93 Member of

Regulatory
Sub-Group

Center for Hazardous Materials Research 5/88 to 4/95 Board Member

National Academy of Public Administration 11/84 to present Member

Council for Excellence in Government 10/85 to present Member

Environmental Law Institute 6/85 to present

Board of Directors 6/85 to 12/91 Member

Board of Advisors 12/91 to present Member

Environmental and Energy Study Institute 11/93 to present Board Member

Board of Advisors, Harvard Environmental Health Council 3/95 to present Member

Environmental Export Council 6/92 to present Board Member

National Forum on Science and Technology Goals, summer study for the National
Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) Board on Environmental

Sciences and Toxicology 8/21/95 to 8/30/95 Forum

Participant

National Academy of Sciences 1985 to 1988 Member

Gas Research Institute's Board of Advisors 1985 to 1988 Member

13. Political affiliations and activities:

(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or any public office
for which you have been a candidate.

None.

(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political
parties or election committees during the last 5 years.

None.

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, po-
litical party, political action committee, or similar entity of $100 or more for the past
5 years.

Bennett Johnston $500.00

Bennett Johnston, III 500 00

Doug Costle 1,000.00

David Skaggs '. 1,350.00

David McCurdy 250.00

Joe Cannon 100.00

14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, military medals and other special recognitions for outstanding service
or achievements.

Scholarship, University of Denver

Scholarship and fellowship. Maxwell Graduate School, Syracuse University
Omicron Delta Kappa, leadership honorary
Outstanding Senior Man, University of Denver

Arthur S. Fleming Award, as one often most outstanding young men and women
in the Executive Branch

157

The Secretary of Energy's Distinguished Service Medal
Special Achievement Award, E^nvironmental IVotection Agency
15. Published writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles,
reports, or other published materials which you have written.
Books

Coar Myths and Environmental Realities, 1984, Westview Press, written

with Joan Curhan

Oil Shocks, 1984, Ballinger I'ress, co-edited with Bob Weiner

Chapters in Books
Energy and Security, 1981, Harvard University Press, edited by Joe Nie;
chapter co-authored with Bobber Kate Garnick and Bill Colglazier
Uncertain Power, 1983, Pergamon Press, edited by Dorothy Zinberg.
Electric Power Strategic Issues, 1983, I^blic Utilities Reports, Inc., written
with Kathleen Stein

Publications

Environmental Science and Technology, a publication of the Amer. Chemi-
cal Society

Global Warning: Is an International Consensus Possible? (1989)

Waste Reduction (1989)

Setting Environmental Priorities (1989)

Needed: An Enforcement Threshold (1989)

Energy, Economics, and Environmental Policy (1989)

TwoPromising Steps (1989)

The Postregulatory Environmental Protection Regime (1989)

The Future of Future Risk (1989)

An Environmental Agenda for the New Administration (1989)

Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution (1990)

Technology: Villain Turned Hero (1990)

Environmental Protection Measures (1990)

Ecological Economics (1990)

There's No Place Like Home— But Is It Safe? (1990)

Reilly Promotes New Priorities (1990)

Environmental Defense Initiatives (1990)

Energy Policy: The Moral Equivalent of Equivocation

The Next 20 Years (1990)

Is a Hodgepodge of Institutions Brewing (1991)

Leading Environmental Indicators (1991)

The Clean Air Act (\99l)

Implications of the New World Order (1991)

Can Eastern Europe Clean Up (1991)

Nonpoint Source Pollution (1991)

Ossification at EPA (1992)

Environmental and Technological Innovation (1992)

Energy Taxes (1992)

Creativity at EPA (1992)

Pollution Prevention and TQM (1992)
EPA Journal

The Need To Think Ahead (1988)

Why We Didn't Use Risk Before (1991)

Tools to Protect the Environment (1992)

Other Publications
Aspen Institute publications

Transportation and the Environment (1980)

Utilities in Crisis: A Problem in Governance (1982) with Dan Dreyfus

Petroleum Interruptions and National Security (1980)

Energy and the Western Alliance: The Restive Respite (1982)
Publications of Reports where I acted as Chairman

Strategies for Reducing Massachusetts Electricity Costs, Executive Office
of Energy Resources, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1983)

Future Risk, EPA Science Advisory Board (1988)

Energy Supply Interruptions and National Security, Science Magazine
(1981)

158

16. Speeches: Provide the Cominillee 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 con-
firmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly constituted committee
of the Senate?

Yes

Signature and Date

Alvin L. Alm.

This 18th day of January, 1996.

[The nomination of Alvin L. Aim was reported to the Senate by
Senator Strom Thurmond on December 2, 1995, with the rec-
ommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on May 22, 1996.]

NOMINATIONS OF GEN. JOHN H. TILELLI, JR.,
USA, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
OF GENERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER IN
CHIEF UNITED NATIONS COMMAND/COM-
BINED FORCES COMMAND/U.S. FORCES,
KOREA; LT. GEN. WESLEY K. CLARK, USA,
FOR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE OF GEN-
ERAL AND TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF
U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND; LT. GEN. WAL-
TER KROSS, USAF, FOR PROMOTION TO
THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO COM-
MANDER IN CHIEF U.S. TRANSPORTATION
COMMAND

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1996

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:39 p.m. in room SR-
222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond
(chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Thurmond, McCain,
Coats, Hutchison, Inhofe, Nunn, and Levin.

Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff di-
rector, George W. Lauffer, deputy staff director, Donald A. Deline,
general counsel, and Christine K. Cimko, press secretary.

Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, Bert K.
Mizusawa, and Cord A. Sterling.

Minority staff members present: Arnold L. Punaro, minority staff
director, Andrew S. Effron, minority counsel, Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel, Patrick T. Henry, professional staff member, Michael J.
McCord, professional staff member, and Julie K Rief, professional
staff member.

Staff assistants present: Shawn H. Edwards, and John R.
McLeod.

Research assistants present: Pamela L. Farrell, and Deasy Wag-
ner.

Committee members' assistants present: Ann E. Sauer, assistant
to Senator McCain, Dino L. Carluccio, assistant to Senator Smith,
Glen E. Tait, assistant to Senator Kempthome, David W. Davis, as-

(159)

160

sistant tx) Senator Hutchison, John F. Luddy, II, assistant to Sen-
ator Inhofe, Patricia L. Stolnacker, assistant to Senator Santorum,
Richard W. Fieldhouse, assistant to Senator Levin, and C. Richard
D'Amato, assistant to Senator Byrd.

OPEMNG STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND,

CHAIRMAN

Chairman Thurmond. The committee will come to order. The
committee meets today to receive testimony concerning three very
key nominations. Gen. John Tilelli has been nominated for re-
appointment to the grade of General and assignment as Com-
mander in Chief, United Nations Command, Combined Forces
Command, and U.S. Forces, Korea. That is quite an assignment
you have, General.

Lt. Gen. Wesley Clark has been nominated for promotion to Gen-
eral and for assignment as Commander in Chief, United States
Southern Command.

General Walter Kross has been nominated for promotion to Gren-
eral and for assignment as Commander in Chief, United States
Transportation Command.

These are very critical positions, which need to be filled as soon
as practical. We all know these nominees very well. General Tilelli
is currently Commander of the Army's Forces Command in At-
lanta, Georgia. General Clark is currently the Director for Strategic
Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon. General Kross
is currently the Director of the Joint StafT in the Pentagon. I be-
lieve all members of the committee have their biographies, so there
is no need for me to recite their records of challenging assignments
and impressive accomplishments.

In the interests of time, I would like to move as quickly as pos-
sible to the questions.

The committee asked the nominees to answer a series of ad-
vanced policy questions. They have responded to those questions.
Without objection I will make the questions and the responses part
of the record. Senator Nunn, do you have any opening remarks?

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM NUNN

Senator Nunn. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being a few min-
utes late. We have the great privilege and honor to have these
three individuals nominated for these important positions here
today. I know them all, and they have splendid records.

I would say to General Tilelli, he is making a great sacrifice leav-
ing Atlanta, Georgia, and he will be missed, and I know that he
goes to a very, very important position at a very, very important
time, as do General Clark and General Kross. Rather than take
time, I will just put my statement in the record and welcome each
of our nominees for these positions.

[The prepared statement of Senator Nunn follows:]

Prepared Statement by Senator Sam Nunn

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want lo commend you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling
this hearing in the midst of a very busy period for the committee. 1 want to join
you in extending a warm welcome to our witnesses and I want to thank them all
for their continued cooperation with the committee.

161

General Tilelli, General Clark, and General Kross are all well known to this com-
mittee. They are all nominated for important and challenging positions.

General Tilelli, in particular, will, if confirmed, be leaving the hospitable embrace
of Atlanta, Georgia, for the difficult job of commanding United States and South Ko-
rean forces. His command will face heavily armed and forward-deployed forces of
a nation that is suffering from a food shortage and whose leaders appear to be more
inclined to preserve their positions than to do what is necessary to improve the lot
of their people. General Tilelli departs having insured that Forces Command Olym-
pics Joint Task Force is prepared to provide security-related assistance to the Olym-
pic and Paralympic Games.

General Clark will be leading U.S. forces who, in conjunction with U.S. law en-
forcement and foreign law enforcement and military agencies, are seeking to stem
the flow of cocaine from the Andean region to the United States.

General Kross, in turn, will be a supporting CINC whose forces will be providing
the land, sea, and air transportation of goods and personnel that are required to
support all of the regional combatant ClNCs.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to having the opportunity of ask-
ing some questions of them.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you very much.
General Tilelli, I believe you are the senior man here. We will
hear from you first.

STATEMENT OF GEN. JOHN H. TILELLI, JR., USA, NOMINEE TO
BE REAPPOINTED TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED NATIONS COMMAND/COM-
BINED FORCES COMMAND/UNITED STATES FORCES, KOREA

General Tilelli. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
honored and humbled to receive this nomination, and it is a privi-
lege for me to appear before this committee. I can attest to you
that, if confirmed, I will do the best job that my abilities will allow
me to do.

I will do the best job that my abilities will allow me to do, and
I hope to continue with the growth that General Luck has provided
in the CFC, USFK, and the UNC.

I have no opening statement. I am prepared for your questions.

Senator McCain [presiding]. Greneral Clark.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. WESLEY K. CLARK, USA, NOMINEE
FOR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE
COMMA>n3ER IN CHIEF, U.S. SOUTHERN COMMAND

General Clark. Thank you very much. Senator. Senator Nunn,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the oppor-
tunity to appear before you today. It is an honor to have been nom-
inated by the President for the position of Commander in Chief of
the U.S. Southern Command. If confirmed, I will seek to serve as
a trusted and responsible member of the chain of command and
serve my country and the Constitution to the best of my abilities
in carrying out SOUTHCOM's mission and taking care of the sol-
diers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians of the command and
their families.

I am prepared to answer any questions you may have of me at
this time.

Senator McCain. Greneral Kross.

162

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. WALTER KROSS, USAF, NOMINEE
FOR PROMOTION TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND TO BE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, U.S. TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

General Kross. Senator McCain, Senator Nunn, other members
of the committee, it is an honor for me to be here before you as
the nominee for Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation
Command. If confirmed, I will do the best possible job in this criti-
cal position, and I stand ready to answer any questions.

Senator McCain. Thank you. It is customary to ask all three of
you the standard question tnat if you were asked for your personal
views at any time by this committee, that you will provide them.
Do you agree with that?

General Tilelli. Absolutely.

General Cl^RK. Absolutely.

General Kross. Absolutely.

Senator McCain. General Tilelli, this morning you stated chauf-
feuring athletes around Atlanta is not demeaning to our men and
women in the military, did you not?

General Tilelli. Sir, the question was asked of me, did I per-
ceive driving buses that move athletes from athletic villages to
venue demeaning. I did not perceive that to be a demeaning job.

Senator McCain. Would you consider washing vehicles to be de-
meaning?

General Tilelli. Sir, our soldiers are not engaged in washing
Olympic vehicles.

Senator McCain. My question to you, would washing vehicles be
demeaning?

General Tilelli. Yes, sir, I believe it would be.

Senator McCain. You further stated that providing military per-
sonnel to drive these buses is believed to improve security and safe-
ty. Did you make that statement?

General TiLELLl. Yes, I did, sir.

Senator McCain. Do you believe these military personnel are
better qualified to drive these buses than the civilians which they
will replace?

General Tilelli. Sir, the military drivers will drive buses which
move athletes from one secure venue to another. I believe, first, our
soldiers are qualified to do that job. Second, I think as a function
of their training in situational awareness the flexibility, adapt-
ability, and the ability to react, that the soldiers will provide a
sense of security and a value-added in security that you are asking
for.

Senator McCain. Say that one more time, a value that is what?

General Tilelli. A value-added in security that the Department
of Justice felt was necessary in moving athletes from village to
venue.

Senator McCain. Then why is the Department of Defense asking
civilians at the private bus companies which were displaced by the
military to train the military personnel?

General Tilelli. Sir, I did not know the Department of Defense
was asking them to do that.

Senator McCain. I can provide you with the documentation. Do
you think the Department of Defense should do that?

General Tilelli. Should be doing what, sir?

163

Senator McCaen. Asking that they provide training to the miH-
tary.

General Tilelli. Sir, I did not know that that was occurring.

Senator McCain. I again ask you, General, to respond to the
question. My question was, do you think that the military should
be asking the bus people to train the military.

General Tilelli. Certainly, there is training associated with ac-
quiring a commercial driver's license. I believe that we ought to
provide that training to our soldiers who are driving those buses
by the most capable people.

Senator McCain. Is it not true that the reason the military is
helping to water the artificial turf on the hockey field is to control
the rate of roll of the field hockey ball?

General TilI':lli. Sir, there is a requirement, in essence, that
4,500 gallons of water must be placed on the field within a 7-
minute timeframe. I think there is a misperception on what the
military personnel are doing. They are providing bladders that will
accommodate a water system that will feed the water system that
irrigates the field. It was a unique capability that was requested.
They are not soldiers watering the field, as has been described.
They are soldiers who are filling the bladder up from a commercial
water system.

Both the Atlanta Fire Department and the Atlanta Police De-
partment said it was a matter of safety that that water instead of
being directly fed into the irrigation system be fed into an alternate
holding system so the pressure in the water system would allow for
fighting nres if one occurred.

Senator McCain. Well, according to my information, the U.S.
Fire Academy and the Department of Commerce also or other Fed-
eral agencies, could have done this. Is it true the Department of
Defense will pay $105,000 for Georgia State commercial driver's li-
censes so that the military personnel can drive buses?

General Tilelli, Sir, it is my understanding that that cost has
been waived by the State of (Georgia.

Senator McCain. That is not the information that we had. In
fact, I had it confirmed as short a time ago as yesterday.

You might also be interested, GAG has briefed us that the mili-
taiy personnel will be washing ACOG vehicles.

Senator Nunn. Senator McCain, on that licensing, I checked into
that, and there is a complete reimbursement.

Senator McCain. I keep hearing that. Senator Nunn, but then I
keep hearing that that is not the case. It would be nice to have an
official statement that that is the case, rather than that informa-
tion.

Senator NuNN. The Governor of Georgia has made that state-
ment.

Senator McCain. I believe that I have the time. Senator Nunn.

How much of the $51 million Department of Defense has spent
to support the Atlanta Olympics has actually been reimbursed to
date. General Tilelli?

General Tii^lli. Sir, the largest amount of dollars to date we
have received for reimbursement has been $108,000 reimbursement
for work done on Fort Gilliam. However, some of the services, when
agreed to, were agreed to be paid as they occurred, so the con-

164

sequence — for example, $108,000 had been paid, and that has been
sent to the U.S. Treasury.

The transportation, the barges into the Savannah River, the ex-
cess Navy barges that were placed there for the venue in Savan-
nah, $39,000, if I recall correctly, that has been reimbursed, and
other activities will be reimbursed as they occur, or just prior to
their occurrence.

Senator McCain. So to date, in answer to my question, about
$200,000?

General TiLELLl. Sir, I will provide that for the record. I cannot
give you the exact number.

Senator McCain. Less than $500,000.

General Tiu.LLl. Yes, sir. Right now it is less than $500,000.

Senator McCain. Was DOD the only potential supplier of ice
chests for the Atlanta Police Department?

General Tilelli. Certainly not the only provider, sir. Those ice
chests were in the resource support team warehouse provided by
OSD. They were in stock and not procured, and provided.

Senator McCain. Well, General, I have to tell you that I am very
dissatisfied with your answers, and I am very concerned about
someone who has this attitude about how American men and
women in our military should be used. I speak from my own expe-
rience. Very frankly, I cannot support your nomination.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Nunn.

Senator Nunn. Senator McCain, I just want to tell you, I will
have a statement from the Governor on that. That license thing
has been gone into. The Governor says if the Georgia law requires
licenses that he will send the money back. The money will be reim-
bursed, so there is no issue there.

Also, the water drum provision has been reimbursed. My infor-
mation is that check has already been written. The 5,000 gallon
drum system was tested in 1995, and it cost $11,884 for setting it
up and operating the system. ACOG reimbursed that in 1995.

Senator McCain. Thank you very much.

Senator Nunn. So there are a number of answers to these ques-
tions that I think need to be supplemented for the record.

General Tilklli. Sir, I will do that. Senator McCain, if I might,
I offer you a full detailed briefing on everything that is being done
and everything that we have done in the missions that we have
been asked to do.

Senator McCain. I would appreciate that.

Senator NUNN. General Clark, if confirmed, you will be working
closely with General Barry McCaffrey at the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in your new position, is that right?

General Clark. Yes, sir, it is.

Senator Nunn. General McCaffrey has previously served as both
the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy J-5 on the Joint Staff,
which is your present position, and as Commander in Chief, U.S.
Southern Command, the position for which you have been nomi-
nated. What is your view of the value of having someone as the Di-
rector of ONDCP who served in these positions?

165

General Clark. Senator, it would seem to me that he is very
well-qualified by virtue of his experience to be working in ONDCP
at this point.

Senator Nunn. How much have you paid attention to the drug
situation in your present job?

General Clark. Sir, in my present job I am not responsible for
the counternarcotics strategy or the DOD implementation. That is
handled by General Estes, the J-3, both the policy and the oper-
ations, and so it has been purely tangential.

Senator Nunn. In your response to one of your prehearing ques-
tions you mentioned a highly successful SOUTHCOM-sponsored
human rights conference. Could you tell us a little more about that
conference and the role you believe U.S. Southern Command
should play in fostering human rights in Latin America?

General Clark. Sir, although I was not present at the con-
ference, I did follow it because it falls within the area of respon-
sibilities of the J-5 Directorate. Tliis was a 3-day conference, as I
recall, that was held in Miami in February. The purpose of the con-
ference was to bring together the leaders of the militaries and the
Armed Forces in Latin American countries, and to have them dis-
cuss amongst each other and be informed by various experts on the
importance of human rights and the methods of conducting mili-
tary training and practices that would be consistent with respect
for human rights.

The SOUTHCOM assessment of this was that the conference was
highly successful.

Senator NuNN. General Kross, in April 1996, the GAO report
noted a major accounts receivable problem for the U.S. Transpor-
tation Command. The report noted that a joint working group com-
prised of TRANSCOM transportation component commands and
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DFAS, was estab-
lished to resolve the problem. Can you bring us up-to-date on what
the working group has done in resolving this problem, or have you
followed that?

General Kross. No, sir, I do not follow it, but I will provide it
for the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

TRANSCOM established the DFAS/USTC Working Group. This working group is
conducting the following actions:

• Generated action items to validate and identify the problems with ac-
counts receivable.

• Assisting DF'AS in correcting core DFAS organizational/systemic/proce-
dural problems. Participating in the study for moving the Scott DAQ and
associated functions, to Omaha.

• Identifying the composition of accounts receivable to resolve the problem
a piece at a time. Identify which pieces need TRANSCOM J3/J4 assistance.

• Correcting accounts receivable reporting problems that overstate the
problem.

• Improving cash reporting. Abnormal undistributed cash reimbursement
balances also increase accounts receivable balances.

• Discussed operational problems at ports and with data from transpor-
tation systems.

• Met with MILSTAMP Working Group to focus on billing problems caused
by invalid Transportation Account Codes and insufficient authority to cross
disburse. Corrected accounts receivable reporting problems.

• Assisting TRANSCOM J3/4 in the financial aspects of MII^TAMP Vol.
II. Includes centralized TAC code tables; improvements at the port; prepar-

166

ing chapter on DTS billings, reducing the number of delinquent accounts
receivable, and clarifying payment policy (i.e., cross-disbursements).
Additionally, TRANSCOM ha been very proactive in working with DFAS to iden-
tify the problems and improve the cash flow by:

• Identifying the makeup of accounts receivable balances and eliminating
the amount of DFAS reconciling adjustments that result in overstating the
balances;

• Corrected year-end reporting by more than $80 million which prevented
unnecessary rate increases;

• Resolved $115 million rejected bill favorably with no impact to cash.

Senator NUNN. General Tilelli, as the future commander of U.S.
and ROK Forces who must Hve with the substantial threat posed
by North Korea forces amassed on the border with the South, have
you looked into the food situation in the North? Have you gotten
into that at all? Do you have any kind of personal assessment of
how acute that is? That is a first question. The second question,
what is your view about the likelihood of the four-power talks tak-
ing place, China, U.S., South and North Korea?

General Tilelli. Sir, if confirmed, certainly those two issues are
very, very important. I have looked into the famine issue. It is my
understanding that the food shortages in North Korea have gotten
substantially worse. It is also, I think, important from my perspec-
tive that anything that can be done, either on the diplomatic or hu-
manitarian side to stabilize that situation is important, because
stability certainly breeds the environment that we are looking for.

On the second question in the four-party talks, it is my belief
that those four-party talks are a good first step if they occur. I can-
not make an assessment based upon my current position as to the
status of where those talks are.

Senator NUNN. General Kross, in response to prehearing ques-
tions regarding major challenges for the next Commander in Chief
U.S. Transportation Command, you noticed recent GAO and con-
gressional criticism of U.S. TRANSCOM's cost and organization
structure and cited the need for increasing the effectiveness and ef-
ficiency of the defense transportation system. What actions have
been taken, and what further actions do you believe should be
taken to streamline both U.S. TRANSCOM and the U.S. transpor-
tation system?

General Kross. Sir, there have been a long series of reinven-
tions, restTTicturing initiatives to include the reduction in overhead
staffs at the Tanker Airlift Control Center and the Military Sealift
Command and in the Military Traffic Management Command.
There has also been a series of initiatives to look at the processes
associated with management of the command, its rate structure, as
well as items related to everything from flying hours to the
polishing of propellers in order to reduce overhead costs.

There is a very strong program of manpower reduction in all
three component commands. These initiatives need to continue,
and need to be aggressively followed through so that in the final
end game we provide to our customers around the globe one single
face from U.S. Transportation Command as they enter the defense
transportation system, and also one single bill, and all of that
aimed at lower rates.

Senator NuNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to sup-
porting all of your nominations. I think you have had splendid ca-

167

reers, and I think you are well-qualified for the jobs. You have got
very important jobs coming up in each area of responsibility, and
it will be my great pleasure and honor to support each of you.

Chairman Thurmond. General Tilelli, in response to the poor liv-
ing conditions for our soldiers in Korea, the Congress provided over
$60 million for barracks construction during the past 2 years.
These funds are a significant step toward improving the quality of
life of our single military personnel.

Although we provide for the single soldier, I understand there is
a significant number of military families in Korea. What are the
quality of life issues for these families?

General Tilelli. Mr. Chairman, I think there are several quality
of life concerns. On behalf of the soldiers in Korea in past positions
I thank the Members and yourself for putting those dollars in for
improving the quality of life for our single soldiers.

I think that, as General Luck testified, continuing to provide dol-
lars for MCA construction for single soldier billeting or barracks.
Second, the upgrade and the renovation of some of the family quar-
ters and family quality of life activities is also important, if I read
the discussions that General Luck and I have had in the past.

Third, when I get on the ground and make an assessment, I will
come back to you and give you a detailed assessment of those
things that I think are critical to the quality of life of our soldiers
and families and sailors and families and airmen and families, ma-
rines and families who are serving in a forward-deployed status,
and I will give you that if confirmed after an on-the-ground assess-
ment.

Chairman THURMOND. General Clark, I understand the Depart-
ment of Defense has taken appropriate steps to identify a facility
for the new Southern Command Headquarters in Miami, Florida.
However, I am not aware of any action to take care of the housing
needs for the personnel assigned to the headquarters. What ar-
rangements has the Department made to provide family housing
for the personnel assigned to the headquarters once it becomes
operational?

General Ciark. Senator, it is my understanding that plans are
underway to provide for housing needs. Essentially, there are three
different approaches that are being followed. First, there is going
to be some housing provided in a dormitory style facility for a cer-
tain number of single soldiers.

Second, and this was a factor in the selection of Miami as a
headquarters location, it is assessed that there is a reasonable sup-
ply of reasonably priced local housing available for rent or purchase
by soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines of various ranks and grades
and third, as far as the matter of general officer housing is con-
cerned, that seems to be the last issue to be addressed. There is
a proposal that is being worked up that has not yet been finalized
to address the housing for the general officers.

Chairman Thurmond. General Kross, in your written responses
to preliminary questions you stated that the Department of De-
fense had been working with industry in the development of the
Department's pilot program to reengineer the movement of house-
hold goods. As the Department proceeds with the implementation

168

of this pilot program, what are the plans to work with industry to
resolve any problems which may emerge?

General KiiOSS. Senator, we are very strongly in favor of this
committee's language on the pilot program, and how it should pro-
ceed, and we are already working with industry as directed in the
language. Yesterday a meeting occurred, as directed in the lan-
guage, with industry. There were five industry associations rep-
resented as well as the Army Audit Agency and the GAO, and it
was chaired by a U.S. TRANSCOM flag officer and the Military
Traffic Management Command Commander and members of his
stafF.

At that meeting, there was very good progress that was made to-
wards industry and the Department working together on develop-
ing a pilot program. All agreed on the goals, which should be cus-
tomer satisfaction, better pickup and delivery times, lower claims
rates, and lower payout of those claims rates.

There is a plan for industry in the next 2 weeks to present their
proposal, and then they will take these two proposals, migrate
them together, and meet the time lines as outlined in the language
presented by this committee.

Chairman Thurmond. General Tilelli, American forces in Korea
are among those faced with the highest prospect of becoming en-
gaged in actual large-scale combat. What action should we take to
enhance the capability of these forces to fight a North Korean inva-
sion of the South, and what improvements would you suggest for
equipping and maintaining these forces?

General Tilelli. Mr. Chairman, in the combined environment, I
agree with your assessment that those forces in Korea have the
greatest potential to face the threat.

I believe that over the last several years, we have seen, in my
view, a methodical modernization program occur, to include up-
grade of the tank systems, upgrade of the theater missile defense
systems, called the Patriot, upgrade in modernization of additional
Army equipments. At the same time I think that all services con-
tinue to modernize and equip their soldiers.

One of the actions that I think will have significant impact is the
upgrading of the level of authorization of personnel in various
staffs within the various commands in the Republic of Korea. It is
my assessment at this time that the services are in fact taking the
necessary steps to provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and ma-
rines the edge. I will make a further assessment and promise you
that I will come back to you after that assessment on those items
that we need to ensure that (1) we deter, and (2) if we do not deter,
we fight and win.

Chairman Thurmond. General Clark, under the current plans,
the United States is scheduled to turn over the Panama Canal in
1999. After we give up the canal and relocate the Southern Com-
mand Headquarters to Miami, will there be military units perma-
nently stationed in Panama?

General Ci.ARK. Mr. Chairman, that is a very important ques-
tion, and one that is very timely. As you know. President Clinton
and President Perez Balladares met last fall and agreed that there
could be some exploratory discussions on this issue. These informal

169

discussions are still continuing, but essentially any presence post-
1999 will have to be in the interests of both countries.

Chairman Thurmond. General Kross, I am concerned that the
domestic transportation infrastructure is deteriorating faster than
we are funding replacements and upgrades. Since we will be rely-
ing heavily on railroads, interstate highways and ports for deploy-
ment of our forces, what role does the United States Transpor-
tation Command have in setting priorities to ensure the transpor-
tation infrastructure meets our military needs?

General Kross. The Commander in Chief of the Transportation
Command submits annually his priority list for resources as we go
through the Department's workup of its budget, and this is a very
important part of our overall defense transportation system. The
fort-to-port portion of it is the first step in getting our soldiers, sail-
ors, and airmen to the fight, and it is something that requires a
lot of attention year-to-year.

The members of this committee have been very aggressive in
funding the mobility enhancement fund line items which are the
most important element of making sure that this part of the de-
fense transportation system remains vital and meets the needs of
the CINC's.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Inhofe.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Tilelli, about a month ago the Joint Chiefs of the serv-
ices testified, before this committee, that we are $20 billion short
in our procurement account. What is your feeling about that?

General Tilelli. Sir, based upon the past position within the De-
partment of the Army and my current position within the Depart-
ment of the Army, certainly, as we look at the accounts, the OMA
account, the operational account versus the modernization account,
the modernization account is the anaemic account at this particular
point in time.

Senator Inhofe. The approximate amount?

General Tilelli. Sir, I cannot give you a good assessment of
whether the $20 billion figure is correct or not. Certainly, as I look
at it as a member of the JROC, when I was Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army and based upon the JROC briefings that I have attended
now as an Army component of ACOM, the $20 billion figure does
make sense.

Senator Inhofe. The Washington Times reported last January
that Secretary Perry had a hard time approving the war plan for
the Persian Gulf because it would leave him unable to defend
against a North Korean attack on South Korea.

The article also reported that the plan had been watered down
significantly by the Pentagon from the original report. The question
I would have is, do you think that our current forces are sufficient
to fight two major regional conflicts today?

General Tilelli. Sir, as I look at the National military strategy,
the two contingencies with the full use of active and reserve compo-
nent, I think the forces are sufficient.

Senator Inhofe. What impact do you think having a full rein-
forced armored division committed to Bosnia would have on our
readiness for the two MRC's?

170

General Tilelli. Sir, I think one of the assumptions you must
make if you have two simultaneous major regional contingencies is
that you must have the division that is in Bosnia to have the req-
uisite combat power. That is my personal assessment.

Senator Inhofe. I do not quite understand you.

General Tilelli. Sir, as you think about the 10- Army-division
force, and that is the force that I think we are talking about now,
it is my personal assessment that if you had the two simultaneous
regional contingencies you would need the force structure available,
combat force structure throughout both the active and the reserve
component enhanced brigades.

Senator Inhofe. If you have to call on the force structure to de-
fend South Korea, could you do it at the same time if we should
have another Persian Gulf war?

General Tilelli. Sir, I cannot answer that question. It is my as-
sessment we could, but I cannot answer that question based on
where I am right now. It is my personal assessment that we could.

Senator Inhofe. Senator Nunn talked a little bit about the eco-
nomic collapse in North Korea. We hear all kinds of reports about
the shortages of food and fuel and everything else, and yet at the
same time their army appears to be spared these hardships. Does
economic catastrophe increase or decrease the chance that North
Korea leadership may consider a last ditch strike against South
Korea in your opinion?

General Tilelli. Sir, in my opinion, any instability, whether it
be economic, security, or otherwise, may move a regime to execute
their last option. The difficulty in my making a valid assessment
and giving it to you is confirming the degree of economic instabil-
ity, and internal instability. I think it is a matter of degree, and
it is a matter of time, but that assessment is very difficult to give
you from my current position.

Senator Inhofe. Of course, I was really referring to the degree
we are experiencing today that has been reported to us.

General Tilelli. Yes, sir, I understand that. I guess it is a func-
tion of how well we can confirm the degree of today.

Senator Inhofe. North Korea has continually enhanced its artil-
lery and chemical weapons capability. How would you characterize
South Korea's ability to withstand a concerted North Korean chem-
ical attack?

General Tilelli. I think any time we think about weapons of
mass destruction we always say. Senator, that we wish we had
more capability. I think that we certainly have trained and pur-
chased the equipment to defend against the chemical attack that
you portend. I would prefer to come back to you and give you an
assessment if I am confirmed, and after I am in-country, on both
the Republic of Korea's — as the CFC, and the United States force's
ability to withstand such chemical attack.

Senator Inhofe. General, you have been following this very con-
tentious issue of the National missile defense and the sophisticated
theater missile defense and, of course, GJeneral Luck has expressed
his concern over the inability to build a defense to take care of the
37,000 people in South Korea that we are at this point trying to
protect.

171

Many of us are concerned about our ballistic missile defense ca-
pability, and North Korea is at the very top of the rogue nations
in terms of the threat that they are to the United States and our
allies, particularly with their improving capabilities in missiles.

What level of priority does Seoul attach to being able to defend
against North Korean missiles?

General Tilelli. Sir, I think I cannot answer level of protection
for Seoul. I can answer level of protection from my perspective and
then come back to you, if confirmed, on Seoul. It is my perspective
that it is the inherent responsibility of the Commander to protect
the force, and therefore, as I lay out in my own mind's eye what
are the priority systems that we must have, theater missile defense
in my mind's eye is the priority system, and in my mind's eye, ab-
sent that would be upper tier, which would give you the protection
that you would need against in-theater upper tier weapons.

Certainly, the deployment of the Patriot to Korea and the future
deployment of Aegis to the Republic of Korea, will improve our de-
fenses against theater missile defense.

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, let me ask one more question if
I might. My time has expired, but I want to ask a question of Gen-
eral Kross.

General Kross, your predecessor, General Rutherford, has called
the C-5 a national asset. When he testified before this committee
in March he raised concerns about the impact that maintenance
disruptions could have on the operational readiness of the C-5
fleet. Do you think C-5 maintenance should be considered core
maintenance?

General Kross. The C-5 fleet is, indeed, a national asset, and
will remain very important to our outsize capability for movement
of very special and large cargo for a very long time as the central
element, and then it will share that later, at the full operational
capability of the C-17. I do not have full knowledge now of whether
or not the C-5 maintenance is being considered as core mainte-
nance, but it is extremely important to our strategic lift capability,
particularly in the early stages of moving in any MRC, and must
be something that is paid an awful lot of attention to.

Senator iNHOFE. Would you personally consider it to be core
maintenance?

General Kross. Personally I would, yes.

Senator Inhofe. How would an interruption in C-5 maintenance
affect your operations in a major regional conflict?

General Kross. The C-5 is extremely important in moving our
halting forces into place to marry up with our prepo cargo that we
have both ashore and afioat. It is critical to the halt phase.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, sir. I am sorry I went a
little bit over, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Hutchison.

Senator Hutchison. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start
with General Clark. In your mission at SOUTHCOM, I would just
ask you what you think the level of presence there should be of
American forces in the SOUTHCOM ADR, and are you satisfied
that we are going in the right direction with what we would plan
to leave and what we would plan to move to Miami?

172

General Cl^RK. Senator, I do believe that we are going in the
right direction, which is to draw down from the previous total of
around 10,000 that we had at the start of this decade.

As you know, by the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty, we are
turning over the Panama Canal in 1999, and our two countries, the
United States and Panama, are currently engaged in discussions to
determine what might be the presence post-1999.

In the interim period, I believe that the Southern Command has
drafted a very sensible approach to the force structure issue, which
will maintain a balance of capabilities there for as long as possible
during this interim period while the discussions are going on with
the Government of Panama.

Having said that, I would note that some 40 percent of the pres-
ence in the southern region is composed of reserve component per-
sonnel who come down from the United States with the assistance
of Forces Command and the United States Air Force to participate
in exercises and training opportunities there, and so the use of the
reserve components helps us have a very effective command and
extends the reach of the command.

Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask you as a follow-up, do you
believe that there is a function with drug interdiction for American
forces to be able to monitor or be helpful in any way? Is that some-
thing you are looking at?

General Clahk. Senator, we are looking at that very closely. I
think General McCaffrey's strategy in the area, as I watched it
evolve from my position on the Joint Staff, was very effective in
using relatively small resources to leverage large results, and the
strategy was to deploy planning assistance teams and assessment
teams, to use high technology and other resources available to the
United States forces, to support both our own Government agencies
who are on the front line of the war against drug abuse and
against drug trafficking, and also to encourage local militaries to
become more involved, and so we ran through the Southern Com-
mand Operation Green Clover last year, which was the first effort
at source country interdiction.

Another operation is ongoing there now. It seems to be achieving
quite good results, and so I think there is a definite role for U.S.
military support to counter narcotics.

Senator Hutchison. Thank you.

General Tilelli, I think you are going to the place where our
greatest threat is, and I would like to ask you if you are aware of
any recent violations of the framework agreement by North Korea.

General Tilelli. Senator, thank you. We are very optimistic
about the framework agreement, and it is my understanding, based
on my most recent discussions, that there have not been violations
of that agreement, and it proceeds well.

Senator Hutchison. Let me ask you what you consider to be the
greatest challenge in the mission in Korea, with the volatility of
the situation, with the framework agreement that I think is tenu-
ous, at best.

We know that there have been violations in the past, and you,
of course, will be responsible for monitoring that situation. What
do you consider the greatest challenge, and do you feel that you
have the force that you need there to meet it?

173

General Tilelli. Senator, I believe the major challenge that I
have as the Commander, or the Commander in Chief of the CFC
and UNC and USFK, one is maintaining the peace, two, deterring,
and three, if deterrence fails, to be prepared to fight and win the
war for our countries. Those are the greatest challenges I have, and
at the same time to provide a caring environment for our soldiers
and their families.

I do perceive that, based on some of the current modernization
initiatives that have occurred in all services, and second on the on-
going modernization programs and the structure that is forward-
deployed, that we have sufficient forward-deployed forces at this
particular time.

Senator Hutchison. If you see violations of the framework
agreement, do you believe that we should respond vigorously to
challenge that?

General Tilelli. Senator, I believe that, as we look at the frame-
work agreement, that at the National command authority levels it
is very important that we are vigilant and that there is dialog be-
tween the Republic of Korea, the United States national command
authority, and the North Korean Government if we see violations,
and I think it is important that we do it vigorously.

Senator Hutchison. I would certainly agree with that, and hope
that we will be able to let North Korea know that we would re-
spond vigorously to any violations.

General Kross, I am hopeful that in the line of questioning that
Senator Inhofe just put you through, that perhaps there was maybe
a misunderstanding of core versus mission-essential nature of the
C-5 workload and where it would go.

The Department of Defense has said that they would like to pri-
vatize the C-5 maintenance in the only place that has hangars that
can take C-5's, that they believe that would be most efficient. Do
you agree that that is the best way to do the maintenance, and the
most efficient way to do the maintenance of this mission-essential
function?

General Kross. Yes, Senator. As I stated, I am not familiar with
where the C-5 maintenance is in the decisionmaking, what is core
and not core. My main thrust is to say that C-5 maintenance is
important, and that it should be done in the most efficient manner
that assures its capability early on in the conflict.

Senator Hutchison. So you are not in any way suggesting that
it had to be done in a public depot, but you were just saying that
you think that it could be done in the best way after you have
looked at it, and the most efficient way, and whether that would
be privatization or public depot workload, it remains to be seen.

General Kross. Yes. Upon further understanding of the question,
yes. Senator.

Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Nunn.

Senator Nunn. Mr. Chairman, as I have already said, I support
vigorously all three of these nominees. Just a word for clarification.
On Senator McCain's comments about his personal views on Gen-
eral Tilelli's responses and his role, Mr. Chairman, as you well
know, and members of the committee know, the Olympics support
mission has been authorized by this committee and by the Con-

174

gress of the United States. Some people disagreed. Senator McCain
disagreed, as we went along with this authorization. That is his
privilege.

In the committee he has challenged this authorization on at least
one or two occasions. He has also challenged it on the floor. The
committee has overruled his objection. He has been in the minority
in this. On the floor, the Senate of the United States has voted
twice. The House of Representatives, I do not know whether they
had a roll call vote, but they have also voted and supported this
program. This is national policy, and whether someone likes it or
does not like it, it is national policy, supported by the Congress,
voted on by the Congress on a roll call vote to support the Olym-
pics.

Our friends in Korea, South Korea having done a splendid job of
hosting the Olympics, understand how important security is. We
are trying to provide security for the Olympics in this country and
make sure we do not have terrorist attacks.

General Tilelli has supported the National policy that has been
voted on by the Congress of the United States. The question of se-
curity personnel or military personnel driving buses is a matter
that has been requested specifically by the Justice Department and
the Attorney Greneral.

So we have here a general who has done a splendid job and car-
ried out national policy, and anyone who wants to vote against
General Tilelli, that is their privilege. We do not have to have rea-
sons to vote against someone. We can vote against them for any
reason. That is the privilege of being a United States Senator.

But it would be a paradox indeed if a general who has done a
splendid job and upheld the law passed by the Congress of the
United States and the policy supported by the President of the
United States were to be held accountable for executing that in a
splendid fashion. That would be an ultimate paradox.

Again, anyone can vote the way they want to, but I think every-
one ought to be able to put that in context, and I think General
Tilelli has done a superb job carrying out national policy that has
been passed by the Congress of the United States and that is sup-
ported by the President of the United States, and i think over-
whelmingly supported by the American people.

We all can think back to Munich and what happened there, and
the attacks on the athletes. The athletes are going to be going back
and forth, and to have uniformed personnel with authority and a
display of authority could very well be a deterrent. At least that
is what our security experts thought.

So General Tilelli, I just wanted to clarify that and make sure
that everyone understood the context of this. Anyone can vote for
whatever reason they want, but it seems to me tnat you are to be
commended for carrying out the authority — unless we want our
generals to start executing and overriding civilian authority and
overriding the Congress of the United States, it seems to me that
would be taking accountability to its ultimate absurdity.

Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, could I make one brief state-
ment before you would recognize Senator Levin? I support all three
of these nominees, and I think it is essential that we move them
very quickly. Particularly, two are waiting to go to our missions at

175

SOUTHCOM and Korea, and they are needed to be in place, and
I think we should move quickly, and I hope and urge that you
would call a committee meeting at the earliest opportunity for us
to approve all three of these nominees.

Chairman Thurmond. I want to commend you gentlemen, all
three of you. I think you have done a fine job, and I would be glad
to support you to the positions to which you have been appointed.
I do have to leave, and I am going to ask Senator Hutchison if she
will take over.

Senator Hutchison [presiding]. Senator Levin.

Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman. In the spirit of
Senator Hutchison's suggestion that we move these nominations as
quickly as possible, I will just have a few questions.

First, let me congratulate each of you and commend you and tell
you that I, too, will be supporting your nominations as quickly as
possible.

I just have a few questions of General Tilelli, and the other ques-
tions I will just provide for the record. Madam Chairman.

General, I think you have been asked by Senator Hutchison al-
ready about whether or not the agreed framework is being imple-
mented to terminate the North Korean nuclear program, and I be-
lieve that you answered that they seemed to be abiding by the
framework agreement, that they have frozen their nuclear weapons
program, is that correct?

General Tii^lli. Sir, it is my understanding they are abiding by
the framework agreement.

Senator Levin. I also understand that there are American per-
sonnel, not military personnel, I do not believe, but perhaps even
some military personnel actually on site in North Korea, along with
the IAEA personnel helping to put into cans the spent nuclear fuel
from shutdown reactors. Is it true that there are American person-
nel, I presume civilian personnel, in North Korea performing that
function with the IAEA?

General TiLELLI. Sir, I cannot answer the question whether or
not there are military personnel. I know that a percentage of the
rods have been canned and the process continues.

Senator Levin. Do you know when that fuel is going to be re-
moved from North Korea? Do you know the timetable for that, off-
hand?

General Tilelli. Sir, I do not. I would be glad to provide that
for the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

When the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) completes
the key nuclear components of the first light water nuclear reactor, North Korea
must commence shipping the spent fuel rods out of the country and complete the
removal of the fuel rods upon completion of the second light water reactor.

Senator Levin. That is fine, and what we are doing, therefore,
is, instead of seeing that nuclear m.aterial reprocessed, which would
be much more threatening to us, we are seeing it placed in contain-
ers, and then those containers will be removed, and I gather you
would agree along with General Shalikashvili and General Luck
that that agreed framework which leads to the removal of that ma-
terial is in America's security interest.

176

General Tilelli. Sir, I believe the framework agreement is in
America's interest and in the National interest, and I believe that
it has also had, as we look at where we were before the framework
agreement, a relative reduction of tension on the peninsula.

Senator Levin. That is true despite this recent event with some
of the North Korean soldiers in the DMZ?

General Tili<:lli. Sir, I think it depends on your perspective, in
my view. Certainly those did cause a peak in tensions, and now a
subsequent reduction, but as you look at the agreement on where
we were preagreement and where we are now, post agreement, I
am talking about that time frame specifically.

Senator Levin. So comparing where we are now to the previous
time, before the agreement, the relationship is better and the hos-
tilities are reduced?

General TllJCLLI. The tensions have been reduced as a function
of the agreement.

Senator Levin. Now, in order to continue to try to reach some
more normal relationship, if possible, with North Korea, it has also
been proposed that we join with Japan, and I believe South Korea,
in providing some food assistance to North Korea. Are you familiar
with that decision?

General TllJCLLl. Sir, and I am not aware of a decision, but I am
familiar with providing of foodstuffs to North Korea by the South
Korean Government, the Republic of Korean Government.

Senator Levin. By us?

General Tilelli. Sir, I cannot answer that question. I do not
know if we have provided foodstuffs at this point.

Senator Levin. Is the provision of those foodstuffs by South
Korea, assuming we are part of that, in your view going to help
contribute to at least the possibility of a more normal relationship
with North Korea?

General Tiij:lli. Senator, in my view, it is a very difficult ques-
tion to answer on normal relationships. However, I believe that
anything we can do through diplomatic and humanitarian channels
to stabilize instability, has to have a positive effect on a number
of different variables on the peninsula, and so the provision of food,
in my view, will have a stabilizing effect.

Senator Levin. If we are able to achieve a more stable or a more
normal relationship with North Korea, do you believe we might be
in at least a slightly better position to try to persuade them that
their ballistic missile development is not in their interest, or in
anybody else's interest? That we do worry about that, and rightly
so? Are we in a somewhat better position to try to persuade them
not to both produce such a weapon and to sell such a weapon exter-
nally if we move towards what the agreed framework talked about,
which is a more normal relationship?

General Tilelli. Sir, that is a difficult assessment for me to
make. However, I would say that anything we can do to reduce bal-
listic missile defense and theater missile defense threat is impor-
tant, and whether or not food is the quid that would get us to that
point, I cannot assess.

Senator Levin. I was not here referring to food. I was talking
about in general moving towards a more normal relationship by
whatever means with North Korea. However we are able to do

177

that, if we are successful, would that help, do you think, in terms
of reducing the likelihood that they would produce the Taepoe
Dong and that they would export it?

General Tilelli. Certainly I would say that if relationships nor-
malize between the Republic of Korea, the United States, and
North Korea, that there would be a positive effect, and that posi-
tive effect may be portrayed in the reduction of the system you
talked about.

Senator Levin. My final question. General Tilelli, has to do with
the fact that the North Koreans again sent some troops into the
DMZ recently. As I understand, our military did not believe that
this indicated an increased likelihood of an attack, or a war from
the North, is that correct?

General Tiij^.lli. Sir, it is my understanding that, as the indica-
tors were examined, that that was the assessment on the ground.
However, that is my understanding. I cannot give you fact.

Senator Levin. Is it true that there have been, I guess, literally
hundreds of armed incidents in the DMZ since 1953, when the war
ended? Do you know, off-hand?

General Tilelli. Sir, I do not know that as a fact.

Senator Levin. Perhaps you could supply that for the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

Since 1953, there have been approximately 1,600 armed incidents involving at-
tacks, intrusions or exchange of fire in or near the demilitarized zone. The majority
of these incidents occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the peak ocx;ur-
ring in 1968 when a total of 573 such incidents were recorded. Since 1990, there
have been relatively few incidents. Since 1990, with the notable exceptions of armed
infiltrations by North Korean soldiers in 1992 and 1995 and the shooting down of
a U.S. Army helicopter in 1994, incidents in the demilitarized zone have oeen lim-
ited to provocative posturing by North Korean soldiers. A 100 plus page document
that summarizes all incidents along the demilitarized zone since 1953 is maintained
by the United Nations Command. If you would like a copy of this document, I am
prepared to coordinate with the United Nations Command's staff to have one pro-
vided.

Senator Levin. Again, let me thank all of you for your service,
and we are happy to participate and join our Chair in hoping that
you can be promptly confirmed.

General Tilelli. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Hutchison. I would just like to ask one more question
of General Kross, and that is regarding the option of privatization.
Do you think privatization is a good option for maintenance, and
would you be in favor of using it where it can be used efficiently,
and better?

General Kross. Yes, Senator, that is my personal opinion.

Senator Hutchison. On the readiness impact of changing a
maintenance facility, it has been said that moving maintenance,
say, from one facility to another might have readiness implications
because of the delay factor. Would you give me your view of that?

General Kross. I am not familiar with what types of mainte-
nance are being considered right now for movement. In concept, it
is something that would have to be watched closely to assure the
readiness that we need to meet our time lines in our major regional
contingencies.

Senator Hutchison. I think it has been said that engine mainte-
nance, or maintenance of the C-5, would suffer in the readiness
category in a move from one facility to another, and that, I think,

178

is one of the factors that caused the Department to beheve that the
C-5 could better be privatized as well as not having to construct
a new facility. Would you comment on that?

General Kkoss. Senator, I agree with that logic.

Senator Hutchison. Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Senator Levin.

Senator Levin. Yes, thank you. Madam Chair.

General Tilelli, I do not know if you are familiar or not with a
system called Short Stop, but if not, apparently there is some inter-
est in fielding this system, which would protect our forces and our
command posts by causing enemy artillery and mortars to detonate
prematurely, and I am wondering if you would let us know for the
record whether our forces in Korea are interested in fielding that
system in the near term.

General Tilelli. Sir, I am not familiar with that system. I will
provide you with an answer for the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

Yes, the Commander of U.S. Eighth Army is very interested in obtaining Short-
stop to enhance survivabihty of high value assets in theater given the 3:1 artillery
advantage of the Korean People's Army. The Shortstop Program is currently in engi-
neering and manufacturing development. The Army is unable to fund the procure-
ment of Shortstop Systems at this time. The Army is pursuing options to field some
of our prototype systems in Korea. These systems are currently deployed in Oper-
ation Joint Endeavor.

Senator Levin. General Clark, just a personal word for you.

Even though I do not have any questions for you today, I do look
forward to you bringing your real talents that you have had dis-
played to us on many occasions to the new chores that you under-
take. I think we are going to need not just all of our efforts to try
to see if we cannot deter drugs from coming in, but we are also
going to need as much fresh thinking as possible.

It is a long, protracted war we have been fighting there, too, and
you bring some special background to it that we look forward to
having put in place, and then sharing with us your thoughts.

General Clark. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator Hutchison. I think that is the last question.

Let me just ask each of you who have been asked to provide an-
swers to questions for the record to do it as quickly as you possibly
can, because we cannot formally take action on your nomination
until those questions are in, so we do want to move this. I believe
it is the will of the committee to move these nominations quickly,
so if you could provide the written answers on an expedited basis,
then we will try to do that very quickly.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Gen. John H. Tilelli, USA, by
Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied fol-
low:]

179

Department of the Army,
Headquarters, U.S. Army Forces Command,

Fort McPherson. GA. May 16, 1996.
Hon. Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for vour letter of May 6, 1996, concerning my
nomination for Commander in Chief, United Nations Command/Combined Forces
Command/Commander, U.S. P^orces Korea. I am honored to have received the nomi-
nation and look forward to apf)earing before the Senate Armed Services Committee
as part of the confirmation process.

Irespectftally submit my enclosed responses to the questions of the committee.
Very respectfully,

John H. Tilelli, Jr., General
U.S. Army, Commanding General.
Enclosure,
cc: Senator Sam Nunn,

Ranking Minority Member.

QuEsrriONs and Responses
section I. defense reforms

Question. More than 9 years have passed since the enactment of the Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the special oper-
ations reforms. You have had an opportunity to observe the implementation and im-
6 act of these reforms, particularly in your assignments as Commanding General,
'nited States Arnry Forces Command and Vice Chief of Staff, Army.

Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes, I strongly support the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and its
reform provisions. They have definitely strengthened our Armed Forces and the
warfighting combatant commanders.

Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?

Answer. In my view, the Department of Defense has vigorously and successfully
pursued the provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the provisions of section
167 of title 10, U.S. Code.

Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. The most positive aspect is the overall improvement of our joint
warfighting ability the Goldwater-Nichols Act has resulted in needed improvements
in joint doctrine, joint professional military education, and strategic planning.

Another important element is clarity in the chain of command from the National
Command Authorities to the combatant commanders and unambiguous responsibil-
ity placed upon each CINC for execution of mission and preparedness of assigned
forces. Additionally, the improvement in the quality of military and advice to the
national command authorities resulting from changes with regard to the Chairman
and the Joint Staff, and the improvement in the quality of officers serving in the
joint arena are among the most important reforms. The totality of the reform is
what really made the difference.

Question. Based on vour assignment as Vice Chief of Staff, Army and your partici-
pation in meetings of'^the Joint Chiefs in the absence of the Chief of Staff, Army,
do you believe that the role of the service chiefs as members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff under Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies and proc-
esses in existence allow that role to be fulfilled^

Answer. As the Vice Chief of Staff, Amy, I viewed the process personally and be-
lieve the role of the service chiefs as members of the JCS is exactly right. They are
provided with the authority and mechanisms to fully execute that role, and the pro-
visions of title 10, U.S. Code allow them to fully and effectively exercise that role.

Question. Do you believe the role of the combatant commanders and their subordi-
nate unified commanders, such as Commander, United States Forces, Korea, under
Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies and processes in exist-
ence allow that role to be fulfilled?

Answer. Yes. The law gives combatant commanders sufficient authority they need
to carry out their assigned missions. This has been well demonstrated through the

180

many complex joint and combined operations conducted since the legislation was en-
acted, as well as the ongoing superb work of Combined Forces Command and United
States Forces, Korea, in maintaining the long-standing peace on the Korean Penin-
sula.

Question. In view of the unique status and responsibilities of the United Nations
Command/Combined Forces Command/United States Forces, Korea, do you believe
that the legislation should be amended to recognize a specific role for the com-
mander?

Answer. The positions of Commander in Chief United Nations Command
(CD^CUNC) and Commander in Chief ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command
(CINCCFC) have specific roles in the respective commands. In the case of
CENCUNC, roles ana functions are specific in directives issued by the U.S. National
Command Authority, acting as the executive agent for the National Security Coun-
cil, through the U.S. Joint Staff. In the case of CINCCFC, roles and functions are
contained in documents and directives issued jointly by officials of the ROK and
U.S. Governments. It is difficult to envision how legislation, particularly unilateral
legislation, could be of any particular benefit to either of these positions. The roles
and functions of commander United States f"'orces, Korea (COMUSK), a subordinate
unified Commander of U.S. Commander in Chief Pacific Command (USCINCPAC),
are already established in U.S. title 10 and pertinent directives of USCINCPAC.

SECTION II. RELATIONSHIPS

Question. Section 162(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides that the chain
of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and from the Sec-
retary of Defense to the combatant commands. Other sections of law and traditional
practice, however, establish important relationships outside the chain of command.
Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the Commander in Chief,
United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/Commander, United States
Forces, Korea to the following offices:

Under Secretary of Defense . . .

Assistant Secretaries of Defense . . .

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . .

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . .

Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . .

Director of the Joint Staff . . .

Secretaries of the military departments . . .

Chiefs of Staff of the other services . . .

Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command . . .

The other combatant commanders . . .
Answer. The basic relationship is of course between the Commander and the na-
tional command authorities, as specified in section 162(B) of title 10. Except in the
role of Commander, United States Forces, Korea, the position for which I have been
nominated reports, in national channels, directly to the Secretary of Defense and
from him directly to the President. The chain of command is clearly defined.

In my roles as Commander in Chief, United Nations CommancJ/Combincd Forces
Command, I anticipate an extensive relationship on a day to day basis with the
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, in light of his key role in assisting the Secretary
of Defense and the President in exercising their command functions. In addition, his
vital roles in oversight of the activities oT the combatant commands and as spokes-
man for the requirements of those commands will also involve an extensive relation-
ship. Finally, in the combined arena, his role as a member of the National Security
Council and as principle military advisor to the NCA is extremely important. Of
course, as vital as these roles are, the chairman exercises no command authority
as such over the positions for which I have been nominated.

Needless to say, I must work effectively with all of the leadership, military and
civilian, within the Department of Defense. We arc all on the same team, and we
are all attempting to satisfy the same national goals and strategy. I understand that
conflicts may develop as I attempt to execute my duties as I view them. Such as:
Commander in Chief, United Nations Command (CINCUNC), as the commander
of an international command, is responsible to the U.S. NCA through the chairman
for executing such missions as may be assigned. Currently the effort is focused on
maintenance of the military armistice on the Korean peninsula. Aside from this im-
portant role the UNC provides a convenient mechanism for the acceptance and inte-
gration of third country forces into the overall military effort, especially during hos-
tilities. CINCUNC's relationship with the officials listed or with any other U.S. offi-
cial whose functions have some bearing on mission accomplishment should be unfet-
tered within the confines of accepted communications procedures. Actions requiring

181

official decisions should of course be routed through official channels, time permit-
tinjg.

Commander in Chief, Combined Forces Command (CINCCFC), as the commander
of a binational command, is responsible for deterrence and failing that, defense of
the ROK. In this capacity he has the ultimate responsibility for mission performance
in the areas. Although official channels of communications are specified in the
binationally approved documents which form the charter of the command,
CINCCFC like CINCUNC should have the same freedom of communications with
the listed officials on matters affecting his areas of responsibility.

Commander, United States Forces, Korea (COMUSK), as a subordinate unified
commander of USCINCPAC, has specified channels of communications with offi-
cials. While somewhat restricted in comparison to the other positions, COMUSK has
readily available channels of communications to all required officials through
USCINCPAC on matters pertaining to USFK areas of responsibility.

SKCTION in. U.NMFIED COMMAND PLAN

Question. General Luck has proposed the restructuring of U.S. military commands
in Northeast Asia in the foreseeable future. He cited tnree examples of a possible
restructuring — a new unified command, a single sub-unified command, or relocating
the current components of PACOM.

What is your view of the desirability of a restructuring and, if you believe such
is desirable, what is your view of the three examples cited oy General Luck?

Answer. Northeast Asia is a geographical, economic and strategic entity. As Gen-
eral Luck stated in his appearance before your committee, in Asia interpersonal so-
cial interactions are very important. Familiarity with the people you are doing busi-
ness with is of the utmost importance. Our current policy of treating all elements
in northeast Asia individually nas in some cases limited our effectiveness in execut-
ing the overall U.S. strategy in the region. In great measure this is the result of
our traditional view that regional animosity would preclude regional military co-
operation. While this might have been true 10 years ago, times have changed. If we
intend to remain a Pacific Rim Power, we must project a coherent strategic posture.
One of the best ways to accomplish this may be to restructure our command struc-
ture in this most important geographical area.

As to three ways of better organizing our military posture in northeast Asia cited
by General Luck, I want to first reiterate what General Luck emphasized in that
I also do not think these are options until the threat from North Korea disappears.
As to the relative merits of one alternative over another I would prefer to defer an-
swering that question until I have made a personal "on the ground" assessment and
would be happy to come back to the committee at a later time with my conclusions.

SECTION IV. AMERICAN PRESENCE IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC

Answer. Seven of the largest armed forces in terms of manpower in the world are
located in or operate in the Asia-Pacific region and include those of nuclear weapon
states. This region will remain an area of uncertainty, tension and immense con-
centrations of military power for the foreseeable future. Additionally, the dynamics
of Asian econornics, upon which world economic vitality is increasingly reliant, is de-
pendent on free passage along the shipping routes through the strategic sea lanes
in Southeast Asia and the major shipping lanes in the South China Sea.

The key to shaping the regional environment toward a more favorable future is
stabilizing and maintaining a regional order of comprehensive security that facili-
tates cooperation across all dimensions of economic, political and military relations.

A Nation's contributions to the regional security cannot and should not be meas-
ured in any single dimension. We must continue to encourage each nation to con-
tribute in its own way to regional security.

The United States has pledged its commitment to the security of the Asia-Pacific
region and has devoted significant resources fulfilling that pledge. The United
States has sent military forces to three major wars against aggression in Asia in
the last half century. As these experiences have proven, America's interests in the
region must be protected and commitments must be honored. As home to a majority
of the world's armies, Asia's tensions have the potential to erupt in confiict with dire
consequences for global security.

The most significant threat to peaceful process and a destabilizing factor in the
Pacific theater is that posed by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK).

182

They have a million-person armed force ofTensively postured and I remain concerned
over their continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic mis-
siles to deliver them.

Although I do not view the People's Republic of China as a threat, it clearly is
a source of concern to its neighbors. China is a nuclear power, which continues to
modernize its military and update weapons technology by producing, copying and
buying weapons such as fighters, missiles and submarines.

Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery contin-
ues in the PACOM region. Several nations in the PACOM region are pursuing de-
velopment of nuclear, chemical and biological weapon stockpiles. China, India and
Pakistan are known to have a nuclear weapons capability, while such capabiHty in
North Korea is strongly suspected.

At the heart of South Asia is the disputed Kasmir region, home to a long-standing
insurrection. Sri I^anka struggles to control a violent Tamil secessionist movement.
In Southeast Asia, Burma is plagued by drug traffickers and disaffected groups. In
Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge faction continues as a nagging problem, opposing the
legitimate government and its military and continues its destabilizing actions, while
Indonesia is challenged by the East Timor situation.

These regional tensions, combined with the presence of seven of the largest armed
forces in the world, require the maintenance of significant U.S. forces in the Pacific.
Without a credible military presence in the Asia-Pacific region the potential for re-
gional instability and confiict is enhanced.

Without addressing every nation in the Asia-Pacific region, I believe it's fair to
characterize our overall security relationship as effective, equitable and mutually
beneficial. Throughout the region a cooperative approach to security is effectively
advancing U.S. interests and meeting U.S. security needs at a significantly lower
cost than we could achieve alone. Japan supplies by far the most generous host na-
tion support of any of our allies. Japan has increased its share eacn year, and I am
told currently pays over 5 billion dollars annually for labor and utility costs of main-
taining U.S. forces, leases for land used by our forces and funding for facilities con-
struction. Japan self-defense forces continue to modernize and are assuming a larger
role in providing for the defense of Japan and regional security.

South Korea nas grown as a partner and now seeks equality. The ROK has as-
sumed operational control of ROK military forces and provides in excess of 330 mil-
lion dollars for support of U.S. military forces each year.

Australia's participation in combined exercises, operations of joint defense facili-
ties and granting of^access to U.S. ships and aircraft is absolutely essential to our
forward presence.

A few other examples include: The Philippines, where we have a solid, mutually
supportive relationsnip; Singapore, which continues to provide access to excellent
naval and air facilities, while strongly supporting U.S. forward presence; Thailand,
a treaty ally with a long history of collective security with the United States; and
a growing Indonesia, a leader in the region occupying a geostrategic position.

Question. The political and military balance on the Pacific Rim is in an acceler-
ated state of change. How important is American presence in that region, and how
can America best enhance stability of the region?

Answer. We have fought three wars in the Pacific during the last half century and
American presence today remains the cornerstone of regional stability. Moreover,
this region covers half the globe, encompasses the world's most dynamic economies,
has two thirds of the worlds people, and is clearly vital to U.S. interests. American
presence is a counterweight not only to obvious threats such as North Korea, but
also to uncertainty in the region that is home to seven of the world's largest mili-
taries.

Additionally, on a regional basis, U.S. military forces: enable the United States
to meet security treaties and agreements; promote security cooperation; protect our
critical lines of communications; provide prompt and effective responses to crises; in-
crease access to foreign facilities; counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruc-
tion; and assist in fighting against terrorism, drug trafficking and international
crime oivanizations.

The LJnited States can best enhance stability by remaining engaged throughout
the Pacific and by reiterating our commitment to present force levels for the foresee-
able future. This allows us to maintain our well deserved reputation in the region
as the "Honest Broker" and to preserve the stability that has been key to Pacific
prosperity.

Question. What is your assessment of the status of the agreed framework on the
North Korean nuclear program? In your opinion, are the North Koreans complying
with the terms of the agreement? What are the long-range implications of this
agreement on the region?

183

Answer. There is reason to be optimistic about the prospects for long-term suc-
cess. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) nuclear development pro-
gram remains frozen in accordance with the framework agreement. International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors are maintaining almost continuous pres-
ence to ensure compliance.

While DPRK-Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) nego-
tiations are difficult, progress is being made carrying out the framework agreement.
The KEDO reactor construction site surveys have been conducted with the coopera-
tion of the North Koreans. The IAEA and the DPRK are discussing the schedule
and location of ad hoc and routine facility inspections. The DPRK must allow these
inspections since the reactor supply contract has been concluded however DPRK's
cooperation does not go beyond the strict requirements of the agreement. The DPRK
still refuses IAEA access to their spent fuel rods for inspection which could illu-
minate the history of the DPRK's nuclear program.

The long-term implications of this agreement to regional security are key. Contin-
ued stability is contingent on DPRK maintaining the freeze to its nuclear develop-
ment program. Technical talks offers the only open venue for direct dialogue with
the United States, a prime goal of DPRK, therefore, their continued short-mid term
cooperation is anticipated. It is too soon to declare total success. We have significant
remaining hurdles before this program concludes: completion of the safe storage of
spent fuel rods; the final disposition of spent fuels; access by IAEA to conduct appro-
priate inspections specified within the agreement; and KEDO's maintenance of ade-
quate funds to meet our obligation under the framework agreement. The final and
most telling obstacle, special inspections of undeclared nuclear facilities, is tied to
the delivery of major nuclear comjaonents around the 7-8 year point.

Question. If Korea unifies, what, in your opinion, are the implications for CINC
UNC/CFC/USFK?

Answer. If ROK and DPRK reunify into an entity with no prospects of renewed
hostility, then I believe both the following would most likely apply: CINCUNC's mis-
sion of preserving the military armistice until a peaceful solution is reached would
be accomplished and the command terminated. CINCCFC's missions of deterrence,
and failing that, defense of the ROK, would also be accomplished in essence and the
command would be disestablished. The future of USFK would depend in great meas-
ure upon if and/or how the U.S. regional military presence reorganizes. In the inter-
est of promoting regional security, a residual military presence in Korea would prob-
ably be highly useful and meet with the approval of all parties in the area. Either
a restructured USFK or its successor would be the simplest way to meet this re-
quirement. Its elements would include a command and control, a logistical infra-
structure, some power projection assets and ample intelligence capability to monitor
areas of possible concern on the Pacific rim.

Question. What is your view of the viability of President Clinton's proposal for the
people's Republic of China to join the United States, the Republic of Korea, and the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea in a four-way negotiation of a peace agree-
ment to replace the Korean Armistice Agreement?

Answer. The joint announcement by President Clinton and ROK President Kim
Yong Sam is a good first step toward promoting the peace process on the peninsula.
We hope that the proposal will be successful. To date, however, it appears that
North Korea and China are both very hesitant. China seems clearly reluctant to
step into a crossfire between the two Koreas, and the regime in Pyongyang has con-
sistently treated the ROK as an entity to be ignored, circumvented or overthrown.
So long as the north is run by a group that cannot abandon hostility to the ROK
for fear of undermining their own legitimacy, it seems like a good step to start the

fieace process, but it also is unlikely that such a proposal will resolve the basic con-
rontation on the peninsula.

SECTION V. OPERATIONAL TEMPO

Question. How have American commitments in Bosnia, Haiti, and other areas af-
fected the operational tempo of Korean command forces?

Answer. American commitments in Bosnia, Haiti and other areas have had a rel-
atively small impact and have not affected the operational tempo of Korean com-
mand forces.

SECTION VI. MISSILE DEFENSE

Question. General Luck was very concerned about the missile defense threat for
the theater. He wrote a letter to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff requesting
Thaad deployment at the earliest possible date.

184

Do you share his concerns about the missile threat to the theater? What are your
thoughts related to delaying the fielding of this system and the impact on your abil-
ity to protect the force?

Answer. I share General Luck's concern about the missile threat in the theater
and see this threat greatly enhanced by the presence of theater ballistic missiles.
The risk to U.S., Korean, and allied forces increases exponentially if these missiles
are equipped with weapons of mass destruction. The presence of forward deployed
patriot batteries help to bolster our active defenses. In the near term, these bat-
teries will be equipped with the advanced capability PAC-^ missiles. In the future,
Navy Aegis ships equipped with SM2 block IVa missiles will expand the theater
missile defense lower tier, but to achieve protection from the longer range threat
missiles, our defense will reauire an upper tier. The Theater High Altitude Area De-
fense (THAAD) system should be fielaed as soon as practicable in order to increase
the protection afforded our forces. In the meantime, as I have stated, we must do
everything possible to utilize the capabilities we have to accomplish that task. Pro-
tecting the force is an imfX)rtant command responsibility.

SECTIO.N VII. .MAJOR CIIALLK.NGKS

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Com-
mander in Chief United Nations command/combined forces command/commander,
United States forces, Korea? If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing
these challenges?

Answer. There arc numerous challenges which cross all .services, as well as. Unit-
ed States and Korean military, political, social and economic issues. I agree with
the testimony provided by General Luck in the form of written response to questions
for the record on the occasion of his testimony to the U.S. Congress 13 March 1996.

The major challenge is how to deter, and if necessary defeat, an adversary whose
peaceful options are running out and whose only remaining asset in what seems to
oe a zero-sum regime survival contest is conventional military superiority. While in
theory the north could save itself from economic disaster by undertaking reform, in
reality the regime's leaders lack the necessary facilities and administrative expertise
to follow this course and are further hobbled by political and ideological constraints
inseparable from their own form of legitimacy.

As Commander in Chief, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/
United States Forces Korea, I will ensure that my forces remain vigilant. Training
and readiness will be my watch words. My primary desire is to ensure deterrence,
however, if deterrence fails, my forces must, and will, be ready to defeat the North
Koreans.

SECTION VIII. .MO^ SKRIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the f)erform-
ance of the functions of Commander in Chief United Nations Command/Combined
F'orces Command/Commander. United States Forces, Korea? What management ac-
tions and time lines would you establish to address these problems?

Answer. As a general statement the United States ana its ROK allies have been
successful in maintaining peace and deterring aggression on the Korean peninsula
for over 40 years. The command structure that has evolved over time apf)ears to
be working well but, as in any organization, there is always the requirement to con-
tinue to grow and improve, especially in a resource constrained environment. I pre-
fer to defer answering this question in detail until I have made a personal "on the
ground" assessment. In the interim, I intend to stay the course established by Gen-
eral Luck. I would consider my tour to be very successful if I am able to emulate
the accomplishments of General Luck.

SECTION IX. QUALIFICATIONS

Answer. I have commanded at every level, served three combat tours, and always
focused on training and caring for service members. My assignment as the Army's
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans afforded me an in-depth appreciation
for the operational and strategic situation and requirements in this critical region
of the world. My work as the Vice Chief of Staff, Army, involved close coordination
and working relationships with the offices within the Department of Defense and
the Joint Chiefs of Staff on oversight of joint/combined requirements. My current
experience as the Commanding General of an Army major command and ground
component of United States Atlantic Command has given me a great practical expe-

185

rience in dealing with the training, readiness, and resourcing challenges at both the
operational and strategic level. F'inally, I have 33 years of experience serving with
the outstanding young men and women of our armed forces and those of our allies.
I know from first hand experience that mission accomplishment comes from caring
leadership and a focus on training and readiness.

SECTION X. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appiear before this committee
and other appropriate committees of the Congress?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the administration in power?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of information are provided to this committee and its stafT and other appro-
priate committees?

Answer. Yes.

SECTION XI. POW/MIA ISSUES

Question. Is it your view that the Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea has

Srimary responsibility to seek an accounting for POW/MIAs from the Korean con-
ict, particularly with respect to paragraph 13(0 of the July 27, 1953 Armistice
Agreement? If your answer is yes, please elaborate on the role and responsibilities
of your command in this regard.

Answer. Primary responsibility for POW/MIA issues rests with the Secretary of
Defense through the Defense POW/MIA office (DPMO). With respect to the pacific
region, the secretary has designated the Commander in Chief, Pacific, as his mili-
tary representative to assist in POW/MIA matters, and to provide support to joint
task force full accounting (JTFA).

During my time as Commanding General of Forces Command, I worked with Ms.
Shirley and Ms. Shaw to increase the command's sensitivity to the unique require-
ments of our families who have soldiers that are still unaccounted for. If confirmed
as Commander in Chief, United States Forces Korea, I will do everything possible
to assist the Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command, the United
States, the Republic of Korea, and the United Nations to seek a full accounting of
our POW/MIAs.

Question. As you know, China is a signatory to the July 27, 1953 Armistice Agree-
ment and is reported to have held U.S. POWs in both North Korea and Mainland
China during the Korean conflict. However, on August 30, 1994, China announced
that it was withdrawing from the Military Armistice Commission at Panmunjon.
Are you planning to pursue contact with Chinese officials on POW/MIA issues as
Commanaer in Cfnief of U.S. F'orces Korea? How do you propose to hold the Chinese
to their obligations under the Armistice Agreement?

Answer. 'Die Secretary of Defense, through DPMO, has responsibility for pursuing
these matters. Commander in Chief, United Nations command has a selective inter-
est in POW/MIA issues as they relate to the Korean confiict. If confirmed I will
work closely with the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and
other appropriate agencies to implement United States National Policy in this area.

Question. Have you reviewed the 18 intelligence reports in the possession of the
Defense POW/MIA Office (DPMO) concerning sightings of possible POWs and/or de-
serters in North Korea between 1968 and 1996? Do you believe that it is possible
based on these refx)rts, that American prisoners of war may still be alive in North
Korea?

Answer. I have not yet reviewed the 18 intelligence reports referenced concerning
sightings of possible American POWs and/or deserters in North Korea between 1968
and 1996, nor am I aware of any other reports on this matter. It would not be ap-
propriate for me to speculate on whether or not American POWs and/or deserters
are still alive in Nortn Korea. If confirmed, I will ensure that I review these 18 in-

186

telligence reports from DPMO, and if information can be substantiated, every effort
must be maoe to pursue those reports to a final conclusion.

Question. As Commander in Chief, U.S. F'orces Korea, do you intend to seek the
return of the four U.S. deserters from the 1960's whom DPMO believes may still
be alive in North Korea in order to (1) properly debrief them about any knowledge
they may have on American POWs in North Korea; and (2) prosecute them in ac-
cordance with the uniformed code of military justice?

Answer. If confirmed as the Commander in Chief, United States Forces Korea, I
would do everything in my power to assist the enforcement of United States Na-
tional Policy as conveyed to me by the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary
of Defense and the Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command.

Question. The Department of Defense has entered into two agreements with
North Korea during the current administration which are limited to the recovery
and repatriation of remains of U.S. servicemen who were buried in North Korea by
U.S. forces during the war (August 1993 and May 1996). These agreements do not
reference the need for archival materials from North Korea on MlAs or the respon-
sibility of North Korea to provide 'urther information on American servicemen last
known to he alive when the Armistice Agreement was signed. These agreements
also do not take into account the recommendations contained in the final report of
the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA affairs in January 1993. During this
same time period, the Department of Defense has reported that the war museum
in Pyongyang, North Korea and the war museum in Dandong, China contain infor-
mation on American servicemen still missing in action from the Korean confiict. If
you are confirmed as Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea, how do you purpose
to pursue POW/MIA issues, other than joint remains recovery operations, with
North Korean and Chinese officials?

Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review these documents in detail so
it would not be appropriate for me to address this question at this time. If confirmed
as Commander in Chief, United Nations Command/Commander in Chief, U.S.
Forces Korea, I will assist the Secretary of Defense and Commander in Chief, Pa-
cific with POW/MIA matters as they pertain to North Korea.

SECTION XII. OTHER ISSUES

Question. There have been reports that North Korea is experiencing serious fam-
ine. Based on the information you have reviewed, what is your view on how serious
the famine situation is in Korea?

Answer. Based on the reports that I have seen I believe that the famines pose
a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of North Korea and have
the potential to cause widespread suffering. Naturally, anything that can be done
through diplomatic and humanitarian channels to alleviate these famines will in-
crease the short term stability in the region.

Question. As you know, the committee continues to be seriously concerned with
North Korea's efforts to develop advanced ballistic missile capabilities. It has been
reported that the Taepo Dong 2, once deployed, will threaten Alaska and portions
of Hawaii. What is your view of the North Korean ballistic missile threat to U.S.
forces and the 50 United States, along with Alaska and Hawaii, against ballistic
missile attack?

Answer. As I stated earlier, I have the committee's concern about the missile
threat in the theater and see this threat greatly enhanced by the presence of theater
ballistic missiles. The risk to U.S., Korean, and allied forces increases exponentially
if these missiles are equipp)ed with weapons of mass destruction. The presence of
forward deployed patriot catteries help to bolster our active defenses. In the near
term, these batteries will be equipped with the advanced capability PAC-3 missiles.
In the fiature, Navy AEGIS ships equipped with SM2 block iVa missiles will expand
the theater missile defense lower tier, but to achieve protection from the longer
range threat missiles, our defense will require an upper tier. The theater high alti-
tude area defense (THAAD) system should be fielded as soon as practicable in order
to increase the protection afforded our forces. In the meantime, as I have stated,
we must do everything possible to utilize the capabilities we have to accomplish that
task. Protecting the force is an important command responsibility.

[Questions for the record with answers supphed follow:]

Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
Senator McCaiN. Would you consider washing vehicles to be demeaning?

187

General TiLELLI. Yes. Asking soldiers to wash vehicles for private organizations
would be demeaning. DOD has not been asked to provide personnel to wash vehi-
cles. If you are referring to the operation of the wash rack that is part of Vehicle
Processing Point at Fort Gillem, tnat facility is operated by the Atlanta Committee
for the Olynipic Games. No military personnel are working at that facility.

Senator McCaIN. What tasks would you consider demeaning to our service per-
sonnel? Where do you draw the line?

General TiLELLI. First let me say that the preponderance of personnel suppxjrt
being provided by DOD is security support. TasKs to be performed by DOD person-
nel were defined prior to FORSCOM bemg given the Olympic Support mission. DOD
policy is for military personnel to not perform menial or demeaning tasks, such as
ushers, luggage handlers, door openers, etc. Security support is the prime focus of
the personnel support in Atlanta. We should never allow servicemembers to do what
is considered demeaning.

Senator McCaIN. Do you believe that these military personnel are better qualified
to drive these busses tnan the civilians which they will replace? If so, why is the
Department of Defense asking the civilians at the private bus companies which
were displaced by the military, to train the military personnel?

General TiLELLI. The Department of Justice has stated that military drivers play
a vital role in providing a secure environment for the Olympics ensuring the public
safety of visitors and residents in the Atlanta area. Use of military personnel as
drivers for the transport of athletes will enhance security during this very vulner-
able period for the following reasons: The military personnel selected have been vet-
ted by a chain of command that knows them, tnus we are entrusting Olympic
Teams to a known entity; military provide a visible uniformed presence on tne
buses; military are trained to be aware of their surroundings and changes to normal
conditions — situation awareness; and military are trained to be fiexible and to
quickly adapt to changing situations.

Although I do not know the details concerning displacement of a private bus com-
pany, it is common practice for DOD to contract with private companies for training
on unique or civilian skills.

Senator McCaIN. Isn't it true that the reason that the military is helping to water
the artificial turf on the field hockey field is to control the rate of roll of the field
hockey ball:

General TiLELLI. According to the AGOG request, to insure proper ball speed, the
Field Hockey International Federation requires some 4,500 gallons of water be
spread over the playing field at the Field Hockey Venue over two 7-minute periods
during each competition. The Fire Department is concerned that diversion of this
water would adversely affect water pressure and could impact fire fighting capabil-
ity. The Municipal Water Department serving the Atlanta University Center cannot
guarantee adequate water quantities and pressures to support this requirement and
fire safety. From the onset this was to be reimbursed.

Senator McCaIN. Did the Atlanta Committee on the Olympic Games ask any
other Federal agency, such as the Department of Commerce or the U.S. Fire Acaa-
emy located in Emmitsburg, Maryland, if they could provide this assistance prior
to requesting it from the Department of Defense?

General TiLELLI. I am unaware if ACOG requested this support from other agen-
cies. I do not know if Congress directed those Federal agencies to provide support
to the Olympics as it did DOD. On 3 February 1995, the Atlanta Committee for the
Olympic Games (ACOG) requested the Department of Defense (DOD) provide equip-
ment and personnel to supfX)rt this reauirement. These items were requested to
support a test event in August 1995 ana the Olympic competition from 19 July to
4 August 1996. The Office of Special Events agreed to provide this support as a safe-
ty issue and ACOG was notified the support was available from the Army on a reim-
bursable basis. We are currently planning on providing water into an ACOG oper-
ated distribution system at 3 locations; involving approximately 25 military person-
nel whose war time mission is to provide similar support.

Senator McCain. Chapter 18 of Title 10, U.S.C, provides the Department of De-
fense with the authority to support civilian law enforcement agencies. Section 377
of that title reguires that the civilian law enforcment agencies reimburse the De-
partment of Defense for the costs of this assistance.

Shouldn't private organizations such as the Olympic Committee be held to the
same reimbursement requirements as we place on civilian law enforcement agen-

cies

General TiLELLI. Section 377 of Title 10 does not itself require reimbursement for
support provided by DOD to civilian law enforcement agencies. In the case of DOD
Olympic support to Federal law enforcement agencies, the reimbursement provisions
of the Economy Act apply. Since funds were specifically appropriated for the purpose

188

of providing personnel and logistics support to the Olympics, reimbursement for
DOE) supfwrt to state and local law enforcement agencies responsible for Olympic
security is not required. Under our current policies, the Olympic Organizing Com-
mittees receive more of their support on a "pay as you go" or reimbursable basis
than do the state and local law enforcement agencies we are supporting.

Senator McCain. Could you briefly describe how washing ACOG vehicles and
driving busses will enhance the capabilities and readiness of those personnel per-
forming these tasks?

General TiLELLl. As previously mentioned, military personnel^ have not been
asked to wash vehicles. ACOG requested facilities and space at F'ort Gillem for a
Vehicle Processing Point. That facility consists of a building, some office trailers, a
parking area and a wash rack. The facility was constructed on a fully reimbursable
basis and all operating costs are being paid by ACOG. ACOG personnel are operat-
ing the facility, to include the wash rack. Alter the Olympics, this facility will be
available for military use.

Although some of the military personnel selected to be bus drivers have the mili-
tary occupation of vehicle operato-, DOD is providing this support based on the DOJ
request that it was critical to providing a secure environment.

Senator McCaIN. How much of the $51 million DOD has spent to support the At-
lanta Olympics has actually been reimbursed to date?

General TiLELLI. Congress has appropriated $50 million to DOD for Olympic sup-
port: fiscal year 92-94 $6 million; fiscal year 95 $16.8 million; and fiscal year 96
$27.2. FORSCOM received $28.3 million to accomplish the missions given to it by
DOD. $108,000 in reimbursements have been provided to the JTF-0 by ACOG. No
reimbursements have been received by JTF-0 from state or local law enforcement
agencies. I do not have complete information on reimbursements received by OSE
prior to the formation of JTF-0.

Senator McCain. Will the personnel costs of the military individuals who are wa-
tering the artificial turf on the hockey fields, washing ACOG vehicles and providing
other "non-security" assistance be reimbursed to the Department of Defense?

General TiLELLI. ACOG has agreed to pay all costs associated with DOD provid-
ing water to their distribution systems. DOD provided similar support at a test
event in 1995 and ACOG paid $11,884 to DOD for costs associated with that sup-
port. Again, no military personnel are involved in washing ACOG vehicles and any
additional "non-security" support would be provided "pay as you go."

Senator McCain. Is the information which the General Accounting Office provided
to my ofTlce, specifically, these reimbursements have been suspended, accurate?
Please elaborate.

General TiLELLI. All reimbursements received by the JTF-O have been deposited
in miscellaneous receipts accounts in the U.S. Treasury and accordingly are not
available for additional Olympic support. In order to facilitate provision of DOD sup-
port, ACOG is considering providing at their cost additional support to DOD person-
nel in order to allow us to provide required support to the Olympics within our fund-
ing and policy limitations. Any ca.sh reimbursements JTH'-O may receive from
ACOG will be promptly deposited in U.S. Treasury accounts. On 31 May, the
$108,000 the JTF has received as reimbursement was deposited into the U.S. Treas-
ury.

Senator McCain. Is it true that the Department of Defense will pay $105,000 for
Georgia State commercial drivers license so that military personnel can drive
busses?

General TiLELLI. No, the Georgia Department of Safety is providing testing and
licenses for military drivers stationed in Georgia and supfxjrting the Olympics at no
cost to DOD.

Senator McCain. Was the DOD the only potential supplier of ice chests for the
Atlanta Police Department?

General TiLELLI. The DOD Office of Special Events has acquired a significant in-
ventory of usable items for special event support over time. They maintain this in-
ventory in warehouses and supply them to requesters as needed. One of the items
they stock is ice chests. The Atlanta Police Department requested 350 ice chests.
DOD is providing 35 ice chests (the on hand quantity) to the Atlanta Police Depart-
ment from those stocks. The Atlanta Police Department will obtain the remaining
ice chests they require from other sources. At the end of the games, the 35 chests
will be returned to the DOD stock for use at other events such as the I^esidential
Inauguration, etc.

Senator McCai.N. If the Department of Defense was given strict time lines for en-
tering into an agreement with a civilian sporting event's organizing committee,
could DOD comply with such rules.

189

General TiLELLI. Yes, I believe the Department of Defense could comply with such
rules.

DOD ASSISTANCE TO SPORTING EVENTS

Senator McCain. Do you believe the provision in the Defense Authorization Act
would prevent DOD from providing the necessary security assistance to ensure a
safe and secure Olympics?

General Tilelli. I cannot sfxjak officially for the Army or the Department of De-
fense. However, in my personal opinion, as a field operating commander, I would
expect to receive the resources necessary to carry out my mission to provide security
and safety, regardless of the ultimate source of funds. Who should these funds and
the effect of this section are policy questions better answered by those responsible
for funding and resource allocation. Whatever the decision on this policy issue, it
should be based on the paramount concern of security and public safety. If prior
agreement could not be reached and it was a condition to providing such assistance,
then it could result in a degradation in our ability to execute our mission.

DOD SUPPORT FOR SPORTING EVENTS

Senator McCain. Do you support the provision?

General TiLELLI. Generally speaking, I think reimbursement is a good idea. How-
ever, the wording should give DOD the flexibility to provide assistance if a serious
threat to public safety is imminent. My concern is that, absent an agreement, DOD
could not perform its security function, thus leaving the possibility of a vacuum
where public safety could be jeopardized.

Questions Submitted by Senator Bob S.mith

Senator SMITH. Please provide clarification on the capability of the North Korean
Taepo Dong 2 missile, once deployed, to threaten Alaska and portions of Hawaii.
What is your view of the North Korean ballistic missile threat to the United States?

General TiLELLI. I believe North Korea produces far more missiles than are nec-
essary to meet its national defense requirements — indeed, the north has been the
main supplier of ballistic missiles and production technology to developing countries.
Pyongyang has deployed at least one scud brigade that we project can reach all tar-
gets on the Korean peninsula. The north has also been developing a longer-range
system, the 100km No-Dong, which could target U.S. bases in Japan including Oki-
nawa. Two new ballistic missile systems, designated Taepo Dong 1 (TD-1) and
Taepo Dong 2 (TD-2), were identified in research and development in 1994. The
multistage design on TD-1 and TD-2 is the north's first attempt to develop such
technology. We judge these missiles may be capable of striking Alaska and the far
western Hawaiian island sometime ader the year 2000. However, if that is true, we
have not seen a demonstrated capability.

Senator SMITH. Is it your contention that the Commander in Chief, United Na-
tions Command, and the Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea, no longer have
a primary responsibility with respect to contact with North Korea and China on nu-
merous POW/MIA provisions under the armistice? If yes, please provide your ration-
al for this contention. If no, please elaborate on the specific POW/MLA roles and re-
sponsibilities of either or botn of the commands for wnich you have been nominated
(as the committee requested in its additional, advance questions submitted pre-
viously). Also, please inform the committee of your intentions with resf)ect to follow-
up with both North Korea and China on the POW/MLA issues outlined in the com-
mittee's previously-submitted questions (i.e.: reports of defectors, access to archival
information, and remains recovery operations.)

(jeneral TiLELLI. If confirmed as (5^ommander in Chief, United Nations Command,
I would have full responsibility to implement and maintain the 1953 Korean armi-
stice agreement. Although most UNC responsibilities outlined in paragraph 13(D of
the agreement were terminated by a subsequent agreement in 1954, the UNC did
continue demanding additional information from the Korean people's army through
the military armistice commission regarding accounting for POvVs. Between 1954
and 1987, despite annual requests from the UNC, North Korea refused to provide
any information claiming the issue was not an armistice issue. Since the late 1980s,
when the U.S. Government began directly pursuing the return of U.S. remains as
a purely humanitarian issue, North Korea nas cooperated to return a total of 208
sets of remains they believed to be U.S. servicemen from the Korean conflict of
which 6 have been positively identified so far. Subsequently, the Ofllce of the Sec-
retary of Defense has been given primary responsibility to seek an accounting for

38-225 97-7

190

POW/MIAs from the Korean conflict. Based on intelligence reports and previous re-
search, the Department of Defense has accumulated information concerning likely
places of burial of deceased UNC personnel in North Korea and has made initial
progress in cooperating with North Korea to conduct joint recovery operations at
these sites. If confirmed as CINCUNC, I will continue to fully support all depart-
ment of defense efforts to seek a better accounting of U.S. military personnel miss-
ing from the Korean conflict. I am personally committed to the full accounting of
allPOW/MIA.

Questions Submittkd by Sknator Dikk Kk.mithorne
missile defense in south korea

Senator Kempthorne. General Tilelli, there have been repeated reauests by U.S.
commanders to deploy additional anti-missile defense systems to Soutn Korea. This
week, the Pentagon agreed to provide the Japan Defense Agency (JDA) with early
warning data collected by American reconnaissance satellites. Given that North
Korea continues to develop long range ballistic missiles do you feel enough is being
done to protect our men and women stationed in Korea from missile attacks?

General TiLELLI. As I stated earlier, the North Korean missile threat presents us
with considerable challenges to security on the peninsula and in the region, and
force protection would always be one of my priorities as a commander. In response
to those challenges, I feel we are taking prudent steps necessary to protect our men
and women serving in Korea. The permanently deployed Patriot system will soon
be equipped with the advanced capability PAC-3 missiles. Additional capability will
come witn the future fielding of Navy Aegis ships equipped with SM2Block IVa mis-
siles— the lower tier for theater missile aefense. Also, as I have stated, we will need
to add the upper tier theater missile defense that the Theater High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) System will provide.

FOOD AID TO NORTH KOREA

Senator Kempthorne. General Tilelli, the United States and South Korea pledged
$6 million and $3 million respectively, to the U.N. appeal for $43.6 million food re-
lief effort to North Korea. Food diplomacy has become the latest tactic by the United
States and its allies in seeking to entice North Korea to the negotiating table. South
Korea had previously banned all food aid to the North, official or private, saying
that the Pyongyang Government has exaggerated its food shortages to get more out-
side aid. North Korea has yet to officially respond to the peace initiative unveiled
by Seoul and Washington in April. Do you feel that we are taking the right ap-
proach with North Korea? Is it possible that the North Koreans have exaggerated
the facts?

General TiLELLI. Even under the best of circumstances, the closed society of North
Korea has proved extraordinarily difiicult in trying to arrive at an accurate under-
standing of internal conditions north of the DMZ. Confiicting media reports com-
plicate Torming a more precise picture of the extent of the food shortages in the
north and the suffering of the people. The food aid extended to date and the manner
in which it has been extended demonstrate a humanitarian concern for the North
Korean pxjople. I support the humanitarian efforts to relieve in the short term the
suffering the North Korean population may be suffering, and for its stabilizing effect
on Korean Peninsula security.

OLYMPIC COSTS

Senator Kempthorne. General Tilelli, do you believe all of the Department of De-
fense expenses related to the summer Olympics in Atlanta directly relate to secu-
rity? If not, which costs are not related to security?

General TiLELLI. Since fiscal year 1992, Congress has appropriated $50 million to
DOD for 'logistical support and personnel services" to the 1996 Games of the XXVI
Olympiad. DOD policy specifies that the priority for DOD support to special events
is for security-related requirements. I do not have complete information on support
provided or budgeted by DOD's Office of Special Events prior to the formation of
the Joint Task Force — Olympics (JTh'-O), however, since tne inception of JTF-0 in
August 1995, the ta.sk force has been responsible for $28.3 million of the DOD
Olympic appropriation. The preponderance of DOD support for the 1996 Olympics
is specifically for or directly related to security. The following list identifies those
costs not directly related to security which the JTF-0 is or anticipates providing.
All of this support is scheduled to be provided on a reimbursable or pay as you go

191

basis. Not listed are various ceremonial and demonstration activities being provided
by DOD, such as fly overs, color guards, and bands.

Support requested

Cost esti-
mate

Vehicle processing point

Rough terrain ambulances

Field hockey water distribution

Non-security modification to athlete village fence

Total

$108,000

1,900

6,000

97,000

$212,900

IDAHO NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING

Senator Kempthorne. General Tilelli, can you provide me with a copy of the 1998
schedule for the National Training Center which shows the Idaho National Guard's
rotation? Also, what steps do you recommend to improve the combat readiness of
the National Guard's enhanced brigades?

General TiLELLI. During my briefing to you on 5 June 1996, I promised that the
116th Armor Brigade would receive an NTC rotation in 1998 if they were success-
fully certified afler this summer's annual training. The attached 1998 schedule rep-
resents that promise. I have discussed the situation with MG Jack Kane. He under-
stands that he now has the mission to certify his units and he has an aggressive
plan to accomplish that. I have also notified the Director, Army National Guard of
the results of our meeting.

We have taken additional actions this year to improve the readiness of the en-
hanced brigades and other Reserve component units. Forces command published an
umbrella training guidance document which specifies what training assistance a pri-
ority unit should get and what the source of assistance is. It is already paying major
dividends. Part of this strategy is to focus the enhanced brigade training on the se-
lected pre-mobilization training tasks so that we narrow the time required for post-
mobilization training and deployment. The completion of Ground Forces Readiness
Enhancement (GFRE) fielding in 1997 will be the biggest multiplier for enhanced
brigade readiness and will provide CTC-quality lanes for all parts of these brigades.
Clearly, individual qualification and training is an essential building block. Obtain-
ing sufticient resources to achieve 85 percent DMOSQ without having to unduly
mortgage training attendance will be important.

The 116th armor brigade is one of the test units for Simulations in Training for
Advanced Readiness (SIMITAR), which provides simulation enhancers for training.
Acquisition of the best parts of SIMITAR in terms of "value-added" will be impor-
tant for the enhanced brigades over the next 2-5 years.

Execution of the planned 5-year scheduling sequence for CTC attendance will
allow the enhanced brigades and their active component sponsor to partner on a
long range training plan which will optimize the brigade's preparation for a CTC.
This sequence will generate enhanced readiness, expertise on the basics, and the
ability to move to higher echelons of training.

All of these actions, taken together, will significantly strengthen the readiness of
the enhanced brigades.

192

?.a

O X

w t

t;
K&

o S u u

1° •

IS 5

'!3x

9 "
Sz

a E _,

193

FEES FOR OLYMPICS

Senator Kemptiiorne. General Tilelli, can you tell me what fees, such as rent for
the use of schools or licenses, the U.S. military is paying to provide security for the
Atlanta Olympics?

General Tilelli. The following fees for rent have, or are projected to be paid:

• Rent for dormitory rooms at the University of Georgia — $247,700

• Lease of seven schools in DeKalb County to house military — $32,700
(Rate is $100 per school per day)

• Lease of one school in Hall County to house military — 6,000
(Rate is $100 per school per day)

• I^ease of the Greenbriar office complex from Delta Airlines, Inc., to house
military — $1

(Delta agreed to a nominal value lease because of civic pride and its posi-
tion as an Olympic sponsor)
Based on the Department of Justice request that bus drivers are critical to secu-
rity, DOD has agreed to provide 1,058 military personnel to serve as bus drivers
for the Olympic teams to transport them from the secured athlete villages to the
secured competition venues. These drivers require Commercial Drivers Licenses
(CDL). In developing our budget for this requirement, an average licensing cost of
$100 per driver and a training cost of $500 was used. JTF-0 budget included
$300,000 for training and $105,000 licensing costs, for a total of $405,000 to fund
the CDL requirement. As of this date, only $212,616 is committed for this require-
ment. We fully anticipate spending less than the budgeted amount as the State of
Georgia is providing, the 358 military personnel licensed in Georgia, CDLs at no
cost to the Department of Defense.

[The nomination reference of General John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA,
follows:]

Nomination Reference

Senate of the United States,

March 28, 1996.

Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named officer for reappointment to the grade of General in the
United States Army while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility
under Title 10, United States Code, Section 601(a):

To be General
Gen. John H. Tilelli, Jr., 5952, United States Army.

[The biographical sketch of Gen. John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]

Resume of Service Career of Gen. John Harold Tilelli, Jr.

Date and place of birth: 2 October 1941, Brooklyn, New York.

Years of active commissioned service: Over 32.

Present assignment: Commanding General, United States Army Forces Command,

Fort Mcl^erson, Georgia :^0330-6000, since June 1995.
Military schools attended:

The Armor School — Basic and Advanced Courses

United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College

United States Army War College
Educational degrees:

Pennsylvania Military College — BS Degree — Economics

Lehigh University — MA Degree — Education Administration
Foreign language(s): None recorded.

194

MAJOR DUTY ASSIGNMEriTS

Assi(nment

Aug 63
Oct 63

Oct 63
Nov 64

Nov 64
Mar 65

Feb 65
Jan 66

Jan 66

Jul 66

Sep 66

Sep 66
Jan 68
Sep 68
Nov 71

Oct 67
Sep 68
Nov 71
Mar 72

Mar 72
Jan 73

Jan 73
Aug 73

Aug 73
Jun74
Aug 75

Jun 74
Aug 75
Jun 77

Jul 77

Apr 78

Apr 78
Nov 79

Nov 79
Jun 81

Jun81

Jul 82

Aug 82
Jun 83

Jun 83
Nov 83

Nov 83
Aug 85
May 87
Apr 88
Jul 90
Oct 90
Apf 91
Aug 92

Aug 85
May 87
Apr 88
Jul 90
Oct 90
Apr 91
Aug 92
Mar 93

Mar 93
Jul 94

Jul 94
Jun 95

Student. Armor Officer Basic Course. United Stales Armor School. Fort Knox, Kentucky

Platoon Leader, later Executive Officer. Headquarters Company, 3d Battalion, 77tti Armor, Fort

Devens, Massachusetts
S 3 (Air), 3d Battalion, 77th Armor, Fort Devens, Massachusetts
Executive Officer, Troop C, Reconnaissance Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, United

States Army Europe, Germany
Liaison Officer, later Assistant Adjutant, and later Adjutant, 2d Reconnaissance Squadron, 2d

Armored Cavalry Regiment, United States Army Europe, Germany
Commander, Troop E, 2d Reconnaissance Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, United

States Army Europe, Germany
Commander, Headquarters Company, 18th Engineer Brigade, United States Army, Vietnam
Student, Armor Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Armor School, Fort Knox. Kentucky
Assistant Professor of Military Science, Lafayette College, Easton, Pennsylvania
Student, Vietnam Training Center, Foreign Service Institute, Department of State, Washington,

DC
District Senior Advisor, Advisory Team 84, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam
Operations Officer, Electronics Command, United States Army Materiel Command, Fort Mon-
mouth, New Jersey
Student, Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Quantico, Virginia
S-3, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, United States Army Europe, Germany
Executive Officer, 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, and later S3 (Operations),

11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, United States Army Europe, Germany
Chief, Platoon Tactical Division, Command and Staff Department, United States Army Armor

School, Fort Knox, Kentucky
Commander, 2d Squadron, 6th Cavalry, United States Armor School, Fort Knox, Kentucky
Armor Force Integration Staff Officer, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and

Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC
Assistant Director of the Army Staff, Office of the Chief of Staff, United States Army, Washing-
ton, DC
Student, Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania

Chief, Ground Combat Systems Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, De-
velopment and Acquisition, United States Army, Washington, DC
Chief of Staff, 1st Armored Division, United States Army Europe, Germany
Commander, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, United States Army Europe, Germany
Chief of Staff, VII Corps, United States Army Europe, Germany

Commanding General, Seventh Army Training Command, United States Army Europe, Germany
Commanding General, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas
Commanding General, 1st Cavalry Division DESERT STORM, Saudi Arabia
Commanding General, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff

for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, DC
Vice Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief of Staff, United States Army, Washington, DC

Promotions

Dates of appointment

2LT

2 Jun 63

ILT

2 Dec 64

OPT

15 Jun 66

MAJ

13 Jan 70

LTC

2 Aug 77

COL

1 Sep 83

1 Aug 88

1 Oct 91

LTG

26 Mar 93

GEN

19 Jul 94

U.S. Decorations and badges:

Distinguished Service Medal (with 2 Oak I>eaf Clusters).

Legion of Merit.

Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device.

Bronze Star Medal (with 1 Oak I>eaf Cluster).

Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Ix;af Clusters).

195

Air Medal.

Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak I^^af Clusters).
Comoat Infantryman Badge.
Parachutist Badge.

Oflice of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badge.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge.
Army Staff Identification Badge.
Source of commission: ROTC.

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS

Assignment

Dates

Grade

District Senior Adviser, Advisory Team 84, United States Military Assistance

Command, Vietnam.
Commanding General, ■ 1st Cavalry Division DESERT STORM, Saudi Arabia

Mar 72-Mar 73
Oct 90-Apr 91

Major

Brigadier General

' full Tour Credit

As of 29 February 1996

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial, and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by General John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA, in connec-
tion 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

iNSTRUCrriONS 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 ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B^) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

Part A— Biographical Information

Instructions to the No.MINKE: Biographical information furnished in this part
of the form will be made available in committee offices for public inspection prior
to the hearings and will also be published in any hearing record as well as made
available to the public.

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
John H. Tilelli, Jr.

2. Position to which nominated:

Commanding General, United States Air Forces Command

3. Date of nomination:
March 28, 1996.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and the information is contained in the committee's executive
nies.J

5. Date and place of birth:
February 10, 1941; Brooklyn, NY.

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

196

Married to the former Valerie Anne Flannigan.

7. Names and ages of children:

Christine Marie (Tilelli) Klass, 30
Margaret Ann (Tilelli) Solomon, 27
Jeanne Michelle (Tilelli) Decker, 25

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

None.

10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

Atlanta Chamber of CommcTxe, Ex-officio Member, Board of Directors

AUSA, Greater Atlanta Chapter, Member of Executive Council

Boy Scouts of America, Atlanta Chapter, Member of Executive Board

Georgia Governor's Military Affairs Coordinating Committee, Member

Morale, Welfare & Recreation Committee, Member, Board of Directors

Rotary Club of Atlanta, Member, Hospitality Committee

Sister Cities International, East Point, GA, Member, Exec. Council

USO Council of Atlanta, Member, Executive Committee

1st Cav Association

11th Cav Association

2d Cav Association

None.

12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power.

Yes.

Signature and Date

John H. Tilelli, Jr.

This 22nd day of March 1996.

[The nomination of Gren. John H. Tilelli, Jr., USA, was reported
to the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on June 13, 1996, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomi-
nation was confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 1996.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Wesley K Clark, USA,
by Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]

197

Department of Defense,

The Joint Staff,
V/ashington, DC, May 17, 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

As you requested, I am providing you and the committee answers to your ques-
tions on the important defense policy and management issues as they relate to the
position of Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command.

I look forward to working with you and the committee in the upcoming confirma-
tion process.

Very respectfully,

Wesley K. Clark,
Lieutenant General, USA,

Director for Strategic

Plans and Policy.

Enclosure,
cc: Senator Sam Nunn,

Ranking Minority Member.

QuE^ioNs AND Responses

DEFENSE REFOR.MS

Question. More than 9 years have passed since the enactment of the Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Oper-
ations reforms. You have had an opportunity to observe the implementation and im-
pact of those reforms, particularly in your assignment as Director for Strategic
Plans and Policy (J 5).

Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes, I do.

Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?

Answer. Goldwater-Nichols legislation has us well along the path to what Con-
gress intended. It has improved the efTectiveness of our joint fighting forces and
joint professional military education system. Goldwater-Nichols legislation assures
that tne President gets the best possible advice from the Nation's senior military
leadership; that he can place clear and absolute responsibility on combatant CINCs
for the outcome of military operations; and that the Nation's Armed Forces can suc-
cessfully execute joint operations with complementary warfighting systems.

Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. Two important areas were clearly defined by the Defense Reorganization
Act of 1986. First, the authority of the warfighting CINCs over assigned forces was
expanded to establish a clear chain of command to accomplish assigned missions.
Second, and of no less importance, responsibility and authority of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the principal military advisor to the National Command
Authority were clearly established.

Question. Based upon your experience and your assignment as Director for Strate-
gic Plans and Policy (J5), do you believe that the role of the combatant commanders
under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies and proc-
esses in existence allow that role to be fulfilled?

Answer. Yes. Goldwater-Nichols has ensured that the combatant commanders are
in a direct command line to the National Command Authority and are completely
responsible for the conduct of operations, including support activities, within their
commands. Combatant Commanders ultimately organize their commands; ensure
they are propxjrly trained, equipped and led; and tnen fight with the support and
assistance of the services and other unified commands.

The policies and processes currently practiced have proven extremely effective in
allowing the Joint Chiefs as a whole and the individual Service Chiefs to achieve
the goals of greater joint interoperability and joint combat effectiveness, as well as

198

more integrated determination of joint requirements. Our fighting forces have prov-
en the benefits of these initiatives since 1986.

Over the past 2 years, I have worked directly with the functional and regional
combatant commanders on a host of strategic issues. In that time, I have been im-
pressed with the vitality of the relationship between the combatant commanders
and the Chairman; the candor of communication between the CINCs and the Sec-
retary of Defense; and with the Chairman's ability to represent CINC interests in
the broad policymaking arena. These are fundamental outcomes of Goldwater-Nich-
ols that represent significant improvements in the way national defense policy is
formulated and executed. The combatant CINCs have tremendous influence in de-
veloping future programs that support their warfighting missions through participa-
tion in such forums as the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). At the
same time, the Chairman ensures combatant commander requirements receive prop-
er visibility in the budget-development process through his Ingram assessment.
These examples of policies and processes reflect my confidence in the strength and
effectiveness of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.

RELATIONSHIPS

Question. Section 162(b) of title 10, United States Code, provides that the chain
of command runs from the I*resident to the Secretary of Defense and from the Sec-
retary of Defense to the combatant commands. Other sections of law and traditional
practice, however, establish important relationships outside the chain of command.
Please describe your understanding of the relationship of the Commander in Chief,
United States Southern Command to the following offices:

The Under Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. Current DOD Directives require Under Secretaries of Defense to coordi-
nate and exchange information with DOD components, such as combatant com-
mands, having collateral or related functions. CINC, U.S. Southern Command is ex-
pected to respond and reciprocate. Directives also stipulate that this coordination
shall be communicated through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. Under the current arrangement, only two Assistant Secretaries of De-
fense (ASD for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence — C^I) and
(ASD for Legislative Affairs) are principal deputies reporting directly to the Sec-
retary of Defense. All other Assistant Secretaries of Defense work for one of the
Under Secretaries of Defense. This means that should SOUTHCOM require any in-
volvement with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Ijow Intensity Conflict, for
example, it would be through the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In the case
of the ASD for C^I and the ASD for I^egislative Affairs, the relationship would be
along the same lines as with an Under Secretary of Defense.

Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. Title 10 establishes the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the prin-
cipal military advisor to the National Command Authority (NCA). In this capacity,
he serves as an advisor and is not, according to law, in the chain of command that
runs from the NCA directly to each combatant commander. The law does allow the
President to direct that communications to the combatant commanders from the
President or the Secretary of Defense be transmitted through the Chairman. Presi-
dent Clinton has directed this to happen in the current Unified Command Plan.
This action keeps the Chairman in the loop so that he can execute his other legal
responsibilities — a key one being spokesman for the CINCs, especially on the oper-
ational requirements of their respective commands. While the legal duties of the
Chairman are many and they require either his representation or personal partici-
pation in a wide range of forums, my understanding of Title 10 legislation is that
as a CINC, I will have the obligation to keep the Secretary of Defense promptly in-
formed on matters for which he may hold me personally accountable. So I see it as
a CINCs duty to work with and through — but never around — the Chairman to pro-
vide for the security of his command and execute NCA-dirccted taskings.

Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Vice Chairman's relationship with CINCs is exactly that of the
Chairman when acting in that capacity during the absence of the Chairman. Addi-
tionally, Title 10 gives the Vice Chairman the same right and obligation that other
members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to submit an opinion or advice to the
President, National Security Council, or Secretary of Defense if their views disagree
with these of the Chairman. As a CINC, I would naturally listen to the Vice Chair-
man's thoughts on any general defense matter considered by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. P^inally, because the Vice Chairman also plays a key role on many boards and

199

f)anel3 that afTect programming, and therefore the readiness of SOUTHCOM, I be-
ieve his insights are extremely valuable and would actively seek his advice.

Question. The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Unified Command Plan makes the geographic CENC the single point
of contact for providing U.S. military representation within his assigned AOR. To
meet this responsibility, CINCs must be fully engaged in the interagency process
as it considers matters in their AOR. I know that the Assistant to the Chairman
has an extensive charter to represent the Chairman in the interagency community
here in Washington. While there are not direct lines connecting the Assistant to the
Chairman to any combatant commander, what the Assistant knows and can share
about the interagency process with any CINC is useful and will be requested. The
Assistant to the Chairman also works on matters of personal interest to the Chair-
man, which may require him to consult with a combatant commander.

Question. The Director of the Joint Staff.

Answer. The Director is generally the point of contact for soliciting information
from all the CINCs when the Chairman is developing a position on a common issue.
The Director and the Joint Staff suppxjrt the Chairman in meeting the Congres-
sional purpose set forth in law to provide for unified strategic direction of the com-
batant forces, their operation under unified command, and their integration into an
efficient, joint fighting force. F'or these reasons, I would expect frequent interaction
between SOUTHCOM and the Director of the Joint Staff.

Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.

Answer. Title 10, section 165 provides that, subject to the Secretary of Defense
and subject to the authority of combatant commanders, the Secretaries of Military
Departments are responsible for the administration and support of the forces that
are assigned to combatant commands. The authority exercised by a combatant com-
mand over Service components is quite clear, but requires close coordination with
each Service Secretary to ensure there is no infringement upon those lawful respon-
sibilities a Service Secretary alone may discharge.

Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.

Answer. The Service chiefs have two significant roles. First and foremost, they are
responsible for the organization, training, and equipping of their respective Services.
Without the full support and cooperation of the Service chiefs, no CINC can hope
to ensure the preparedness of his assigned forces for whatever missions the NC5A
directs. Second, as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service chiefs are mili-
tary advisors to the NCA and National Security Council. Individually and collec-
tively, the Joint Chiefs are a source of experience and judgment that every CINC
can call upon. If confirmed as CINC SOUTHCOM, I intend to conduct a full dia-
logue with the Chiefs of all four Services and certainly look forward to working with
them.

Question. The other combatant commanders.

COUNTERDRUG OPERATIONS

Question. The committee has been informed that the Department of Defense, in
coordination with governments of source nations, have made a significant impact on
the air transportation of drugs in South America. The committee further under-
stands their illegal goods are using the rivers and other waterways of South Amer-
ican countries.

What is SOUTHCOM doing to reduce the flow of drugs using rivers and other wa-
terways?

Answer. There is a significant challenge within the SOUTHCOM Area of Respon-
sibility (AOR) to control the substantial maritime transit of illegal drugs and
enablers, such as precursor chemicals. The Amazon River is navigable from Iquitos,
Peru to the Atlantic Ocean by 20 fl draft vessels. There are 56,150 miles of navi-
gable (12 ft draft) waterways in the AOR. Additionally, there are 167,675 miles of
usable waterway (in small boats called "cayucas"). To address the challenges fX)sed
by such a maritime network, two component commands, the Special Operations
Command South and Marine Forces South, are the co-sponsors of the U.S. Southern
Command Riverine Steering Group (SCRSG). The S(JRSG provides recommenda-

200

tions on the implementation and management of the U.S. SOUTHCOM Riverine
Counterdrug Campaign Plan.

Also, through its current counterdrug operation, I^ser Strike, SOUTHCOM has
directed and is coordinating a series of maritime transiting assessments, conducted
primarily by Special Forces, Marines, and Coast Guard f)ersonnel in the source zone
countries. These surveys are focusing on each nation's maritime and riverine
counterdrug strategies, capabilities, and intelligence requirements and how the U.S.
Government can best support maritime counterdrug efTorts. Once these assessments
are complete (phase I of Operation I^ser Strike), SOUTHCOM will coordinate the
appropriate responses to assist in strategy development, planning support, training
missions and exercises. Additionally, SOUTHCOM will be armed with pertinent in-
formation to make equipment recommendations to the U.S. State Department and
country teams on how to best utilize limited funds in purchasing the right boats and
right equipment to conduct effective maritime and riverine counterdrug efforts.

In conclusion, SOUTHCOM's mission is to develop and support the riverine
counterdrug capabilities of partner nations in support of Drug l^w Enforcement
Agencies to disrupt, impede, and interdict illegal narcotics trafficking on or adjacent
to waterways.

Question. What assistance is the United States providing to the source nation gov-
ernments to reduce the flow of illegal drugs on rivers and waterways?

Answer. In each source country, U.S. country teams are responsible for coordinat-
ing and approving U.S. Government interagency assistance to host nation govern-
ments. SOUTHCOM provides assistance across six functional areas: Detection and
Monitoring; Intelligence; Planning Assistance; Training; Communications; and Lo-
pstics. One example of this support is Operation Laser Strike, where Special
Forces, Marines, and Coast Guard personnel are currently conducting assessments
of host nation capabilities to conduct maritime and riverine counterdrug operations.
Also, SOUTHCOM provides Joint Planning and Assistance Teams and Tactical
Analysis Teams to ten countries, often collocated in the U.S. Embassies. These
teams provide intelligence information and assist planning visits for the U.S. coun-
try teams, allowing them to provide the right assistance to host nation counterdrug
maritime and riverine efforts.

Efforts to expand regional maritime counterdrug cooperation are also supported
through the CJCS exercise program. For example, last year Joint Task F'orce Bravo
in Soto Cano Honduras, hosted the first regional maritime counterdrug exercise to
involve military leaders from Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and
Mexico. Conducted at multiple locations in Central America, this exercise was tai-
lored to small unit maritime and riverine interdiction operations to interrupt contra-
band activities.

Question. The President recently sent a request to the Congress to rescind $250
million in funds appropriated to the Department of Defense and subsequently pro-
vided to the various government agencies for counter-narcotics activities. One item
on the list would transfer three P-3 aircraft to the Customs Agency for use in track-
ing drug smugglers in the Caribbean area. What effect would this transfer have on
the OPTEMPO of other DOD assets currently being used to track drug smugglers?

Answer. Because the total counterdrug Airborne Early Warning (AEW) require-
ment will continue to exceed available systems, this increase in USCS capability
will not reduce the OI'TEMPO of DOD AEW systems like the USAF E-3B AWACS
and the USN E-2C Hawkeye. In fact, this addition will serve to partially fill an ex-
isting shortfall in (AEW) systems. The USCS already provides the majority of the
AEW radar and counterdrug interceptor support within SOUTHCOM's AOR.

SOUTHCOM enjoys excellent interagency cooperation with the USCS through the
Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-South) located in Panama. In total,
there are forty-five USCTS personnel providing counterdrug support to SOUTHCOM.
There are two permanently assigned personnel to the SOUTHCOM headquarters:
a USCS Advisor and an Operations Officer.

Question. Current plans call for placing a relocatable-over-the-horizon radar
(ROTHR) in I^ierto Rico to help track drug trafficking activities in South America.
The committee understands this placement has been delayed. What actions are cur-
rently being taken to deploy this radar?

Answer. The ROTHR placement was delayed largely due to local political opposi-
tion to placing it on public lands within I^ierto Rico. The United States Navy, which
is the Executive Agent for ROTHR, has developed a revised program to locate the
ROTHR at Fort Allen, on U.S. Government property. This plan includes a program
schedule to achieve initial operating capability (IOC) not later than September 1999;
however, I understand U.S. Atlantic (Jommand has requested that the Navy expe-
dite the schedule to ensure IOC prior to September 1999.

201

UNIFIKD COMMAND PLAN

Question. The President has approved a two-phased reshaping of Southern Com-
mand's area of responsibility (AOR) whereby Atlantic and Pacific waters adjacent
to the Central and South American landmass were added to the AOR on January
1, 1996 and the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and the included islands will be added
when directed by the Secretary of Defense but not earlier than June 1, 1997. As
the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy (J5) you were deeply involved in the UCP
review process.

What is the rationale for this decision and when do you believe the second phase
should take place?

Answer. The decision to increase the SOUTHCOM AOR to include the Atlantic
and Pacific waters adjacent to the Central and South American landmass and even-
tually the Caribbean, was meant to strengthen our ability to conduct integrated air,
land, and sea operations throughout the region — that is, full three dimensional
battlespace. It will further allow SOUTHCOM to significantly increase opportunities
to interact with the Naval forces of Central and South America. Together, these
changes to the Unified Command Plan will support U.S. efforts to address Latin
America and the Caribbean as a single region and will enhance SOUTHCOM's abil-
ity to coherently and consistently address common issues. Also, it will allow a single
CINC to control all military operations from the source zone through the entire
transit zone — enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of counterdrug operational
support, as well as other important missions.

Additionally, this AOR shift, permits USACOM more time to focus on their impor-
tant and expanding functional role as the Joint F^orce Integrator, as well as their
significant geographic responsibilities in the Atlantic as SACLANT.

The first phase of the transition has already occurred smoothly. I fully expect the
Secretary of Defense to order the execution of the second phase and shift the Carib-
bean basin to SOUTHCOM during the early summer of 1997. I do not expect any
problems in executing the shift smoothly and professionally, and I believe June, or
July 1997 is an optimal time for the transition to occur. I believe all required re-
sources will be in place to make the transition occur smoothly. SOUTHCOM and
USACOM planners are working with the Joint Staff and the Services to ensure this
occurs.

Question. Do you support the addition of Mexico to SOUTHCOM's AOR?

Answer. Responsibility for Mexico is not currently assigned to a geographic CINC,
but to the Secretary of Defense, with advice from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. I believe the special relationship we share with Mexico by virtue of sharing
a long and important land border argues for not changing this security relationship
at this time. Secretary Perry has made a concerted effort to forge a stronger bilat-
eral security relationship with Mexico, evidenced by a historical visit to Mexico in
October 1995, and subsequent meetings with his counterpart, General Cervantes. I
would offer, however, that SOUTHCOM should closely follow events in Mexico since
it is an important regional economic partner to many of the countries of the Western
Hemisphere, including our own. Mexico's contributions to the overall counterdrug ef-
fort are also vital to achieving a successful regional approach to this common men-
ace. SOUTHCOM already has an established relationship with Mexico, having re-
sponsibility for Security Assistance matters and having had Mexican observers at
several regional exercises and conferences.

RELOCATION OK SOUTHCOM HKADQUARTERS

Question. What is the status of the relocation of the SOUTHCOM headquarters
to Miami?

Answer. SOUTHCOM's relocation to Miami was announced by President Clinton
on 29 March 1995. Since then, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed an
environmental analysis resulting in a finding of no significant impact; an economic
analysis that supported leasing the headquarters building; and a market survey
finding adequate facilities for competitive leasing in the vicinity of the Miami Inter-
national Airport. Congress approved the request for lease (Title 10 Notification) on
31 August 1995. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a solicitation for offers
for the new headquarters facility in November 1995. The site selection and lessor
(SMPO Properties, Inc.) were announced in Miami on 15 March 1996. Ground
breaking ceremonies are expected the last week of May 1996, with completion
scheduled for March 1997. SOUTHCOM anticipates it will begin moving into their
new headquarters during the summer of 1997.

202

MAINTKNANCE OF A U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN PANAMA

Question. President Clinton and Panamanian President Balladares agreed to hold
exploratory talks to discuss possible stationing of some U.S. Forces in Panama be-
yond December 31, 1999.

What is the status of the exploratory talks?

Answer. The process of the exploratory talks is still evolving. The official talks
originally scheduled for November 1995 were postponed. This gave both govern-
ments time to undertake serious studies and analyses of the two options: a contin-
ued U.S. military presence or total withdrawal. TTie very able U.S. Ambassador to
Panama, Mr. William Hughes, has been holding informal discussions with the Pan-
amanian Foreign Minister and other members of the Government of Panama to
frame the conaitions to further exploratory talks. We expect these talks to begin
within the next 2 months. Any solution will not jeopardize our existing excellent re-
lations with the Government of Panama.

Question. In your view, what missions would U.S. forces perform and how many
troops would be required to perform those missions?

Answer. U.S. forces would continue to perform the same missions they perform
today: protect lives, property, and interest in maintaining the neutrality of the
canal; promote regional counterdrug efforts and conduct counterdrug training; pro-
vide logistical support for regional contingencies, humanitarian and civic assistance
projects and military training; and promote and support U.S. commitments in the
region.

To perform these missions, SOUTHCOM would require a reduced engagement
force of 4,000-5,000 permanently and temporarily assigned U.S. Forces on 7 inter-
def)endent defense sites that include Howard AFB (a C-5 capable air operations
base and counterdrug operations center). Fort Kobbe (an aviation and engineering
support base), Rodman Naval Station (a visible, naval support base with regional
small boat and riverine counterdrug training and support facilities), Corozal (a com-
mand communications and troop support base). Fort Clayton (a contingency oper-
ations and support base). Fort Snerman (current site of the Jungle Training School),
and Galeta Island (a HF/DF and search and rescue communications facility).

OPERATIONAL TEMPO

Question. How have American commitments in Bosnia, Haiti, and other areas af-
fected the operational tempo of Southern Command forces?

Answer. To date, no SOUTHCOM requirement has been turned down due to U.S.
commitments in other theaters. However, they are clearly competing for the same
finite resources. Assuming military requirements do not grow appreciably,
SOUTHCOM should be able to sustain their programs in the future witn limited
impact on operations tempo.

Historically, Operations and Personnel Tempo (OI'TFIMPO) for units based in the
SOUTHCOM AOli has been within acceptable limits and it is not anticipated that
this will change in the future. The use of Reserve Component personnel to augment
active duty troops in meeting requirements is an important factor in maintaining
a sustainable OPTEMPO. For example, last year over 40 percent of the personnel
deployed to SOUTHCOM (over 20,000 troops) were from the Reserve Component or
National Guard. Additionally, the nature of SOUTHCOM participation in contin-
gencies and lengthy operations, such as counterdrug support, requires fewer, but
longer deployments to enhance effectiveness and continuity. The maximum length
of time for deployments in SOUTHCOM is 179 days and, when appropriate, forward
basing in theater.

.MAJOR CHALLENGES

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Com-
mander in Chief, United States Southern Command?

Answer. If confirmed, a major focus of my efforts will be to ensure SOUTHCOM
remains postured to accomplish its current missions and regional initiatives such
as supporting the William.sburg Principles from the Defense Ministerial of the
Americas, while simultaneously restructuring the command for enhanced effective-
ness in the future.

The move of the SOUTHCOM headquarters to Miami in the summer of 1997 will
greatly enhance the Command's regional effectiveness and, with its improved com-
munications systems, will strengthen our ability to effectively command and control
assif^ned forces. Concurrent with SOUTHCOM's move is the rcalignmeni of respon-
sibilities under the new Unified Command Plan. SOUTHCOM has already assumed
control of the waters surrounding Central and South America and is preparing to

203

assume responsibility for the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the included island
nations. They are coordinating closely with the Joint Staff, U.S. Atlantic Command,
and other commands to realign plans and resources to ensure a smooth transition.

Another significant task for SOUTHCOM is their mission to fully comply with the
provisions oi the Panama Canal Treaties and the withdrawal of U.S. military f)er-
sonnel from Panama. SOUTHCOM has been working closely with the U.S. Embassy
and the Government of Panama to develop and execute a comprehensive plan to
complete US military withdrawal by 31 December 1999. If our two governments
should decide it is in our mutual interests to maintain a U.S. military presence be-
yond that date, SOUTHCOM is prepared to support such a decision with an appro-
priate force structure.

Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these challenges?

Answer. First, I would solicit increased regional engagement of the militaries of
our allies by means of multilateral-focused exercise programs, with expansion of our
naval and counterdrug initiatives. Also, I will continue to focus and expand the com-
mand's many initiatives with U.S. Ambassadors and country teams throughout the
region to develop confidence and security building measures among the Nations of
the hemisphere. Two prime examples that recently demonstrate that commitment
were the highly successful SOUTHCOM -sponsored Human Rights Conference held
this past February and the I^tin American Strategy Symposium held in April. The
results of both of these conferences opened dialog among their many participants,
which has continued beyond even our most fervent expectations. In short,
SOUTHCOM has engaged the region effectively and responsibly, placing the empha-
sis where it belongs. N^ intent is to continue that emphasis, expanding it to include
the additional responsibilities inherent in SOUTHCOM's enlarged area of respon-
sibility.

MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems of the functions
of Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command?

Answer. At this time, I do not feel qualified to answer this question. In my per-
sonal opinion, however, I am very impressed with the accomplishments of recent
SOUTHCOM CINCS, specifically. Generals Joulwan and McCaffrey, who were ex-
tremely successful commanders in this theater. I hope that 1 am able to follow their
outstanding leadership examples.

Question. What management actions and time lines would you establish to ad-
dress these problems?

Answer. Again, I must defer answering this question until I have had some time
in command, to observe the functions of the Commander in Chief first hand. It
would be rash to make any judgments on problem areas or offer any solutions until
I have the opportunity to 'walk in those shoes." I feel I will be much better equipped
to offer this committee a prudent response to this question when I return next year
to offer my annual Statement on Military Posture, if in fact there are any serious
problems.

QUALIFICATIONS

Question. If confirmed, you will be entering this important position at a time of
heightened tensions and increased focus on counter drug operations. Wha* ack-
ground and experience do you have that you believe qualifies you for this ' ,tion?

Answer. In the 26 months I have served as the Director for Strategic ^ .is and
Policy on the Joint Staff, we have been involved with a number of imp ant and
critical national policy issues, to include Haiti, Bosnia, Landmines, and numerous
multinational treaties and weapxins conventions. Key to each of these issues was co-
ordinating and working with the interagency, the regional and functional command-
ers in chief and the Services to formulate recommendations on military policy for
approval by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. This experience at the national,
international and interagency level has provided me with a practical understanding
of the formulation of policy and more importantly a greater understanding of the
operational aspects of employing military resources in support of our national inter-
ests.

As an operational warfighter, I have had the opportunity and privilege to com-
mand at every level in the Army through division command, including company
command in combat. Throughout my career, I have served in key positions and
helped develop and teach the doctrine that serves our Nation's military forces today.
Included in each of these assignments was the training of combat leaders in the art
of applying doctrine and warfighting concepts across the spectrum of military oper-
ations to tough, realistic field training exercises.

204

I believe I have a solid background and expertise to further our Nation's interests,
employ military systems from the Services, and assume responsibility for implemen-
tation of the military's roles and responsibilities in l^tin America and the Carib-
bean.

CONGRKSSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities, it is im-
portant that this Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress are
able to receive testimony, briefings, and other communications of information.

Do yoy agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee
and other appropriate committees of the Congress?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the administration in power?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee, or des-
ignated members of this Committee, and provide information, subject to appropriate
and necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as the Com-
mander in Chief, United States Southern Command?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of information are provided to this Committee and its staff and other appro-
priate Committees?

Answer. Yes.

[Questions for the record with answers supphed follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Dirk Kempthorne

SOUTHCOM counter-narcotics EFFORTS

Senator Kempthorne. General Clark, five Andean nations, three of which are the
world's biggest cocaine producers, pledged to step up the fight against drugs and
announced the creation of a body to coordinate its efiorts. Representatives from Bo-
livia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela said the new task force will seek to
exchange information and share resources in order to tackle more efficiently the
fight against drugs. Will the United States provide additional technical assistance
to these nations? Also, are there any joint U.S. — South American training exercises
specifically designed to improve counter-narcotics operations and intelligence collec-
tions?

General CLARK. I will answer the second part of your question first, and address
the training exercises specifically designed to improve counternarcotics operations
and intelligence collections. Currently, USSOUTHCOM's role within the Depart-
ment of Defense in the counter drug struggle is about 1 percent of the total Federal
dollars spent on this problem, roughly $135 million in fiscal year 1995. As a point
of reference, USSOUTHCOM has 375 personnel deployed on an average day, and
in 1995, 49 training missions (pxjrsonnel from all Services) were specifically oriented
toward the counterdrug mission.

We have Special Operation Forces that have provided small unit tactics and emer-
gency medical training to the Bolivians, Peruvians and Colombian police and armed
forces. We have personnel who assist our embassies. Some 300 to 400 personnel at
a given time are assisting in the planning of operations with the country team and
with host Nation governments. Then, finally, we deploy some personnel and equip-
ment on operational missions — for example, there are five Air Force ground-based
radar stations deployed in I^atin American countries. These radars, along with other
assets such as AWACS, are instrumental in allowing us to fuse and share intel-
ligence in our overall regional effort.

We are cognizant that the cooperation of regional allies is paramount to our suc-
cess in the counterdrug mi.ssion. Over the years we have had numerous joint and
combined training and operations with host Nations in the I.atin American region,
and most recently, operations Green Clover and leaser Strike highlight the growing
cooperation we attempt to encourage. Operation Green Clover focused on the "air
briages" of illegal drug transit. This 60-day surge operation involved 10 Latin Amer-
ican countries (to include Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, and Ecuador), over 575 de-
ployed personnel and 32 regional deployments. The success and regional participa-
tion of this exercise infiuenced our decision to expand those successes with operation
Laser Strike.

205

Laser Strike is focused not only on the "air bridges" of transit, but also on the
maritime conduits. leaser Strike is a 90-day surge operation involving 6 Latin Amer-
ican countries (Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Brazil). The objec-
tives of this on-going operation are to expand regional cooperative engagement,
build on interagency cooperation, and ultimately, put increased pressure on drug
traffickers.

With respect to the first part of your question, the Nations of Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela comprise the Andean Pact. This regional body re-
cently pledged to increase their efforts to promote economic development, and fight
terrorism and illegal drugs. USSOUTHCOM's operation leaser Strike, which I just
discussed, is committed to providing the technical, training and operational support
necessary to complement both U.S. and regional efforts to combat illegal drug activi-
ties.

MILITARY TRAINING IN LATIN AMERICA

Senator Kempthorne. General Clark, can you give me your thoughts on the role
that US military training plays in developing a respect for democracy in Latin
America?

General ClaRK. Senator Kempthorne, at various levels, U.S. training plays a
unique role in developing respect for democracy among the military in Latin Amer-
ica. First, there is a direct impact. Whenever our forces train soldiers in Latin
America, there is always a component of that training aimed at stressing the impor-
tance of the protection of human rights and respect for constitutional and civilian
elected authority.

More indirectly, but at even deeper levels, U.S. training provides a lasting influ-
ence on the soldiers we instruct and with whom we operate. U.S. training entails
exposure to U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, who are the world's best rep-
resentatives of military respect for democracy. These military trainers provide in-
valuable service as examples and role models for the values inherent in the ways
professional military soldiers and officers show respect for our elected civilian lead-
ership and our constitution.

One of our most successful programs in this regard has been our International
Military Education and Training Program (IMET). For relatively little investment,
we have an opportunity to positively infiuence the most promising leaders of our
Latin American allies through participation in numerous functional, technical and
leadership courses. Additionally, SOUTHCOM routinely hosts conferences and semi-
nars with a variety of military groups, academics and non-governmental organiza-
tions on subjects such as the military's role in the protection of human rights and
changing military roles in the region. The impact of such conferences and training
has a pervasive, lasting and positive infiuence on our regional military counterparts
and their respect for democratic governance.

[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Wesley K. Clark, USA, fol-
lows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

April 19, 1996.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named officer for reappointment to the grade of general while as-
signed to a position of importance ana responsibility under Title 10, United States
Code, Section 601(a):

To he General
Lt. Gen. Wesley K. Clark, 5682, United States Army.

[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Wesley K. Clark, USA,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomina-
tion was referred, follows:]

206

Resume of Service Career of Lt. Gen. Wesley Kanne Clark

Date and place of birth: 23 December 1944, Chicago, Illinois.

Years of active commissioned service: Over 29.

Present assignment: Director for Strategic Flans and Policy Directorate (J-5), The

Joint StafT, Washington, DC 20318-5000, since April 1994.
Military schools attended:

Armor Officer Basic and Advanced Courses.

United States Army Command and General Staff College.

National War College.
Educational degrees:

United States Military Academy — BS Degree — No Major.

Oxford University — MA Degree — Philosophy, Politics and Economics.

United States Army Command and General Staff College — MMA Degree — Mili-
tary Science.
Foreign language(s): Russian.

MAJOR DUTY ASSIGNMEf^S

Assijnmert

Aug 66
Aug 68
Oct 68
Jan 69
Jul 69
Jan 70

Aug 68
Oct 68
Dec 69
May 69
Jan 70
Feb 70

May 70

Sep 70

Oct 70
May 71

May 71
Jul 71

Jul 71

Jul 74

Aug 74
Aug 75

Jun 75
Aug 76

Aug 76

Aug 77

Feb 78

Jun 79

Aug 79
Feb 80
Jun82
Jul 83

Feb 80
Jun 82
Jun 83
Sep 83

Oct 83
Aug 84
Apr 86
Apr 88

Jul 84
Jan 86
Mar 88
Oct 89

Oct 89
Oct 91

Oct 91
Aug 92

Aug 92

Apr 94

Student, Magdalen College. Oxford University, Oxford, England

Student. Armor Officer Basic Course. United States Army Armor School, Fort Knox, Kentucky.

Student, Ranger Course. United States Army Infantry Scfiool. Fort Benning. Georgia

Commander. Company A, 4th Battalion, 68th Armor, Fort Riley, Kansas.

Assistant G-3 (Operations) Officer. 1st Infantry Division. United States Army Vietnam.

Commander, Company A, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry (Mechanized) 1st Infantry Division, Unit-
ed States Army Vietnam.

Commander, C Company, 6th Battalion, 32d Armor, 194th Armored Brigade, Fort Knox, Ken-
tucky

Armor Officer Advanced Course. United States Army Armor School. Fort Knox. Kentucky.

Staff Officer. Plans Group. Office. Special Assistant for the Modern Volunteer Army. Office of
the Chief of Staff. United States Army. Washington, DC

Instructor, later Assistant Professor of Social Science, United States Military Academy, West
Point, New York

Student, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

White House Fellow. Office of the Director of Management and Budget, Old Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC,

S-3 (Operations) Officer, 3d Battalion, 35th Armor, 1st Armored Division, United States Army
Europe, Germany

S-3 (Operations) Officer, 3d Brigade, 1st Armored Division, United States Army Europe, (jcr-
many

Assistant Executive Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe, Brussels, Belgium.

Executive Officer, 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado.

Commander, 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado.

Student. National War College. Fort Lesley J McNair. Washington. DC

Chief. Plans Integration Division. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans.
United States Army. Washington. DC

Chief. Army Studies Group. Office of the Chief of Staff, United States Army. Washington. DC

Commander, Operations Group, National Training Center, Fort Irwin. California

Commander. 3d Brigade. 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized). Fort Carson. Colorado

Director. Battle Command Training Program, United States Army Command and General Staff
College. Fort Leavenworth. Kansas

Commanding General. National Training Center. Fort Irwin, California

Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine, and Developments, United States Army Training
and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia

Commanding General, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood. Texas.

DATES OF APPOINTMENT

Pfomolions

Temporary

Permanent

2LT

8 Jun 66
8 Jun 67
8 Jun 68

8 Jun 66

ILT

8 Jun 69

CPT

8 Jun 73

207

DATES OF APPOINTMENT— Continued

Pfomotions

Tempofaiy

MAJ
LTC
COL
BG .
MG.
LTG

11 Jun 75
13 Aug 79

4 Apr 94

8 Jun 80

1 Oct 83
1 Nov 89
1 Sep 92

U.S. decorations and badges:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal.

Distinguished Service Medal.

Silver Star.

Legion of Merit (with 3 Oak I>eaf Clusters).

Bronze Star Medal (with Oak I^eaf Cluster).

Purple Heart.

Meritorious Service Medal (with Oak I^af Cluster).

Army Commendation Medal (with Oak Ixsaf Cluster).

Combat Infantryman Badge.

Parachutist Badge.

Ranger Tab.

Army Staff Identification Badge.
Source of commission: USMA.

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS

Assignment

Dates

Grade

White House Fellow, Office of the Director of Management and Budget.

Aug 75-Aug 76

Major.

Old Executive Office Building, Washington, DC.

Assistant Executive to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Su-

Feb 78-Jun 79

Ma)or.

preme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Brussels, Belgium

Director for Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate (J-5), The Joint Staff,

Apr 94-Present

Lieutenant General.

Washington, DC

As of 30 January 19%

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial, and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by, Lt. Gen. Wesley K. Clark, USA, in connec-
tion 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 FOR CERTAIN SENIOR MILITARY POSITIONS

Instructions to the Nominee: 1. Complete all requested information. If more
space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B— 4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

2. If you have completed this form in connection with a prior military nomination,
you may use the following procedure in lieu of submitting a new form. In your letter

208

to the Chairman (see Item 2 of the attached information), add the following para-
graph to the end:

"I hereby incorporate by reference the information and commitments con-
tained in the Senate Armed Services Committee form 'Biographical and Finan-
cial Information Requested of Nominees for Certain Senior Military Positions,'
submitted to the committee on [insert date or your prior form). I agree that all
such commitments apply to the position to which I have been nominated and
that all such information is current except as follows: . . . " [If any information
on your prior form needs to be updated, please cite the part of the form and
the question number and set forth the updated information in your letter to the
Chairman.]

Part A— Biographical Information

Instructions to the Nominkk: 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.)
Clark, Wesley Kanne.

Kanne, Wesley J. from 441223 until 550905.

2. Position to which nominated:

Commander in Chief, United States Southern Command.

3. Date of nomination:
April 19, 1996.

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 23, 1944; Chicago, Illinois.

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

7. Names and ages of children:
Wesley K. Clark II, 26.

White House Fellowship Commission.

9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an officer, direc-
tor, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corpwra-
tion, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, educational or other
institution.

Partner, Summit View ('/» owner of ski condo in Dillon, CO).

10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

Member of AUSA; Council on Foreign Relations; Association of Graduates
(USMA).

Rhodes Scholar, 1966-68; White House PY-Uow, 1975-76.

12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power?

Yes.

209

Signature and Date

Wesley K. Ci>ark.

This fifth day of April 1996.

[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Wesley K. Clark, USA, was reported
to the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on June 13, 1996, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomi-
nation was confirmed by the Senate on June 20, 1996.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, USAF,
by Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]

Department of Defense,

The Joint Staff,
Washington. DC. May 17, 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond,

Chairman. Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the questions
from the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is an honor to have been nominated
to be Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command and Commander, Air Mo-
bility Command. I respectfully submit the enclosed responses to your questions on
the important defense policy and management issues and look forward to working
with you and the conrimittee.
Sincerely,

Walter Kross,

Lieutenant General, USAF,

Director, Joint Staff.

Enclosure,
cc: Senator Sam Nunn,

Ranking Minority Member.

Questions and Responses

DEFENSE reforms

Question. More than 9 years have passed since the enactment of the Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and Special Operations
reforms. You have had an opportunity to observe the implementation and impact
of these reforms, particularly in your assignment as Director of the Joint Staff.

Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes, I strongly support the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and its
provisions. They have unquestionably strengthened our Armed Forces and the
warfighting combatant commanders.

Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?

Answer. I believe the entire Department of Defense has vigorously and success-
fully pursued implementation of these important reforms.

Question. What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. The most positive aspect is the overall improvement of our joint
warfighting ability. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has resulted in much needed im-

210

provements in joint doctrine, joint professional military education, and strategic

Rlanninff. Another important element is clarity in the chain of command from tne
fational Command Authorities to the combatant commanders and unambiguous re-
sponsibility placed upon each CINC for execution of mission and preparedness of as-
signed forces. Clearly, the legislation has accomplished what Congress intended.

Question. Based upon your experience and your assignment as Director of the
Joint Staff, do you believe that the role of the Service Chiefs as Members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff under Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the poli-
cies and processes in existence allow that role to be fulfilled?

Answer. Yes. The Service Chiefs are provided with the requisite authority and
mechanisms to fully execute the direction of each particular branch of the Armed
Forces. As members of the JCS, the Service Chiefs (and the Vice Chairman) fre-

Suently help the Chairman, JCS, formulate his military advice to the Secretary of
lefense and the President. I fully believe that the existing provisions of Title 10
use ensure equal access to resources and priorities for all of the Services.

RKlJ\TIONSHIPS

The Under Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. Under current DOD Directives, Under Secretaries of Defense coordinate
and exchange information with DOD components, such as combatant commands,
having collateral or related functions. As a combatant commander I will respond
and reciprocate. This coordination shall be communicated through the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C^I and
Legislative Affairs, all Assistant Secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under
Secretaries of Defense. This means any relationship TRANSCOM would require
with any Assistant Secretary of Defense would be through the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, and the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology. Since
the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C^I and IjCgislative AfTairs are SecDefs
principal deputies for overall supervision of C^I and IjCgislative matters respec-
tively, any relations required between TRANSCOM and ASTXC^I) or ASD(LA) would
be conducted along the same lines as those discussed above regarding relations with
the various Under Secretaries of Defense.

Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Chairman is clearly established by title 10 as the principal military
advisor to the NCA. However, he serves as an advisor and is not, according to the
law, in the chain of command that runs from the NCA directly to each combatant
commander. The law does allow the President to direct that communications be-
tween him and the Secretary of Defense be transmitted through the Chairman, and
President Clinton has directed this to happen in the recently revised Unified Com-
mand Plan. This action keeps the Chairman fully involved so that he can execute
his other legal responsibilities. Certainly a key responsibility is his role as spokes-
man for the CINCTs, especially on the operational requirements of their respective
commands.

While the legal duties of the Chairman arc many and they require either his rep-
resentation or personal participation in a wide range of issues, as a CINC, I will
have the obligation to keep the Secretary of Defense promptly informed on matters
for which he may hold me personally accountable. A CINC's duty is to work with
and through— and never around— the Chairman to provide for the security of his
command and execute NCA-directed taskings.

Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. When functioning as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's relation-
ship with CINCs is exactly that of the Chairman. The 103rd Congress amended title
10 to ^ve the Vice Chairman the same right and obligation that other members of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to submit an opinion or advice to the President, Na-
tional Security Council, or Secretary of Defense if their views disagree with those
of the Chairman. As a CINC, I would readily listen to Vice Chairman's thoughts
on any general defense matter considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. F'inally, be-
cause the Vice Chairman also plays a key role on many boards and panels that ef-

211

feet programming and thc»-efore the preparedness of TRANSCOM, I believe his in-
sights are extremely valuable and I would certainly seek his counsel.

Question. The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Unified Command I'lan makes the CINC the single point of contact
for providing US military representation within his assigned responsibilities. To
meet this responsibility, CINCs must be fully engaged in the interagency process
as it considers matters under their purview. I know that the Assistant to tne Chair-
man has an extensive charter to represent the Chairman in the interagency process.
While there are no direct lines connecting the Assistant to the Chairman to any
combatant commander, what the Assistant knows and can share about the inter-
agency process with any CINC is useful and will be requested. The Assistant to the
(Jnairman also works on matters of personal interest to the Chairman which may
require him to consult with me as a combatant commander.

Question. The Director of the Joint Staff.

Answer. This relationship is a very familiar one to me. The Director of the Joint
Staff has many significant responsibilities which require interaction with
TRANSCOM. Most impxjrtantly, the Director is generally the point of contact for so-
liciting information from all the CINCs when the Chairman is developing a position
on any important issue.

Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.

Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.

Answer. As a result of Goldwater-Nichols, Service Chiefs are no longer involved
in the operational chain of command. They now have two significant roles. First and
foremost, they are responsible for the organization, training, and equipping of their
respective Service. Without the full support and cooperation of the Service Chiefs,
no CINC can hope to ensure the preparedness of his assigned forces for whatever
missions the NCA directs. Next, as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service
Chiefs have a lawful obligation to provide military advice. Individually and collec-
tively, the Joint Chiefs are a source of experience and judgment that every CINC
can call upxjn. If confirmed as Commander-in-Chief, TRANSCOM, I intend to con-
duct a full dialogue with the Chiefs of all four Services.

Question. The combatant commanders.

Answer. My relationship with the other combatant commanders will be one of mu-
tual support, continued dialog on key issues, and frequent face-to-face interaction
during periodic CINCs conferences and other meetings as required. In today's secu-
rity environment, an atmosphere of teamwork and complete trust is critical to exe-
cuting U.S. national policy.

MOVEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS

Question. The Department of Defense intends to reengineeer the Military Traffic
Management Command's movement of household goods.

What are the goals of this reengineering effort?

Answer. The current level of service provided to DOD for shipment of household
good services is unacceptable and negatively impacts the quality of life of all service
members and their families.

1. DOD pays over $1B to 1200 commercial carriers annually to effect over
700,000 moves.

2. Damage and loss occurs in approximately 25 percent of the moves with
claims over $100M in fiscal year 1994. Carriers pay 65 percent, DOD pays
the balance. In comparison, corporate industry customers claims range from
negligible to 14 percent.

3. There are two complementary tests planned to improve the level of
household good services. One test is under the auspices of Military Traffic
Management Command (MTMC) and the other under the Army.

MTMC is engaged in a Reengineering effort focused on the method by which HHG
services are procured. The goals are as follows: (a) to eliminate government con-
tainer requirements, and (b) incorporate commercial practices in the bidding and
award process, quality assurance measures and payment procedures.

Question. To what extent is industry being included in the planning of this re-
engineering initiative?

212

Answer. TRANSCOM asked for input and modified its plan because of it. MTMC
has participated in more than 50 meetings/visits with inaustry to present concepts
with them and gather their advice. Based on industry input MTMC's proposal has
been modified, incorporating over 30 suggestions by industry. Most recent meeting
with carrier representatives took place March 20, 1996 dealing with industries con-
cerns pertaining to "winner-take-all" concept where modifications were explained
showing multiple contractor awards based on greatest value to DOD given cat-
egories of services emanating from a region.

Question. What is the status of the pilot program?

Answer. MTMC was pursuing an aggressive schedule for proceeding with the pilot
program. Originally they intended to publish the draft solicitation by the end of
May, have a pre-proposal conference in September, and award contracts by the end
of December. Contract execution was planned for January 1997. However, based on
recent House and Senate Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization Bill marks, it appears the
schedule is likely to be adjusted to accommodate Congressional intent.

Question. Will there be a full and complete cost-benefit analysis completed before
any pilot program is adopted for implementation?

Answer. The purpose of the pilot program is to determine if better service with
lower claims incidence and expense can be realized for the service member and the
taxpayer. Once the pilot is complete, an independent third party, still to be deter-
mined, will assemble and analyze the test results. DOD has no intention of proceed-
ing beyond the pilot program until the results of this analysis are reviewed and
shared with all concerned, to include industry.

STRATEGIC LIFT

Question. The C-17 program should bolster Air Mobility Command's contribution
to TRANSCOM's opxjrational capabilities. What are your recommendations for the
C-17 program following the multi-year contract?

Answer. I believe, as does the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CINCs,
and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, who has testified to Congress, one of the
top funding priorities is completion of the 120 C-17 aircraft buy. Additionally, in
the outyears there are a number of difficult issues which will confront the airlift,
and air refueling aircraft, Heets. Foremost of these is the eventual replacement of
C-5 and KC-135 as these aircraft reach the end of their service life. This may have
a great impact on a potential follow-on to the C-17 multi-year procurement pro-
gram. At this time, I am keeping an open mind on the best strategy to address these
issues.

Question. With the post-Cold War decrease in U.S. presence overseas, we have be-
come more reliant on overseas enroute transportation and staging bases for force
projection. What challenges do you foresee in maintaining the accessibility and oper-
ational effectiveness of our enroute transpxjrtation and logistics infrastructure? How
will you deal with these challenges?

Answer. As you know, the United States possesses the world's most effective stra-
tegic mobility capability. This capability has translated into the U.S. having influ-
ence and being engaged around the world, shaping the world's future events rather
than standing on tne sidelines watching them nappcn. To continue with this domi-
nance, strategic mobility must have "assured access" to overseas airfields. Assured
access translates into the necessary runway ramp space, refueling capabilities, and
base operating support such as maintenance, beds, food, and communications. All
of these are critical for strategic mobility to support contingencies around the world.
OPERATION JOINT ENDEAVOR highlighted the need to exercise and to properly
maintain critical en route bases, such as the reopening of Rhein-Main Air Base in
Germany. Currently Rhein-Main must go from a caretaker status to full operational
capability in a very short time period. Further, "assured access" translates into es-
tablishing and maintaining agreements between the U.S. and friendly foreign gov-
ernments. As those agreements are put in place it is vitally important that nec-
essary repair and upgrades — particularly to fuel systems — are funded and completed
on time. To deal with these challenges, U.S. Transportation Command must con-
tinue to play an active role, working through the Joint Staff, the appropriate offices
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the State Department, and the Supporting
Commanders in Chief, to identify the resources and basing needed to support the
warfighters. In addition, we will identify investment requirements to support criti-
cally needed MILCON projects to maintain and improve the aging overseas infra-
structure.

Question. To what extent will the I^arge Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off program
alleviate the shortfall in Roll-on/I'loll-ofr capability?

213

Answer. The LMSR program will contribute significantly to alleviating our surge
sealifl shortfall providing approximately 5.0M so ft of RO/KO capacity; 8 vessels (2M
sq fl) for Army Afloat iT-epositioned F'orces (AWR-3) and 11 vessels (3M sqfl) for
the CONUS-based surge fleet. In addition, as the first five conversion IjMSRs are
fielded in AWR-3, 7 RKF' RO/ROs currently serving as interim prepositioning ships
are planned for return to the surge fieet providing approximately IM sq fl oT capa-
bility. Therefore, when complete in fiscal year 2001, the I>MSR program will have
contributed approximately 40 percent of our surge sealifl requirement, 30 percent
directly and an additional 10 percent by facilitating the return of RRF RO/ROs from
their interim prepositioning role. However, the LMSR program does not directly add
surge capability until fiscaFyear 1999 at the earliest. In the near-term, timely acqui-
sition of other additional RRF RO/RO capability represents the best way to alleviate
the current shortfall.

The Ready Reserve Fleet did not meet the needs during Operation Desert Shield
due primarilv to shortcomings in maintenance and command Interest.

Question. How will you ensure the readiness of this fieet to meet mission require-
ments?

Answer. USCENCTRANS defines the readiness requirements for stratemc lift, as-
sets. As it applies to sealift, this includes the readiness levels within the Ready Re-
serve Force (RRF). These readiness requirements are developed by USTRANSCOM
in conjunction with the Services and the supported CINCs and take into account
the long term needs, as well as near-term operational requirements. To ensure these
requirements are met, I will advocate the need for the appropriate level of O&M
funding in USTRANSCOM's Integrated IMority List, through the Joint Require-
ments Oversight Council (JROC) and ultimately to the Congress through testimony.
Finally, by working closely with MARAD and the Navy Stan, and by directing MSC
as our sealift, component, I am able to ensure proper program oversight.

Question. Are you prepared to recommend tne Keady Reserve Fleet be reduced or
reliance on it reaucea in operational plans if you determine that it is not cost effec-
tive or practical to return tne fieet to ready posture?

Answer. First of all, let me address your point on the current readiness posture
of the RRF. While RRF funding was good in the immediate wake of Desert Storm,
readiness suffered over the past few years (fiscal years 1994-95) due to cuts in
O&M funding. The lack of funds resulted in reduced readiness and deferred mainte-
nance on several ships. To protect RRF O&M funding, the funding responsibility
was transferred from DOT to DOD in fiscal year 1996. As a result, in fiscal year
1996 RRF O&M was fully funded and fieet readiness should be fully recovered by
the end of fiscal year. O&M funding looks good across the POM and if required
funds are appropriated/authorized as occurred in fiscal year 1996, the required lev-
els of RRF readiness should be maintained. Assuming the funding picture stays
positive, no significant future loss in readiness is expected. It is important to re-
member that the capability of the RRF at any point in time is a function of not only
the capacity of vessels, but also the ability for these ships to respond by virtue of
the readiness profiles of the force. Until the objective fiscal year 2001 Surge Fleet
of lO.OM sq.ft. capacity is acquired, the readiness level of the current force is critical
to offset the near-term risk associated with the shortfall in capacity. Several less
capable ships, RRF breakbulks, will be retired as larger more capable vessels
(LMSRs, additional RRF RO/ROs) are acquired. This means an overall more capa-
ble, more cost efTective fieet — achieved through a combination of stable O&M fund-
ing and timely necessary ship acquisitions.

To address the rest of your question, assuming deployment requirements do not
change, I do not realistically foresee any circumstances under which we would rec-
ommend reduced reliance upon the RRF. Within the RRF are found capabilities like
no other in the world. The mix of assets in this group of ships, among other things,
provides our core capability to rapidly project heavy forces worldwide. Barring a sig-
nificant shift in the National Military Strategy — as long as we are required to fight
and win a major regional contingency, we will rely heavily on the contribution to
our strategic sealift equation of the RRF.

TRANSCOM is comprised of the Army's Military Traffic Management Command,
the Navy's Military Sealift Command, and the Air Force's Air Mobility Command.
In most plans, the Army is the supported force, while the Navy and Air F'orce assets
are in a supporting role.

Question. In light of the expressed intent of this Committee that the traditional
service linkages to specific CINC positions be reviewed, why, in your opinion, has
the Commander TRANSCOM traditionally been an Air Force officer?

Answer. In my opinion, the fact that the previous Commanders in Chief of U.S.
TRANSCOM have been Air Force officers is a matter of coincidence. The first CINC,
General Duane H. Cassidy, was the commander of the Military Airlift Command at

214

the time TRANSCOM was activated. The Secretary of Defense, with recommenda-
tion from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to recommend the Presi-
dent appoint General Cassidy as the first CINC.

Regarding the subsequent three CINCS, it is my belief that the Secretaries of De-
fense at those times determined that Generals Johnson, Fogleman and Rutherford
were the most qualified of all the superb candidates nominated by their respective
Services.

As you are aware. Congress provided specific legislation in 1995 effecting the
nomination process for senior joint officer positions, including CINC TRANSCOM.
It reauires each Service to nominate an officer for consideration bv the Secretary
of Deiense for recommendation to the IVesident for appointment to tne position. The
idea was to urge the Services to nominate the absolute highest quality officers for
these senior leadership positions. It was also designed to provide the fiexibility to
re-examine any hints of traditional linkage to a specific Service. I realize that my
nomination is the first since the legislation was adopted, but I believe, and hope you
also believe, the letter and intent of the law has been met with my nomination.

It is once again, in my opinion, a matter of coincidence that the Secretary of De-
fense has recommended an Air Force officer for this position as the best qualified
officer.

OPERATIONAL TEMPO

Question. How have American commitments in Bosnia, Haiti and other areas af-
fected the operational tempo of Transportation Command forces?

Answer. Recent operations such as Bosnia, Haiti, and Southwest Asia have kept
USTRANSCOM's 0I'TP:MP0 and PERSTEMPO at high, but not unacceptable lev-
els. Among USTRANSCOM's component commands. Air Mobility Command (AMC)
has the highest Temporary Duty (TDY) rates. The Air Force objective is to limit
Temporary Duty (TDY) to less than 120 days per year. Some heavily tasked skill
sp)ecialties were TDY in excess of 100 days and some individual units were TDY just
under the 120 day threshold over the last 12 months. In addition, MTMC transpor-
tation personnel are averaging 90 days per year. Additional taskings for these units
could drive PERSTEMPO levels above the desired limits.

While Bosnia and other recent contingencies have increased PERSTEMPO and
OPSTEMPO, they also provide our forces realistic training opportunities thus con-
tributing to overall readiness. This is especially true for Guard and Reserve forces
which integrate into joint and combined operations with our active duty forces. Cur-
rently, the command continues to meet the demands placed on it; however, we must
be aware that there is a point where OPTEMPO may impact readiness. This re-
quires our constant monitoring and assessment.

MAJOR CHALLENGES

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Com-
mander in Chief, United States Transportation Command/Commander, Air Mobility
Command? If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these challenges?
Answer. In my view, maintaining the capability and readiness of our Nation's
world-wide strategic deployment and sustainment capability is paramount. I agree
wholeheartedly with the Chaiiman of the Joint Chiefs and his testimony before this
committee this year, "Strategic air and sea lift, complemented by our prepositioning
initiatives, must be our number one warfighting priority." The Defense Transpor-
tation System (DTS) is faced with numerous challenges:

PEOPLE. Within the DTS, the single most important element of the readiness
equation is people. The need for us to provide our professional airmen, soldiers,
and sailors an adequate standard of living must always be a top priority. As
our force levels and budgets continue to decline, we need to keep the faith with
our people by providing adeauate pay and allowances, quality medical care, in-
fiation protected retirement benefits, and adequate housing and family support
programs. With strong Congressional support, wc have made great progress in
the Quality of life area, but more can and should be done. As USCINCTRANS,
I will champion the cause of our people whenever and wherever the opportunity
arises.

HIGH OPERATIONAL TEMPO (OITEMPO) AND READINESS. The DTS has
been heavily tasked to move troops and equipment in support of numerous hu-
manitarian operations, natural disasters, and contingency operations since
DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. This environment of high OI>TEMPO cou-
pled with tightening fiscal constraints requires thorough planning to maintain
an effective force. Currently, the command continues to meet the demands

215

placed on it; however, we must be aware that there is a point where OPTEMPO
may inipact readiness. This requires our constant monitoring and assessment.
MODERNIZATION. I fully support the Mobility Requirements Study Bottom
Up Review Update (MRS BURU) recommended mobility force enhancements.
Timely completion of these enhancements is critical to meeting the lift require-
ments of our expected warfighting scenarios.

— Large Medium Speed Roll-On I Roll-Off (LMSR) Ships: For the foresee-
able future, I see USTRANSCOM's top equipment priority to be completing
the acquisition of 19 LMSRs. This will provide 2M sq ft, for propositioning
and 3M sq ft toward the lOM sq ft, surge lift requirement. Both elements
of this program, conversion of five ships and construction of 14 new vessels,
are well underway and have received strong Congressional support. The
Navy accepted the first conversion I^SR for operational testing last
month. However, delays in conversions have slipped this program 15-22
months behind schedule. Additionally, the new construction program is be-
hind schedule by 4-6 months. We need to move forward with these vital
programs and taxe steps to keep them from slipping any further.

— Ready Reserve Force (RRF): Another priority of our surge sealift pro-
gram is to complete the final RRF acquisitions. To meet the MRS BURU
requirement for lOM sq ft, DOD needs to acquire five more RRF roll-on/
roll-off (RO/RO) ships (500K sq ft) for a total 36 ships. Debate on the best
way to field this necessary capability has been ongoing for several years
and has limited DOD's ability to fiela much needed surge capability in the
near-term. There is much common ground in this debate and there is a pru-
dent, cost-effective solution for both the near and long term which involves
integrating all available options including conversion of existing vessels,
purchase of new vessels, and pursuit of the National Defense Features
(NDF) program. I envision very close cooperation between DOD and the
Congress to put this program back on tracK. The Senate's fiscal year 1997
Defense Authorization mark is very close to that integrated option and I
would urge the full Congress to support the Senate position which I believe
will best serve both the national defense and economic security needs of the
Nation.

— Air Mobility Modernization: I fully support the Milestone IIIB Defense
Acquisition Board (DAB) decision for a full 120 C-17 buy, and recent pro-
posed Congressional language to authorize a multi-year, accelerated buy
program. Beyond the C-17 program, the modernization and maintainability
of our current equipment is absolutely critical. As the C-141 is retired and
replaced with the tremendous capability of the C-17, we must turn our at-
tention to the reliability and inevitable retirement of the C-5A. The C-5A
is not meeting basic reliability and maintainability standards and its oper-
ating costs are double that of our other major weapon systems. Addition-
ally, in order to maximize the effectiveness of our aircraft, we need capable
and reliable material handling equipment (MHE). Current MHE inventory
is old, maintenance-intensive, and falls short of that required to support
two major regional contingencies. In June 1996, the Air Force will oegin
procurement of 318 highly-capable 60K loaders. Concurrently, they are pur-
suing acquisition of the next generation small cargo loader (NGSCL). Acqui-
sition of the 60K and NGSCL will correct current deficiencies and provide
a modernized fieet that supports and enhances AMC's airlift capability.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE As we have reduced U.S. force struc-
ture overseas, we have concurrently reduced the number of locations readily
available to support the rapid deployment of U.S. forces from the CONUS to
theater contingency locations. We depend on transportation infrastructure for
the staging of critical airlift and tanker forces and support of worldwide strate-
gic sealift forces. Our challenge is to ensure return access rights during contin-
fency operations to sufficient transportation infrastructure to guarantee a via-
le global en route system. Also, we must continue to improve our "fort to port"
capabilities. In addition, we must maintain that system in the required operat-
ing condition to support short-notice and sustained mobility operations.
COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS During a contingency the need to rapidly ex-
pand the DTS across all modes and national boundaries is critical. Our ability
to leverage commercial capacity ensures USTRANSCOM can deliver forces, sup-
plies, and equipment on timelines required by the warfighting CINCs. Commer-
cial industry will continue to provide the lion's share of DOD lift capacity and
routinely we will look to commercial carriers, in war and peace, to provide air-
lift, sealift, railcars, seaports, containers, and trucks. However, the excess ca-

216

pacity of the commercial transportation sector is being reduced as they look to
increase asset utilization to survive in an increasingly competitive environment.
In order to ensure the cor-Linued ability of the commercial sector to support the
DTS in the fbture, we must include industry in the planning as well as execu-
tion phases. I will aggressively support programs such as the Civil Reserve Air
Fleet (CRAF) and DOD's new Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA)
in order to make best use of industry's contribution to the DTS.
COMMAND AND CONTROL The rapid fielding of the Global Transportation
Network to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness and maintain in-transit
visibility (ITV) gives the commander necessary information to control the battle-
field. When complete, GTN will facilitate USTRANSCOM's global transpor-
tation management responsibilities during f)eace to war with four components:
ITV, current operations, future operations and patient movement. We expect to
field an operational system in November 1996 with full operational status in
1999

IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DTS
USTRANSCOM's primary mission is to ensure the ability to rapidly deploy
forces and equipment anywhere on the globe on short notice. To do this requires
a force capaole of quickly ramping up from peace to contingency operations.
However, recent GAO and congressional criticism of USTRANSCOM's cost and
organizational structure has put additional pressure on USTRANSCOM to focus
more and more on peacetime ousiness practices to yield efficiency savings. Since
its inception USTRANSCOM has been actively engaged in improving the DTS
and reducing cost. Maintaining readiness in an era of cost cutting is enormously
challenging. It will take constant vigilance to ensure that the optimal balance
between a high state of strategic mobility readiness, customer satisfaction, and
affordability is maintained as we continue down the path of reduced defense
budgets. I will continue efforts already under way to streamline both
USTRANSCOM and the DTS. These efforts will increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the DTS and increase its responsiveness to the needs of the
warfighter of the future.

MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the perform-
ance of the functions of Commander-in-Chief United States Transportation Com-
mand/Commander, Air Mobility Command? What management actions and time
lines would you establish to address these problems?

Answer. The most serious problems I anticipate will be those realities which pro-
hibit me from providing adequate strategic lift to support the theater CINC. If I am
unable to meet the deployment and sustainmcnt plan due to insufficient number or
inadequacy of assets, then I have a very serious problem. Today, my greatest con-
cern is our inability to meet the surge sealifl requirements of our theater command-
ers. Were a major contingency to occur in the near term, we run a serious risk that
sufiicient numbers of U.S. and foreign-fiag commercial ships will not be available
to offset this surge shortfall. While there are programs in place to alleviate this
problem, such as the LMSR program and the purchase of the final five RO/ROs for
our RRF, various program and delivery delays have led us far short of our goal.
Until the surge sealifl gap is closed, we are forced to accept the risk associated with
extended force closure times.

Tlie debate over the best approach to fielding the nation's surge sealifl capability
has gone on in earnest for 3 years now. After reviewing the Chairman's and
USCfi^ICTRANS' testimony this year and recent House and Senate budget mark-
ups, it is clear the DOD and Congress have not reached consensus on this issue.
We should resolve to end the surge sealifl debate this year in a prudent, cost-effec-
tive manner for both the near and long term, which involves integrating all avail-
able options including conversion of existing vessels, purchase of new vessels, and
pursuit of the National Dcfen.se F'eatures (NDF) program. The Senate's Fiscal Year
1997 Defense Authorization mark is very close to that integrated option. I sincerely
believe the Senate's approach would best serve both national defense and economic
security needs. As USCINCTRANS, I will be personally committed to seeing this
program move forward and look forward to working with you in meeting our na-
tion s defense transportation needs.

QUALIFICATIONS

Question. If confirmed, you will be entering this important position at a time of
heightened tensions and increased potential for conflict. What background and expe-
rience do you have that you believe qualifies you for this position?

217

Answer. As Director of the Joint StafT for the past 2 years, I have had direct, per-
sonal and frequent contact with the SecDef, CJCS, all the CINCs and the Chiefs
on all of the major issues, operations, and planning matters confronting all of the
CINCs, including CINCTRANS. During DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM,
I served as the TRANSCOM J-3/J-4 — the command's sternest test in global mobil-
ity. I also stood up Air Mobility Command, serving as its Provisional Commander
and the command's first Vice Commander. Recently I've also served as the 15th Air
Force Commander with command of half of AMC's airliR and tanker aircraft. Addi-
tionally, I was the Air Force Director of Operations.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee
and other appropriate committees of Congress?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, even is those
views differ from the administration in power?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of information are provided to this committee and its staff and other appro-
priate committees?

Answer. Yes.

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Se.\ator Dirk Kempthorne
procurement

Senator KEMPTHORNE. General Kross, the current budget request continues to
favor the policy of funding personnel, training and maintenance at the expense of
procurement. If this pattern continues, all oi our Defense equipment will become
older, less technologically superior and more costly to maintain. Indeed, former Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Bill Owens, warned of a "procure-
ment crisis" due to the lack of appropriate investment in new Defense systems. The
fiscal year 1997 budget request of $38.9 billion represents a low point for procure-
ment. Do you believe that the current procurement budget is suitable and will con-
tinue to provide the means necessary to acquire vehicles and systems that can effec-
tively carry our service men and women into and out of harms way in the 21st Cen-
tury?

General Kross. I am concerned about the recapitalization of our forces. To ignore
this aspect of defense funding risks the future combat readiness of the US military.
It is well known that procurement has continued to pay the bill for readiness and
force structure over the past decade and now hovers at a post-World War II low of
about $40 billion. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has testified that over
the past 2 years we were able to sustain a procurement hiatus because we were re-
ducing our forces, and through a combination of discarding our oldest equipment,
and preserving and redistributing our newest and most modem equipment, were
able to keep our arsenal at its youngest age in decades.

With downsizing coming to an end, we must examine increasing our procurement
accounts. To recapitalize the force, we must look toward a goal in the procurement
accounts of $60 billion annually. The path to achieving this goal is many-fold, but
includes aggressively pursuing institutional and business opportunities.

We must also explore outsourcing of non-core activities and other avenues whose
savings can be reinvested into our procurement accounts. Further, we must reap the
benefits of the ongoing technology explosion, acquisition reform, and gain greater ef-
ficiencies in warfighting. We have begun this process through such actions as the
Joint Requirements Oversight Councir(JROC), and I believe it will continue as we
identify further approaches to solving this problem.

218

Questions Submittkd hy Sknatok Sam Nunn
ustranscom's agkd accol'nts rbxikivable

Senator NUNN. How is USTC progressing with improving high accounts receiv-
ables that were reflected in a recently completed GAO audit on DBOF cash?

General Kross. TRANSCOM established the DKDAS/USTC Working Group. This
working group is conducting the following actions:

• Generated action items to validate and identify the problems with ac-
counts receivable.

• Assisting DF'AS in correcting core DFAS organizational/systemic/proce-
dural problems. Participating in the study for moving the Scott DAO to
Omaha.

• Identifying the composition of accounts receivable to resolve the problem
a piece at a time. Identify which pieces need TRANSCOM J3/4 assistance.

• Correcting accounts receivable reporting problems that overstate the
problem.

• Improving cash reporting. Abnormal undistributed cash reimbursement
balances also increase accounts receivable balances.

• Discussed operational problems at ports and with data from transpor-
tation systems.

• Met with MIIjSTAMP Working Group to focus on billing problems caused
by invalid Transportation Account Codes and insufficient authority to cross
disburse. Corrected accounts receivable reporting problems.

• Assisting TRANSCOM J3/4 in the financial aspects of MII^TAMP Vol II.
Includes centralized TAC code tables; improvements at the port; preparing
chapter on DTS billings, reducing the number of delinquent accounts re-
ceivable, and clarifying payment policy (i.e., cross-disbursements).

Additionally, TRANSCOM has been very proactive in working with DFAS to iden-
tify the problems and improve the cash flow by:

• Identifying the makeup of accounts receivable balances and eliminating
the amount of DFAS reconciling adjustments that result in overstating the
balances;

• Corrected year-end reporting by more than $80M which prevented unnec-
essary rate increases;

• Resolved $115M rejected bill favorably with no impact to cash.

[The nomination reference of Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, USAF, fol-
lows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

Apnl 15. 1996.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named officer for appointment to the grade of general while as-
signed to a position of importance and responsibility under Title 10, United States
Code, Section 601:

To be General
Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, 0276.

[The biogpraphical sketch of Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, USAF, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]

Resume of Service Career of Lt. Gen. Walter Kross

Date and place of birth: 3 October 1942, Bronx, New York.

Years of active commissioned service: Over 31 years as of 23 September 1995.

219

Schools attended and degrees: Niagara Univ, BA, 1964; Southern riinois Univ, MS,
1974; Auburn Univ AL, MS, 1975; Squadron OfTicer School, 1971; Air Command
and Staff College, 1975; National War College, 1982.

Joint specialty officer: Yes.

Aeronautical rating: Command Pilot.

MAJOR PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS

Assi£nment

Enlisted Status, Ofcr Tng Sch, ATC, Lackland AFB, TX

Stu Ofcr, Undergrad Pit Tng, 3641 Stu Sq, ATC, Laredo AFB, TX

Pit, Sys Operator, 25 TFSq, TAC, Eglin AFB, FL

Pit Tac Ftr, F-4, 476 TFSq, TAC, George AFB, CA

Acft Comdr, F-4C, 390 TFSq, PACAF, DaNang AB, Vietnam

Pit, Transport, C-141, 76 MASq, MAC. Charleston AFB, SC

Fit Simulator Instr, C-141, 437 MAWg, MAC, Charleston AFB, SC

Spcl Msns Pit, VC~135B/137, 98 MASq, MAC, Andrews AFB, MD

Stu, Air Comd & Staff College, AU, Maxwell AFB, AL

Air Ops Ofcr, Tac Frcs Div, AFAOXFT, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Asst Dep Dir For Jt & Cong Mtrs, AFAOX, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Mbr, CSAF Staff Gp, AF/CVAX, Hq USAF, Wash DC

Stu, National War College, NDU, Ft McNair, Wash DC

Dep Comdr for Ops, 89 MAWg, MAC, Andrews AFB, MD

Vice Comdr, 89 MAWg, MAC, Andrews AFB, MO

Vice Comdr, 436 MAWg, MAC, Andrews AFB, MD

Comdr. 436 MAWg, MAC, Dover AFB, DE

Vice Comdr, AFMPC; & Dep Asst OCS/Pers for Mil Pers, Randolph AFB, TX

DCS/Plans & Rqmts, Hq ATC, Randolph AFB, TX

Dir, Ops & Log, J-3/M, Hq USTRANSCOM, Scott AFB, IL

Dir, Operations, AFAOO, Hq USAF, The Pentagon, Wash DC

Comdr, Air Mobility Command (Provisional Hqs), Scott AFE, IL

Vice Comdr, Air Mobility Command, Scott AFB, IL

Comdr, 15 Air Force, Air Mobility Command, Travis AFB, CA

Director, Joint Staff, Pentagon, Washington DC

from

Sep 64
Dec 64
Jul 66
Feb 67
Sep 67
Sep 68
Feb 71
Mar 72
Aug 74
Aug 75
Feb 79
Apr 79
Jul 81
Jun82
Jul 83
Mar 84
Jan 85
Jul 87
Oct 88
May 90
Jul 91
Jan 92
Jul 92
Aug 93
Jul 94

Dec 64
Jul 66
Feb 67
Sep 67
Sep 68
Feb 71
Mar 72
Aug 74
Aug 75
Feb 79
Apr 79
Jul 81
Jun82
Jul 83
Mar 84
Jan 85
Jul 87
Oct 88
May 90
Jul 91
Jan 92
Jul 92
Aug 93
Jul 94
Present

Promotions

Effective
date

Second Lieutenant
First Lieutenant ...

Captain

Major

Lieutenant Colonel

Colonel

Brigadier General ,

Major General

Lieutenant General

21 Dec 64
21 Jun 66
11 May 68
1 Feb 75
1 Apr 79
1 Oct 82
IJul 88

1 Feb 91

2 Jul 92

Decorations:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal.

Air Force Distinguished Service Medal.

Legion of Merit.

Distinguished Flying Cross with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

Meritorious Service Medal with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

Air Medal with two Silver Oak Leaf Clusters and two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters.

Army Commendation Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster.

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS

Assignments

Dir, Joint Staff, the Pentagon, Washington DC

Dir, Operations and Logistics, J-3/J-4, U.S. Transportation Command, Scott

AFBIL
Mbr.i Chief of Staff's Staff Group, HQ USAF, Washington, DC

Jul 94-Present
May 90-Jul 91

Apr 79-Jul 81

Lt, Gen.

Ma|. Gen./Bng. Gen.

Lt. CoL

220

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS— Continued

Assignments

Dates

Grade

Asst Dep Dir for Joint and Congressional Matters," Directorate of Plans,

Feb 79-Apr 79

Lt. Col./Ma|or

Deputy Chief of Staff/Plans and Operations, HQ USAF, Washington, DC

Air Operations Officer,' Tactical Forces Div, Deputy Directorate for Force De-

Aug 7 5 -Feb 79

Major

velopment, Deputy Chief of Staff/Plans and Operations, HQ USAF, Wash-

ington, DC.

> Joint Equivalent

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial, and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, USAF, in connection
with his nomination follows:]

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Room SR-228

Washington, DC 20510-6050

(202) 224-3871

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM

BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF

NOMINEES

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

Part A— Biographical Information

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Walter Kross.

2. Position to which nominated:

Commander in Chief, United States TransfX)rtation Command, and Commander,
Air Mobility Command.

3. Date of nomination:
April 15, 1996.

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:
3 October 1942, Bronx, NY.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married. Spouse's Maiden Name: Helen Kay Macl^ennan

7. Names and ages of children:
Karin I^ee Kross, 21

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

None.

221

None.

10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

15 AF Association Board of Directors, Member.
Council on Foreign Relations.
Air Force Association.
Order of Daedalians.
Tanker Airlift Association.

Honorary Doctor of Laws, Wesley College, Dover, DE.

12. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power.

Yes.

Signature a.nd Date

Walter Kross.

This 15th day of March 1996.

[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Walter Kross, USAF, was reported
to the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on June 13, 1996, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomi-
nation was confirmed by the Senate on June 20, 1996.]

38-225 97 - 8

NOMINATION OF ANDREW S. EFFRON TO BE
A JUDGE OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES

TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1996

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:11 p.m., in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond
(chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Thurmond, Warner,
Inhofe, Nunn, Exon, Bingaman and Robb.

Committee staff members present: Romie L, Brownlee, staff di-
rector; George W. Lauffer, deputy staff director; Melinda M.
Koutsoumpas, chief clerk; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, deputy chief
clerk; Donald A. Deline, general counsel; Christine K. Cimko, press
secretary; Roslyne D. Turner, systems administrator; Cindy Pear-
son, security manager.

Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, Jonathan
L. Etherton, John H. Miller, Bert K. Mizusawa, and Cord A. Ster-
ling.

Minority staff members present: Arnold L. Punaro, minority staff
director; Richard D. DeBobes, counsel; Christine E. Cowart, special
assistant; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Patrick T.
Henry, professional staff member; William E. Hoehn, Jr., profes-
sional staff member; Michael J. McCord, professional staff member;
and Julie K. Rief, professional staff member.

Staff assistants present: Patricia L. Banks, Mickie Jan Gordon,
Jennifer Lambert, and Jennifer L. Wallace.

Research assistants present: Daniel B. Ginsberg and Deasy Wag-
ner.

Committee members' assistants present: Grayson Winterling, as-
sistant to Senator Warner; John H. Hoggard, assistant to Senator
Warner; Glen E. Tait, assistant to Senator Kempthorne; Andrew
W. Johnson, assistant to Senator Exon; Richard W. Fieldhouse, as-
sistant to Senator Levin; Steven A. Wolfe, assistant to Senator
Kennedy; Suzanne M. McKenna, assistant to Senator Glenn; C.
Richard D'Amato, assistant to Senator Byrd; Suzanne Dabkowski,
assistant to Senator Robb; Mary Weaver Bennett, assistant to Sen-
ator Bryan; Fred Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman.

Chairman Thurmond. The committee will come to order.

Good afternoon. Judge Effron.

Mr. Effron. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

(223)

224

Senator NUNN. Vm afraid he just presumed the outcome of the
nomination by responding there. I didn't think he would fall into
that trap. [General laughter]

Mr. Effron. I've learned never to contradict the chairman. [Gen-
eral laughter]

Chairman Thurmond. I hope it wasn't too difficult for you to lo-
cate our hearing room this afternoon.

Mr. Effron. No, sir.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND,

CHAIRMAN

Chairman Thurmond. It is a pleasure to chair this hearing con-
cerning your nomination to be a judge on the Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces.

Before we actually begin the formal business of this hearing,
however, I would like to recognize some very important visitors.

Mrs. Effron, would you, your daughter, Robin, and your son, Mi-
chael, please stand up so that we can see all of you and welcome
you to these proceedings?

I know that you have not always been able to have had Andy at
home when you've needed him, but the committee has often re-
quired his expert services here and he has done a remarkable job
for us. We thank you all for coming to this hearing today and you
are a very handsome family.

I have been informed that both Senator Warner and Senator
Robb wish to introduce you today, and we will be pleased to hear
from them in a few minutes. But right now, however, I would like
to recognize some additional visitors who are here from the Court.
We have the Chief Judge, Walter Cox, from the wonderful State of
South Carolina is here this afternoon.

Judge, we are glad to have you. I did a good job when I rec-
ommended you, didn't I? [General laughter]

We also have Judge Eugene Sullivan, a past Chief Judge of the
Court and a very able man, and Judge Sparky Gierke, also from
the Court, another able man. We are glad to have you all with us.
Thank you for coming.

Mr. Effron, you have had an exceptional career and your biog-
raphy will be made part of these proceedings.

I would like to make special note of the following achievements,
though, for the benefit of those who are in attendance here today,
who may not be as familiar with you as the committee.

Mr. Effron graduated from Harvard College in 1970, magna cum
laude and from Harvard Law School in 1975, cum laude. He is a
distinguished graduate of the Judge Advocate G^eneral's School in
1976 and served on active duty with the United States Army.

After leaving the Army, Mr. Effron was hired by the Greneral
Counsel of the Department of Defense and stayed in that office for
8 years.

In 1987, the Senate Committee on Armed Services hired Mr.
Effron away from the Department of Defense to be a counselor for
the committee. He has served the committee as a counselor and
General Counsel for the past 9 years, and appears before us today
still serving as one of our counsel.

225

Mr. Effron is a gifted attorney, a dedicated counselor, and a tire-
less worker for the armed services. For me, the one trait that I
would single out as having been of the most value to the committee
is his bipartisanship. He nas carried out his responsibilities with-
out partisan politics or driven by any individual Senator's specific
agenda. He rendered his legal opinions without regard to political
consequences.

I have always known that I could count on Andy for an honest,
unbiased opinion. I believe this trait is essential for a person to be
a good judge. To be able to reach correct decisions without regard
to partisan politics is crucial to all judges in this country.

I served as a judge myself for a number of years and remember
those years with fondness. Should you be confirmed by the Senate,
Mr. Effron, you will be receiving one of the greatest honors a law-
yer can receive. You will be one of this country's guardians of the
law.

From what I know of your service to this committee, you are well
prepared for such an honor and all of the responsibilities that go
with it.

Others will want to speak this afternoon, so I will end my open-
ing statement and will call on Senator Nunn to give his remarks.
Senator Nunn.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM NUNN

Senator Nunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I echo ev-
erything you have said about our nominee before us today.

I join you also in welcoming Barbara, Robin, and Michael here.
I know you are very proud of your father and your husband. I also
welcome committee counsel Pat Tucker and also David Lyles. Rick
Finn is here and I think Paul Besozzi is here, too. Yes, there is
Paul. Also here are the judges that you have already introduced,
Mr. Chairman. We are glad to have all of you.

Senator Warner. Senator Nunn, I wonder if we might inject also
that Grayson Winterling of my office is here, as is Commander
Jack Hoggard and maybe some other staff. I think the record
should reflect all of them that are in the audience.

Senator NuNN. That's good. We are glad to have all of you here.

Andy comes from a family with a strong tradition of public and
community service. His parents, Marshall and Marion Effron, have
been deeply involved in political, civic, and charitable organizations
in Andy's home town of Poughkeepsie, New York. Andy's wife, Bar-
bara, has held numerous ofiices in PTA and civic associations in
Arlington and Fairfax Counties. Their children are continuing the
tradition. I understand that Robin is a rising senior at Woodson
High School and is on the student council. She serves as an officer
of the chorus, on the Model U.N., Tri-M Arts Society, and I under-
stand Michael, who will be in the seventh grade next vear, was vice
president of the student council at Canterbury Woods Elementary
School, in addition to being an all-star Little Leaguer. So we have
quite an array of talent and public service in this family and it con-
tinues generation to generation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bittersweet day for me and I'm sure for
most of the members of the committee, for all the members of the
committee. First, it is sweet because we are pleased that someone

226

who we have known for so long and worked with and admired and
respected so much for his extraordinary ability and expertise has
been nominated by the President to be a judge on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

The bitter side of it is because the committee will be losing one
of the finest talents that we have ever had. I really think Andy is
right there at the top.

The Armed Services Committee first became familiar with Andy
Effron in 1986, when he was in the Office of General Counsel of
the Department of Defense, and he was one of three individuals
from the department who worked with us during the Senate-House
conference on the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reor-
ganization Act. Andy's capacity for honesty and objectivity came
through loud and clear during that important deliberation.

We were so impressed with Andy's expertise that we asked him
to join the staff the following year, and he has continuously con-
firmed our initial judgment since Day One that he arrived.

Not only has he confirmed our initial judgment, he has consist-
ently demonstrated an extraordinary capacity for hard work and an
ability to perform at the very highest level of professional perform-
ance and a willingness to tackle and master any issue of impor-
tance to the committee.

As a matter of fact, Andy has been so involved in so many issues
that if someone asked me to name them today, I could not even
begin to do so, and if I started, I could not quit. It goes on, and
on, and on, and on.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that Andy Effron epitomizes the
best in what a professional staff member and, indeed, a public serv-
ant should be. He is such a professional and so loyal to the commit-
tee that I am sure he will ask us at the end of this hearing to post-
pone consideration of his confirmation until such time as we com-
plete all the work of the committee this year. [General laughter]

Senator NUNN. On a more serious note, I want to express my
strong support for this nomination to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces. They will be gaining an extraor-
dinary legal talent as we lose that talent.

Andy Effron will continue to serve the men and women in the
United States Armed Forces now in a different capacity, and the
Nation will be served upon his confirmation. So I look forward to
his opening statement and the opportunity to pose some of the
questions I have wanted to ask him for a long, long time. [General
laughter]

Senator NuNN. Thank you, IVIr. Chairman. At this time, Mr.
Chairman, I would also like to place into the record a statement
by Senator Kennedy. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]

Prepared Stateme.nt by Senator P^oward M. Kennedy

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to speak in support of the nomination of Andy
EfTron to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Over the 10 years that Andy has served on the Armed Services Committee staff,
he has proved himself an outstanding public servant. Andy Effron is one of the most
capable, reliable, and straightforward staffers I have had the opportunity to work
with. Andy is the model of a committee counsel, and I believe he will make an excel-
lent judge.

227

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is our nation's highest
military court. Service on the court requires an individual who understands military
law, who understands the special rights and responsibilities of our service members
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and who has integrity, an even tem-
perament, and a strong intellect. I believe Andy Effron possesses all of these charac-
teristics.

In addition to his personal qualities, Andy's career has prepared him well for a
seat on this court. As a staff attorney in tne Defense Department's Office of the
General Counsel, as an Army Trial Counsel, and through his experience with the
Committee, Andy has become one of our nation's foremost experts on military law.
He has demonstrated this knowledge through his many publications. The honors be-
stowed upon him by the Army and the Defense Department speak to how well he
has applied this expertise.

Mr. Chairman, my only concern about this appointment is how will the Commit-
tee manage to fill Andy's shoes. I congratulate nim on his nomination, and urge my
colleagues to support his confirmation. Thank you very much.

Chairman Thurmond. Virginia has two able Senators. They are
both here this afternoon.

We will hear first from the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator
John Warner.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER

Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It indeed is an
honor I shall not forget, to sit here next to this very fine man.
Many, many nights, way into the late hours, have we worked to-
gether with other colleagues in this room, both members of the
United States Senate and staff members of the Armed Services
Committee, and his word was his bond. We all had complete con-
fidence in whatever position he took.

I hope that maybe some day that could be said of me, but it is
too early to render that judgment now. [Greneral laughter]

But it certainly is true in Andy's case.

I would like to ask that my statement be made a part of the
record and I would conclude by saying that today, the word "char-
acter" means so much, and this man represents to me the defini-
tion of character.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Your full statement will appear in the
record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to introduce a constitutent to the commit-
tee this afternoon. Andy Effron, who has been with this committee for nearly 10
years, has been nominated by the President to be a Judge of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. We welcome Andy and his wife Barbara,
as well as nis daughter, Robin, and his son, Michael, to this confirmation hearing
today.

In all of the nearly 18 years that I have been in the Seante, I have never intro-
duced a nominee who was a better selection for their position than Andy Effron is
for this important military judiciary post. A graduate of Harvard College and Har-
vard Law School, he has served as an Army lawyer, as a civilian attorney in the
Department of Defense Office of General (Jounsel, and most recently as General
Counsel (and Minority Counsel) to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He per-
formed these duties with distinction, receiving the Department of Defense Distin-
guished Service Medal in 1987.

During his decade with this committee, Andy Effron has been the consummate
professional. Working with members and staff from both sides of the aisle, he has
provided unfailingly correct guidance, and has earned the respect of all. From the
annual Department of Defense Authorization Bills to specialized legislation such as

228

the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Andy has been instrumental in
the smooth operation of this committee.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this committee reporting this nomination expedi-
tiously, and the Senate confirmation occurring soon afterwards. I would hope that
our need for Andy as we finish this year's DoD bill will not tempt any of us to slow
the process down. Our loss will be the Department of Defense's gain. Judge Effron —
sounds good to me.

Chaiiman Thurmond. We will now hear from the junior Senator
from Vir^nia, Senator Chuck Robb.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES S. ROBB

Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
able to join my senior Senator, colleague, and friend here in this
difficult adversarial proceeding that has developed over the nomi-
nation of Andy Effron. [General laughter]

I am also pleased that so many of his former colleagues, who
have renounced their vow of poverty, have returned to the scene of
their earlier crimes so that they could join with Andy, Barbara,
Robin and Michael for this very special day. [General laughter]

Introducing Andy Effron to the Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee is truly carrying coals to Newcastle, and I will not attempt to
prolong the record with any other additional comments other than
to say that he is highly regarded, widely respected, and the com-
munity service to which you and Senator Nunn and others have
noted is well noted in his adopted community as well. Notwith-
standing his birth elsewhere and some schooling in a couple of ad-
ditional states, we are very pleased that his past 20 years have
been spent comfortably in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It gives
both Senator Warner and myself a great deal of pride to be able
to introduce and very strongly recommend to this committee for
confirmation Mr. Andy Effron.

Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with
the remarks of my distinguished colleague. They were very well
spoken.

Chairman Thurmond. We thank you both, gentlemen, for ap-
pearing in behalf of Mr. Effron.

Senator Robb. Now you're on your own. Good luck, Andy.

Senator Warner. Yes, good luck.

Chairman Thurmond. Now, Mr. Effron, you are indeed on your
own.

There have been a number of situations in recent years that have
involved courts-martial covering more than one command. Two that
come to mind are the Tailhook incident and the Blackhawk shoot
down incident. In both cases, the decision whether to prosecute or
not rested with different commands and different convening au-
thorities.

What is your opinion of how the services should handle multiple
offenses scattered over multiple convening authorities?

Mr. Effron. Mr. Chairman, the basic tenet of the Manual for
Courts-Martial is that cases slnould be handled at the lowest pos-
sible level by the commander having immediate authority over the
accused. I think that general proposition serves the military de-
partments very well.

There are circumstances, however, when there is a complicated,
complex case involving cross-services or cross-jurisdictions in which

229

use of scattered convening authorities can result in disparate treat-
ment, confused investigations, and other problems that you have
alluded to. Therefore, I believe it would serve the services well to
give strong consideration in such cases to a single, consolidated,
convening authority. But I would add that that should always be
a judgment made within the Executive Branch by the senior com-
manders and not one dictated elsewhere.

Chairman Thurmond. Command influence is potentially a prob-
lem in all military judicial activities. Over the years, numerous
safeguards have been attempted by Congress and the administra-
tion to prevent command influence.

Would you give us your opinion on how well the services are han-
dling command influence and whether there is any need for adjust-
ments in that area?

Mr. Effron. Mr. Chairman, I believe the services generally are
doing a good job in that area. This is a situation in which you have
lawful command influence, that is, the legal authority of command-
ers to investigate charges, convene courts, select the court members
and review the cases, versus unlawful command influence, where
there is an attempt to influence the discretion of those individuals.

There is a constant tension. So I think command influence is
something that will always be with us. However, I believe that the
Judge Advocates General have done an excellent job in their
schools, in the JAG schools, and in the various command schools
in bringing to the attention of lawyers and commanders the prob-
lems of command influence and how to deal with it.

So I think things are working well, but constant vigilance is
needed.

Chairman Thurmond. Mr. Effron, during your service to the
Federal Government, you have done an extensive amount to keep
the system of military justice current and relevant to the maintain-
ing of discipline in the military. Are there any areas of military jus-
tice that you believe the committee should focus on in the years to
come?

Mr. Effron. I believe the two areas that come to mind are, first
of all, one I alluded to just previously, and that is legal education.
It is crucial that judge advocates receive the best possible schooling
at their initial stages and throughout their careers. So support by
this committee for the JAG schools I think is crucial.

Second, keeping the military justice system up to date with de-
velopments in the civilian criminal law is something that this com-
mittee's oversight will be very important on.

I have noticed in my time here in the committee that there are
vast changes in civilian criminal law working their way through
the Judiciary Committee and into the Title 18 legal structure. It
is important that the military justice system at least give clear con-
sideration to whether those changes are useful or not in order to
stay current with those developments in the law.

Chairman Thurmond. Mr. EfTron, you have been with the com-
mittee for nearly a decade now and have seen the authorization
process each year. In addition, you worked for the Department of
Defense General Counsel for 8 years and saw the process from the
administration's side.

230

Do you have any suggestions on how we might make the system
more efficient or, at a minimum, less painful?

Mr. Efp'RON. This may not be a good time to ask that question,
Mr. Chairman, because I am feeling the pain of the authorization
process right now as we are in conference. But on a more serious
note, I think the system has worked best when we have had an
early submission of proposals by the Executive Branch and good
supporting materials by the Executive Branch. When the commit-
tee nas asKed pre-hearing questions in order to flesh out the details
of their proposals, we've followed up in committee hearings with
questions about those proposals. Then the members have given
early and effective attention to the legislation. That is when the
system has worked best.

It has been the most painful when those things do not happen.
So, again, I think that kind of interrelationship with the Executive
Branch on the questioning and early focus of the members on the
details of the legislation will perhaps decrease the pain somewhat.

Chairman Thurmond. Mr. Effron, ever since its extension and
rewrite during the 1950's, the Uniform Code of Military Justice has
proven itself to be effective in both peace and war. It is now being
utilized on a regular basis by our military forces involved in peace-
keeping efforts.

These forces find themselves in constant contact with civilians
involved with terrorists and international criminals and following
new types of rules of engagement. Are you aware of any military
justice changes that may be required to meet the new challenges
presented by this increasing mission?

Mr. Effron. No, sir. I am not aware of any deficiencies in the
system that would render it incapable of handling a variety of dif-
ferent situations, including peacekeeping.

Chairman Thurmond. TTiat's all the questions I have.

Senator Nunn.

Senator NuNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not ask many
questions, just a couple.

Many people are unaware of the functioning of the military jus-
tice system. In response to a prehearing question as to the major
strengths of the military justice system, you cited qualified counsel
for both the government and the accused at both the trial and ap-
pellate level, enhanced rights of the military accused in terms of
pre-trial investigations, protections against self-incrimination, right
to counsel and detailed appellate review.

Could you expand that answer by telling us what you see as the
fundamental differences between the military justice system and
our civil system?

Mr. Effron. Well, I think the role of counsel is probably the
most significant in that within the military justice system, each of
the Judge Advocates General has a school in which there is exten-
sive training for all judge advocates before they go out in the field
as either trial counsel or defense counsel. They are brought back
after several years for retraining and updates in the law, and there
are also continuing legal education programs at all times.

While those opportunities are available in the civilian sector on
a more discretionary basis, I am not aware of any aspect of the ci-
vilian sector where both trial counsel and defense counsel are regu-

231

larly and routinely brought up to date and trained in the criminal
justice system.

So I think that the lawyers that are available, both to the ac-
cused and to the government in the military justice system, are
really given a mucn better opportunity to perfect their craft than
in the civilian sector.

The second area where I think there are important differences is
in discovery. In the civilian sector, discovery is primarily a matter
of the accused having to ferret matter out from the government
through repeated requests and specific inquiries. In the military
justice system, there is a tremendous amount of sharing right from
the beginning between trial counsel and defense counsel as to the
nature of the case, and through the Article 32 pretrial investigation
there is also a great opportunity for the accused to have an adver-
sarial discovery proceeding.

The advantage of that is not only in terms of fairness to the ac-
cused, but I think that type of sharing of information leads to much
speedier trials in the end because there is not as much surprise
and not as much confusion during the trial.

Senator Nunn. You have served in the Department of Defense
and you have served on the staff of this committee. In the Depart-
ment of Defense you were involved in regulations, and in this com-
mittee you have been involved in advising on the shaping of laws
and policies.

Would there be anything in your service, either in DOD or over
here on the Hill, that would preclude you from participating in a
case alleging a Department of Defense regulation or legislatively
established policy was unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful? If
so, how would you handle that situation?

Mr. Effron. As a general matter. Senator Nunn, I don't believe
that should be a problem. It is my understanding that there are
relatively few situations in which a person who has served as a
government attorney must recuse himself or herself from being in-
volved in a litigation proceeding.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has adopted the Code
of Conduct for U.S. Judges, and that — I checked — has a particular
disqualification for a person who has "served in a governmental
employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser,
or material witness concerning the proceeding" — that is, the pro-
ceeding being litigated — "or has expressed an opinion concerning
the merits of the particular case in controversy." That is the end
of the quote.

My role in both the DOD General Counsel's office and, as you
know, on the committee, has primarily been involved in giving
legal advice as to policy options on rules and regulations in general
matters. There have been very few, if any, circumstances where I
have been called upon to give a legal opinion on a particular course
of action, as opposed to a set of options, and I can think of very
few circumstances in which I have actually been involved in some-
thing where it involved an individual who might later be processed
before a court-martial.

I will be sensitive to the issue of disqualification and, in particu-
lar, in those areas where I have worked closely on a rule, regula-

232

tion, or statute, I will consider this particular standard should that
matter be litigated before the court, if I am confirmed.

Senator NuNN. Do you believe it is important for the Court of
Appeals of the Ai-med Forces to maintain its independence from the
Department of Defense?

Mr. Effron. Yes, Senator Nunn. I believe that is the fundamen-
tal purpose for which the court was created.

Senator Nunn. Do you believe it achieves that purpose?

Mr. Effron. Yes, I do. I believe that it has, both in terms of the
structure that has been created by this committee and the Con-
gress and by the decisions of the court, demonstrated its independ-
ence time and again.

Senator Nunn. Are you committed to insuring that the court op-
erates in an independent and impartial manner?

Mr. Effron. Yes, sir.

Senator Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman THURMOND. Thank you.

Senator Warner.

Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, I have had an opportunity to
speak. I wonder if the chair and the ranking member would in-
dulge in this Senator yielding a minute and a half of his time to
our senior counsel. Colonel Brownlee, and to our minority counsel
to make statements on behalf of the nominee.

I think staff should have part of this record.

Colonel.

Chairman Thurmond. I would be pleased to have them do so.

Mr. Brownlek. Senator, I appreciate very much the opportunity
to say something about our friend and colleague, Andy, with whom
I have worked for the past 8 years. Andy and I even worked to-
gether before, when he was at the Department of Defense. His rep-
utation preceded him here.

The good thing about Andy is that he has served both sides of
this committee, both members and staff, throughout his tenure.
There is nobody who works harder. There is nobody whose views
are respected more and whose counsel is sought more than Andy's.

We will miss him more than I can tell you, but we are also very
happy for him in his new job.

Senator Warner. Thank you.

Chairman Thurmond. He doesn't talk too much, either, does he.
[General laughter]

Mr. PUNARO. In that vein, Mr. Chairman, I would just second ev-
erything that Les has said. [General laughter]

Andy EfTron is truly someone who is indispensible. He is a consummate profes-
sional whose work ethic is unsurpassed. He will be sorely missed.

Senator Warner. I thank the chair and the ranking member and
would indicate my vote in the affirmative. I will have to leave now,
regrettably.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Exon.

Senator Exon. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

The first question I have is for one of the guests. I see my lawyer
friend, Paul, sitting back there.

Paul, are you here representing yourself or the Bar Association?

Mr. Besozzi. I am here as a friend of Andy.

233

Senator EXON. Are you in support of the nominee or in opposi-
tion?

Mr. Besozzi. Fully in support.

Senator ExON. I just wanted to clarify that. [General laughter]

Andy, I have but one question of you. Were you at the Tailhook
convention? [Greneral laughter]

Mr. Effron. No, sir.

Senator NUNN. But he probably feels like he was after all of this.

Chairman Thurmond. He wasn't old enough to be there, was he?
[General laughter]

Senator ExoN. I know nothing derogatory about you. I just think
you have been a tremendously important part of our committee and
both sides of the aisle have respected your professionalism all the
way through. I just want to say, as a friend of yours, that I am
going to miss you very, very much. I just want to thank you for
all the help you have been to this Senator and to the committee
as a whole.

The best of luck to you. The only downside I have heard in this
whole hearing today was I didn't know until you were introduced
by your two colleagues from Virginia that you were a lawyer. [Gen-
eral laughter]

Senator ExoN. I have always liked you anyway. I enthusiasti-
cally support you and best of luck, my friend.

Mr. Effron. Thank you. Senator Exon.

One of the first things Paul told me was to make sure I didn't
let you know that I was a lawyer. [General laughter]

Chairman Thurmond. Mr. Effron, I'm not too sure we gave you
a chance to express yourself. Would you care to make any state-
ment?

STATEME>rr OF ANDREW S. EFFRON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A
JUDGE OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED
FORCES

Mr. Effron. I will take Pat Tucker's advice and cut my state-
ment in half Yes, sir, I would appreciate the opportunity because
such nice things have been said today.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Nunn, members of the committee, I am
most grateful that you have been able to schedule this hearing
today, particularly in view of the incredibly difficult issues that the
committee must deal with this month, as evidenced by today's
hearings earlier on.

I very much appreciate the kind words spoken about me by Sen-
ator Thurmond, Senator Nunn, Senator Exon, and very much the
introductions from the Senators from my adopted State of Virginia,
Senator Robb and Senator Warner, for their very generous intro-
ductory remarks.

The hallmark of the Senate Armed Services Committee is your
intensive member level of involvement in the subject of national de-
fense. Your interest is a source of constant motivation and inspira-
tion to the staff.

What you have said about me today reflects not my work but the
collaborative efforts of the staff to serve you on a bipartisan basis.

Les, I am very grateful for the things that you have said. The
opportunity to work with all of the staff, as well as the members,

234

and to work with distinguished war veterans hke Les and like Ar-
nold is something that has been a real inspiration to me.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be President Clinton's nominee
to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces. I am also honored and humbled to be nominated for the
seat held by Judge Robert E. Wiss, whose untimely death last year
was deeply felt by his fellow judges and by all who knew him. His
wisdom, experience, and clear voice set an exemplary standard for
the court.

As this committee has noted, the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces "is the highest authority within the military justice system."
The court regularly interprets Federal statutes, executive orders,
and departmental regulations. The court also determines the appli-
cability of constitutional provisions to members of the armed forces.

Through its decisions, the court has a significant impact on the
state of discipline in the armed forces, military readiness, and the
rights of service members. The court plays an indispensable role in
promoting public confidence in the military justice system.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this committee, the Congress,
and the American people expect the court to dispense justice with
honor, dignity, integrity, and fairness. I pledge to do my best, if
confirmed, to fulfill those expectations.

Thank you.

Chairman Thurmond. Well, I wish you a long and a happy ca-
reer on the bench. I don't wish you a lucrative career because you
can't take any money but your salary.

If there is nothing else to come before the committee at this time,
we will now stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Andrew S. Effron by Senator
Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

Questions and Responses

Question. What is your view of the primary responsibiHty of the Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces?

Answer. The primary responsibility of the Court is to provide for appellate review
of court-martial cases in a specialized civilian tribunal that has judicial independ-
ence from the Department of Defense.

Question. In your view, has the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces fulflUed
the expectations of Congress when the Court was established in 1951?

Answer. Yes. The Court has demonstrated its independence and expertise.

Question. Are any legislative changes needed in statutes concerning the Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces to enhance the operation or stature of the court?

Answer. The Court and the Department of Defense have recommended an adjust-
ment in the statutory authority pertaining to non-attorney staff personnel assigned
to individual judges. The House of Representatives has approved this legislation as
part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, and it is also
included in the parallel bill pending before the Senate. I have no recommendation
for any other legislative changes.

Question. Are any changes needed in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces?

Answer. No.

Question. Are the current compensation and retirement provisions for the Court
sufTicient to ensure that you will be able to exercise your responsibilities in an im-
partial and independent manner?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Please describe the three decisions of the Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces which you believe to have been the most significant.

235

Answer. United Slates v. Jacoby. 11 CM .A. 428, 29 C.M.R. 244 (1960), establish-
ing that in matters of constitutional law, "the protections of the Bill of Rights, ex-
cept those which are expressly or by necessary implication inapplicable, are avail-
able to members of our armed forces."

United States v. Care, 18 C.M.A. 535, 40 C.M.R. 247 (1969), concerning the basic
inquiries that must be made by a trial judge to ensure the providency of a guilty
plea.

United States v. Trottier, 9 M.J. 337 (C.M.A. 1980), affirming the broad jurisdic-
tion of courts-martial over off-post drug offenses.

Question. In your view, what are the major strengths and weaknesses of the mili-
tary justice system?

Answer. Major strengths: qualified counsel for both the government and the ac-
cused, at both the trial and appellate level; enhanced rights of a military accused
in terms of pretrial investigation, protections against self-incrimination, right to
counsel, and detailed appellate review. Major weaiknesses: the challenge of ensuring
fairness in a system that must maintain the difficult balance between the command-
er's disciplinary and judicial roles, especially the role of the commander in conduct-
ing and reviewing investigations, referring charges to courts-martial, selecting court
members, and reviewing the results of trial.

Question. What is your view on the relationship between the rights of service
members and the disciplinary role of commanders?

Answer. The UCMJ refiects the view of Congress that both are necessary. To en-
sure the discipline that is necessary to prevail in armed confiict, commanders must
have broad power to enforce standards of behavior and f>erformance that would not
be subject to criminal jurisdiction in civilian society; at the same time, the hi^
standards of morale that are essential to military effectiveness require service mem-
bers, particularly in a democratic society, to have confidence in the essential fair-
ness of disciplinary proceedings.

Question. What is your view on the role of the doctrine of stare decisis in terms
of prior decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces?

Answer. Respect for precedent by judges is a key element in maintaining public
respect for the judicial function. Appellate courts must retain the flexibility to ad-
dress errors in prior decisions or changed circumstances, but they should be very
cautious in overturning precedent.

Question. In view of Article 36 of the UCMJ, what is your view as to the hierarchy
of sources of law that must be applied by the Court in determining appropriate rules
of evidence and procedure in courts-martial?

Answer. The courts generally have considered the following hierarchy of sources:
the Constitution as applied to members of the armed forces; the UCMJ and other
applicable statutes; the Manual for Courts-Martial and other applicable Executive
Orders and presidential issuances; other rules incorporated into military practice
under authority recognized by the Manual for Courts-Martial (e.g., evidentiary rules
in civilian proceedings referenced in Military Rule of Evidence 101); and other exec-
utive branch issuances. As a general matter, the courts under Article 36 have ap-
plied the provisions of the Manual for Courts-Martial unless a Manual provision is
contrary to or inconsistent with the UCMJ or the Constitution.

Question. In your view, what is the standard for determining when the court
should apply a rule that is different from the rule generally appfied in the trial of
criminal cases in the federal district courts?

Answer. Under Article 36, if the matter is governed by the Manual for Courts-
Martial, and the provision is "not contrary to or inconsistent with" the UCMJ or
the Constitution, the courts generally have determined that the Manual provision
is applicable. If there is no rule in the Manual, or if the Manual provision is uncon-
stitutional or inconsistent with the UCMJ, the courts have looked to the rules gen-
erally applicable in the trial of criminal cases in the federal district courts to the
extent not inconsistent with the UCMJ. In addition, the Manual for Courts-Martial
provides, in Rule 101 of the Military Rules of Evidence, that if there is no rule cov-
ering an evidentiary issue in the Manual for Courts-Marital, then the rule generally
applied in the trial of the criminal cases in the federal district courts applies; Rule
101 also provides that if there is no generally applicable rule applied in federal dis-
trict courts, the rules of evidence at common law apply. Also, if a properly issued
executive branch rule (e.g., a DOD issuance, a military department issuance, or a
command issuance) is more protective of the accused than the rule generally applied
in federal district courts or at common law, the courts generally nave viewed the
executive branch issuance as applicable.

Question. A constant threat to the military system is the problem of command in-
fluence in the military justice system, including instances involving judge advocates

236

as well as commanders. What is your view as to the role of the Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces in addressing this problem?

Answer. The role of the Court is to apply the provisions of the UCMJ, the Manual
for Courts-Martial, applicable executive branch issuances, and the precedents of the
Court, including de novo review, to ensure that issues of command influence have
been properly litigated at trial and on appeal, and that appropriate remedial meas-
ures, if required, have been taken.

Question. What is your view of the role of legislative history in judicial interpreta-
tion of the law?

Answer. Legislative history provides an important source of information for courts
to use in the interpretation of statutes.

Question. The Court currently consists of five judges. The number of individuals
on active duty has been reduced in recent years and the quality of American fight-
ing forces has been increased. In light of those changes, are five judges still nec-
essary and if so why?

Answer. The concerns that led to the establishment of a five judge court are as
important today as thev were when the proposal was initiated and enacted into law.
The establishment of the five judge court was based on the need for stability in the
highest court of the military justice system, not on caseload. The increase in the size
of the Court from three to five members was recommended by the Department of
Defense, and was supported by the Judge Advocates General of each of the services.
Testifying in favor of the proposal before the House Armed Services Committee in
1980, MG Alton Harvey, Judge Advocate General of the Army, said: "The present
size of the Court of Military Appeals has tended, particularly in recent years, to
produce instability in the established body of military law. IVimarily, this has come
about by the rapid turnover in membership which resulted in new majorities being
formed. While this problem can arise in any court, it has tended to be quite frequent
at the Court of Military Appeals where the departure of a single judge of a two
member majority can bring about an abrupt shift in existing law. . . . Increasing
the membership of the Court from three to five will promote desirable stability in
its decisions by reducing the likelihood that the departure of a single judge will ad-
versely impact upon the stability of the Court and the certainty of its precedents."
In the same hearing, when DOD's Assistant General Counsel, Robert L. Gilliat, was
asked whether the proposal was based upon the court's workload, he made it clear
that the proposal to add two judges was not designed to "affect the ability to handle
the woricloaa." In 1989, in the report accompanying the legislation which increased
the size of the Court from three to five members, the Senate Armed Services Com-
mittee cited stability in doctrine, not workload, as the basis for the legislation: "The
Court of Military Appeals is the highest authority within the military justice sys-
tem. . . . One of the primary functions of the highest appellate tribunal within a
jurisdiction is to ensure clarity of decisions and predictability of doctrine. . . . Sta-
bility in membership of the highest court of a jurisdiction is particularly important
to ensure that the normal evolution of the law is not rendered unpredictable as a
result of personnel changes. ... A degree of turnover [isj inevitable on any court
due to age, disability, and other factors. The loss of a single judge has a devastating
impact, however, on the stability of a Court composed of only three judges."

[The nomination reference of Andrew S. Effron follows:]

Nomination Reference and Report

As In Executive Session,
Senate ok the United States,

June 21. 1996.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

Andrew S. Effron,* of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Armed Forces for the term of 15 years to expire on the date prescribed
ty law, vice Robert E. Wiss.

July 10, 1996.
Reported by Mr. Thurmond with the recommendation that the nomination be con-
firmed.

'Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly
conatitutcd committee of the Senate.

237

[The biographical sketch of Andrew S. EfTron, which was trans-
mitted to tne committee at the time the nomination was referred,
follows:]

Biographical Sketch of Andrew Effron

Andrew S. EfTron serves on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee as
Minority Counsel. He previously has served as the Committee's General Counsel
(1988-95) and Counsel (1987-88).

Prior to joining the Committee, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Depart-
ment of Defense Office of General Counsel (1977-87); as Trial Counsel, Chief of
Military Justice, and Defense Counsel in the OfTice of the Staff Judge Advocate,
Fort McClellan, Alabama (1976-77); and as a legislative aide to the late Representa-
tive William A. Steiger (1970-76; 2 years full-time, the balance between school se-
mesters).

Mr. Effron was bom in Stamford, Connecticut (Sept. 18, 1948), and raised in
Poughkeepsie, New York, where he graduated from Poughkeepsie High School
(1966). He is a graduate of Harvard College (1970, B.A., magna cum laude), where
he was Editor in Chief of the Harvard Political Review; Harvard Law School (1975,
J.D. cum laude), where he was Executive Editor of the Harvard Civil Rights Civil
Liberties Law Review; and the Judge Advocate (jeneral's School, U.S. Army (Basic
Course Distinguished Graduate, 1976; Graduate Course, by correspondence, 1984).

Mr. Effron's publications include: Supreme Court — 1990 Term, Part I, Army Law-
yer, Mar. 1991, at 76 (with Francis A. Gilligan and Stephen D. Smith); Supreme
Court Review of Decisions by the Court of Military Appeals: The Legislative Back-
ground, Army Lawyer, Jan. 1985, at 59; Post-Trial Submissions to the Convening
Authority Under the Military Justice Act of 1983, Army Lawyer, July 1984, at 59;
Military Participation in United States Law Enforcement Activities Overseas: The
Extraterritorial Effect of the Posse Comitatus Act, 54 St. John's L. Rev. 1 (1979)
(with Deanne C. Siemer); Punishment of Enlisted Personnel Outside the UCMJ: A
Statutory and Equal Protection Analysis of Military Discharge Certificates, 9 Harv.
CR-CLL. Rev. 227(1974).

Mr. Effron's awards include the Army Meritorious Service Medal (1977); the De-
fense Meritorious Service Medal (1979); and the Department of Defense Distin-
guished Civilian Service Medal (1987).

Mr. EfTron and his wife Barbara live in Annandale, Virginia. They have a daugh-
ter, Robin, and a son, Michael.

[The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals nomi-
nated from civilian life by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate, and certain senior military offi-
cers as determined by the committee, to complete a form that de-
tails the biographical, financial and other information of the nomi-
nee. The form executed by Andrew S. Effron 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

238

PLEASE NOTE: You have been provided a supplementary questionnaire for judi-
cial nominees. Questions 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of PAKT A are duplicated in the
supplementary questionnaire. You may ignore the duplicate questions in PART A.

Part A— Biographical Inkor.mation

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

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)
Andrew S. Effron (Andy).

2. Position to which nominated:

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

3. Date of nomination:
June 21, 1996.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nominee responded and tne information is contained in the committee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
September 18, 1948; Stamford, CT.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Barbara L. Effron (Lubotsky)

7. Names and ages of children:

Robin J. Effron (17) and Michael J. Effron (12).

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

• Poughkeepsie High School, Poughkeepsie, NY, 1963-66, High School Di-
ploma, 1966.

• Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, 1966-1970, B.A., 1970.

• Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, 1971-72, 197^-75, J.D. 1975.

• The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, VA.
Basic Course. 1976.

• The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, Graduate Course (by
correspondence). 1984.

See supplementary questionnaire.

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

See supplementary questionnaire.

None.

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

See supplementary questionnaire.

13. Political afiUiations 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.

I have volunteered in a variety ol campaigns in a routine capacity (e.g., handing
out literature at the polls) during the last 5 years in Fairfax County on behalf of
local, state, and federal Democratic Party candidates.

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, po-
litical party, political action committee, or similar entity of $100 or more for the past
5 years.

None.

239

14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements.

See supplementary questionnaire.

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

See supplementary questionnaire.

None.

17. Commitment to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee 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 Biographi-
cal and rinancial Information and that the information provided therein is, to the
best of my knowledge, current, accurate, and complete.

Andrew S. Effron.

This 26th day of June, 1996.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES

1. Full name: Andrew S. Effron.

2. Employment record: List (by year) all business or professional corporations,
companies, firms, or other enterprises, partnerships, government organizations,
other institutions and organizations, nonprofit or otnerwise, including firms, with
which you were connected as an officer, director, partner, proprietor, or employee
or public ofTicial (elected or appointed) since graduation from college. For any mili-
tary service, list the dates, branch of service, rank or rate, and type of discharge
received.

• 1987-present: Senate Armed Services Committee (employee)

• 1979-1987: Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense (employee).

• 1976-1979: U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General's Corps (Basic Course
1976; Ofiice of the Stafi" Judge Advocate, Vi. McClellan, AL 1776-77; Ofilce
of General Counsel, DOD, 1977-79).

• 1970-76: Office of Congressman William A. Steiger (employee: 2 years
fiall-time; the balance between school semesters)

• 1970: Sabre Foundation (employee)

• 1970-71: Church St. Garage, Cambridge, MA (part-time employee).

• Military Service: U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General's Corps: active
duty, 1976-1979 (Captain, 0-3, honorable discharge); U.S. Army Reserve,
1980-1994 (Major, 0-4, honorable discharge).

3. Honors and Awards: List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees,
and honorary society memberships that you believe would be of interest to the Com-
mittee.

• Harvard College (1970): Phi Beta Kappa; B.A. degree magna cum laude

• Harvard Law School (1975): J.D. degree cum laude

• The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army (1976): Basic Course
Distinguished Graduate (highest overall class standing); award for highest
standing in Administrative and Civil Law.

• U.S. Army Meritorious Service Medal (1977).

• Department of Defense Meritorious Service Medal (1979).

• Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal (1987).

240

4. Bar Associations: List all bar associations, legal or judicial-related committees
or conferences of which you are or have been a member and give the titles and dates
of any office which you have held in such groups.

• American Bar Association (since 1976)

• The Judge Advocates Association (since 1976)

• Federal Bar Association (since 1985)

5. Other Memberships: List all other organizations to which you belong.

• Agudas Achim Jewish Congregation (Alexandria, VA).

• Agudas Achim Men's Club.

• Long Branch Swim Club (Annandale, VA)

• Long Branch Civic Association (Annandale, VA)

• Northern Virginia Jewish Community Center (Fairfax, VA)

• Canterbury Woods Elementary School ITA (Annandale, VA)

• W.T. Woodson High School I'T A (Fairfax, VA)

6. Court Admission: List all courts in which you have been admitted to practice,
with dates of admission and lapses if any such memberships lapsed. Please explain
the reason for any lapse of membership. Give the same information for administra-
tive bodies which require special admission to practice.

• District of Columbia (1975)

• U.S. Supreme Court (1980)

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (1976)

7. Published Writings: List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles,
reports, or other published materials you have written or edited. Please supply one
copy of all published material not published in a law review or other widely dissemi-
nated publication. Also, please supply a copy of all formal speeches by you on issues
involving constitutional law or legal policy in which you nad a prepared text. If
there were press reports about the speech, and they are readily available to you,
please supply them.

• Punishment of Enlisted Personnel Outside the UCMJ: A Statutory and
Equal Protection Analysis of Military Discharge Certificates, 9 Harv. CR-
CLL. Rev. 227(1974).

• Military Participation in United States Law Enforcement Activities Over-
seas: The Extraterritorial Effect of the Posse Comitatus Act, 54 St. John's
L. Rev. 1 (1979) (with Deanne C. Siemer).

• Post-Trial Submissions to the Convening Authority Under the Military
Justice Act of 1983, Army Lawyer, July 1984, at 59.

• Supreme Court Review of Decisions by the Court of Military Appeals: The
Legislative Background, Army Lawyer, Jan. 1985, at 59.

• Supreme Court— 1990 Term, Part I. Army Lawyer, Mar. 1991, at 76 (with
Francis A. Gilligan and Stephen D. Smith)

8. Health: What is the present state of your health? List the date of your last
physical examination.

• Good. June 11, 1996.

9. Legal Career:

a. Describe chronologically your law practice and experience after graduation from
law school.

• Jan.-Apr. 1976: The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, Stu-
dent (Basic Course).

• Apr. 1976-Nov. 1977: Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Ft. McClellan,
AL (Trial Counsel; Chief of Military Justice and Trial Counsel; and Defense
Counsel)

• Nov. 1977^an. 1987: Office of the General Counsel, Department of De-
fense, attorney-advisor (military status: Nov. 1977-May 1979; civilian sta-
tus June 1979^an. 1987).

• Jan. 1987-present: Senate Armed Services Committee, Counsel (Jan.
1987-Scp. 1988); General Counsel (Sep. 1988-^an.l995); Minority Counsel
(Jan. 1995-present).

• I also served in the U.S. Army Reserve as an individual mobilization
augmentec judge advocate with 2-week active duty assignments in the fol-
lowing organizations in the years indicated: Office of the Staff Judge Advo-
cate, Ft. Devcns, MA (1980, 1981); Litigation Division, Military Personnel
Branch, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army, (1983, 1984,
1985, 1986); Defense Systems Management College (1987, 1989); Criminal
I.^w Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army (1988,
1990, 1991, 1992).

241

b.l. What has been the general character of your law practice, dividing it into pe-
riods with dates if its character has changed over the years?

2. Describe your typical former clients, and mention the areas, if any, in which
you have specialized.

• While serving on active duty as a judge advocate at Ft. McClellan, AL
(Apr. 1976-Nov. 1977), the general character of my practice involved pro-
viding advice on military justice matters and participating in criminal trials
under the Uniform Coae of Military Justice and before U.S. magistrates.
During mv period as trial counsel I represented the Government and during
my period as defense counsel I represented accused service members. I rep-
resented the government in proceedings before Federal magistrates who
heard cases at Ft. McClellan approximately once every month.

• In the OfTice of General Counsel, Department of Defense (Nov. 1977-Jan.
1987), my practice involved legal policy issues related to military justice
and discipline, civil military relations, military personnel law, DOD reorga-
nization, and selected matters involving civilian personnel law. My duties
included drafting and reviewing legislation, regulations, legal opinions, con-
gressional testimony, and background memoranda.

• On the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, (Jan. 1987-
present), my practice has involved legal and legislative px)licy issues related
to the full range of national security activities, with primary focus on mili-
tary justice and discipline, Federal acquisition law, constitutional law, and

f>arliamentary procedure. My duties have involved drafting and reviewing
egislation, legal opinions, policy statements, speeches, testimony, and back-
ground memoranaa; organization of hearings; and other legislative activi-
ties,
c.l. Did you appear in court frequently, occasionally, or not at all? If the frequency
of your appearances in court varied, describe each such variance, giving dates.

2. Provide an estimate of the percentage of these appearances that were in:

(a) Federal courts, including military courts;

(b) state courts of record;

3. Provide an estimate of the percentage of your litigation that was:

(a) civil;

(b) criminal.

4. Provide an estimate of the number of civil cases in courts of record you tried
to verdict or judgment (rather than settled), indicating whether you were sole coun-
sel, chief counsel, or associate counsel.

5. Provide an estimate of the percentage of these trials that was:

(a) jury;

(b) non-jury.

6. Provide an estimate of the number of cases you briefed and/or argued before
appellate courts, indicating whether you were sole counsel, chief counsel, or associ-
ate counsel.

• While serving on active duty as a judge advocate at Ft. McClellan, AL
(Apr. 1976-Nov. 1977), I appeared in court frequently; all appearances were
at the Federal level and involved criminal proceedings. I estimate that
about 50 or more of the proceedings involving the Uniform Code of Military
Justice resulted in a verdict, including guilty pleas, and about 85 percent
or more involved judge-alone proceedings. In virtually all of the cases I
served as sole counsel. None of these proceedings were before appellate
courts. Since that time, my practice has involved legal and legislative policy
matters and has not involved court appearances.

d. Describe a representative sample of the litigated matters which you personally
handled.

• The cases I tried while serving on active duty as a judge advocate at Ft.
McClellan, AL (Apr. 1976-Nov. 1977) involved a range of offenses unique
to the military justice system as well as offenses more typical of civilian so-
ciety. The cases involved offenses such as assault, larceny, false claims, bad
checks, absence without leave, disobeying orders, and violation of regula-
tions.

e.l. List any judicial offices you have held, whether such position was elected or
appointed, and a description of the jurisdiction of each such court.

2. If you are or have been a judge, provide:

a. a representative sample of opinions you have written, including opinions involv-
ing constitutional issues; and

242

b. a short summary of all appellate opinions where your decisions were reversed
or where your judgment was a(Tirmed with significant criticism of your substantive
or procedural rulings.

• I have not held any judicial office.

f. Describe other significant legal activities you have pursued, including signifi-
cant litigation which did not progress to trial or legal matters that did not involve
litigation. Describe the nature of your participation in this question, please omit any
information protected by attorney-client privilege (unless the privilege has been
waived).

• While serving as a judge advocate at Ft. McClellan (1976-77), I drafted

a comprehensive legal guide for commanders, which was issued to all com- .
manders at the installation.

• Immediately following my service at Fort McClellan, I served for over 9
years as an attorney-aovisor in the Office of General (Counsel, Department
of Defense, in the Pentagon (Nov. 1977-Jan. 1987). My major responsibil-
ities pertained to legal and legislative policy issues concerning the Uniform
Code of Military Justice and administrative proceedings related to discipli-
nary matters. In this position, I had extensive and continuing interaction
with judge advocates involved in the trial, appeal, and supervision of mili-
tary justice matters, frequently on a daily basis. In addition, my activities
involved considerable research into the scholarly literature, case law, and
legislative materials concerning military justice, personnel administration,
and judicial proceedings in the civilian sector. The following are among the
major activities in which I served as the primary representative of the Of-
fice of General Counsel, typically working with military and civilian attor-
neys from other elements of the Department of Defense and the Executive
Branch:

• Military justice matters:

• Study of the Court of Military Appeals (1979).

• The 1980 Department of Defense legislative proposal to revise mili-
tary appellate procedures. Many of the proposals were eventually enacted
into law, with modifications, at various times over the next decade and are
codified at 10 U.S.C. 941-946.

• TTie proposed Military Rules of Evidence, which, with modifications,
were issuea by the President in 1980 as Chapter XXVIII of the Manual for
Courts-Marital.

• The 1982 Department of Defense comprehensive legislative proposal
to modify significant elements of military pretrial, trial, and post-trial pro-
cedures. Many provisions were enacted into law, with modifications, as the
Military Justice Act of 1983, Public Uw No. 98-209.

• A complete revision of the Manual for Courts-Martial, which was is-
sued by the President as the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States,
1984 (Executive Order 12473, as amended by Executive Order 12484).

• Development of legislation to establish the military offense of espio-
nage, enacted in 1985 and codified at 10 U.S.C. 906a.

• The 1986 amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial (Executive
Order 12550).

• Other matters related to disciplinary and administrative proceedings:

• Study of the extraterritorial application of the Posse Comitatus Act
(1978).

• Comprehensive revision of DOD Directive 1332.14, governing enlisted
administrative separations, which was issued in 1982.

• Development of revised rules governing Discharge Review Board pro-
cedures, issued as DOD Directive 1332.28 (1982).

• Development of rules governing the relationship between the Depart-
ments of Justice and Defense relating to the investigation and prosecution
of crimes involving DOD personnel, programs, or operations, issued as DOD
Directive 5525.7 (1985).

• In addition, with two other DOD representatives, I represented the
Department of Defense, working with the House and Senate Armed Serv-
ices Committees, in the preparation of the legislative language for the con-
ference report on the Goldwatcr-Nichols Department of Defense Reorga-
nization Act of 1986.

• Subsequent to my service in DOD's Office of General Counsel, I have
served since Jan. 1987 with the Senate Armed Services Committee. My re-
sponsibilities have involved legal and legislative policy issues related to the

243

full range of national security activities, with primary focus on military jus-
tice ana discipline, Federal acquisition law, constitutional law, ancf par-
liamentary procedure. My duties have involved drafting and reviewing leg-
islation, preparation of legal opinions, policy statements, speeches, testi-
mony, and background memoranda; organization of hearing; and other leg-
islative activities. The following are among the major activities in which I
have had a significant stall role, typically working with Members of the
Senate and House, other committee staff, staff of other committees, the per-
sonal staff of Members of the Senate and House, the Office of [legislative
Counsel of the Senate and the House, the Parliamentarian, and military
and civilian attorneys in the Executive Branch and in the private sector.

• Preparation of the bill language proposed by the Senate Armed Serv-
ices Committee and the subsequent House-Senate conference committee on
the nine annual defense authorization bills enacted between 1987 and 1996
(the National Defense Authorization Act for 1988 and 1989 through the Na-
tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996), as well as sub-
stantive responsibility for staffing specific matters in the areas to which I
was assigned.

• Preparation of bill language and related materials on the subject of ac-
quisition reform, which culminated in the enactment of the Federal Acquisi-
tion Streamlining Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-355), the Federal Acquisition
Reform Act of 1995 (enacted as Division D of the National Defense Author-
ization Act for Fiscal Year 1996), and the Information Technology Manage-
ment Reform Act of 1995 (enacted as Division E of the National Defense
Authorization Act for F'iscal Year 1996).

10. Experience vnth the military law or civilian criminal justice systems:
In addition to such information as may be described elsewhere in this section, de-
scribe your experience working with military law or civilian criminal justice sys-
tems.

• I have had the opfxjrtunity to work with the military justice system from
a variety of perspectives — trying cases in the field, providing guidance to
commanders and service members on individual cases, preparation of rules
within the Executive Branch, and preparation of legislative materials with-
in the Legislative Branch. In addition, my background has provided me
with an appreciation for the role of military justice in our Nation's overall
national security policy. I have had the opportunity to work on the full
range of legal issues relating to national security, including, for example,
treaties, war powers, manpower administration, and acquisition policy. My
responsibilities have provided me with a breadth of experience concerning
the context in which issues arise, are considered, and are decided in the
field of national security.

11. Assistance to the Disadvantaged: An ethical consideration under Canon 2
of the American Bar Association's Code of IVofessional Responsibility calls for
"every lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or professional workload, to
find some time to participate in serving the disadvantaged." Describe a representa-
tive sample of any activities you have undertaken in this regard.

• My primary contributions have been in the field of education. During the
1980s, my wife and I devoted ourselves on a regular and continuing basis
to the rejuvenation of a public elementary school with a diverse population,
including many disadvantaged children. I served as an officer for 9 years,
including a term as President, on the school's ITA, as well as many terms
on the (Jiaunty Council of PTAs, at a time when the I^A was in full part-
nership with the school's administration. After joining the staff of the Sen-
ate Armed Services Committee, the unpredictable nature of the Senate
schedule has limited my ability to serve as an officer, but I continue to par-
ticipate in volunteer opportunities at public schools. In addition, through
my synagogue, I have participated in programs that assist the disadvan-
taged. During the holiday season, our family "adopts" several disadvan-
taged families and we provide them with meals and gifts. I regularly con-
trioute financially to nonprofit programs at the Federal, state, ana local
level that provide legal services to the disadvantaged.

12. Discrimination: The American Bar Association's Commentary to its Code of
Judicial Conduct states that it is inappropriate for a judge to hold membership in
any organization that invidiously discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or religion.
Do you currently belong, or have you ever belonged, to any organization whicn so
discriminates — through either formal membership requirements or the practical im-

244

plementation of membership policies? If so, list, with dates of membership. What
nave you done to try to change these fwlicies?
• I do not belong to any such organization.

[The nomination of Andrew S. Effron was reported to the Senate
by Senator Strom Thurmond on July 10, 1996, with the rec-
ommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 12, 1996.1

NOMINATION OF LT. GEN. HOWELL M. ESTES
III, USAF, FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE
GRADE OF GENERAL, AND TO BE COM-
MANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES SPACE
COMMAND/COMMANDER IN CHIEF, NORTH
AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COM-
MAND

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1996

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:20 a.m., in room
SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond
(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Thurmond, Nunn and
Robb.

Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, Staff Di-
rector.

Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, Bert K.
Mizusawa and Eric H. Thoemmes.

Minority staff members present: Arnold L. Punaro, minority staff
director; Andrew S. Effron, minority counsel; Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel; and David Lyles, professional staff member.

Staff assistants present: Patricia L. Banks and Cristina W. Fiori.

Research assistants present: Deasy Wagner.

Committee members' assistants present: Judith A. Ansley, assist-
ant to Senator Warner; John Molino, assistant to Senator Coats;
Andrew W. Johnson assistant to Senator Exon; and Frederick M.
Downey assistant to Senator Lieberman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND,

CHAIRMAN

Chairman THURMOND. The committee will come to order.

The committee meets today to receive testimony concerning a
very key nomination. Lieutenant Greneral Howell Estes has been
nominated for appointment to the grade of general and assignment
as the Commander in Chief North American Aerospace Command
and Commander in Chief United States Space Command. This is
a very critical position, which needs to be filled as soon as prac-
tical. The committee has been informed that General Ashy, the cur-
rent commander, will retire very soon.

(245)

246

We all know General Estes very well. General Estes is currently
the Director of Operations on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon. I be-
lieve every member of the committee has his biography, so there
is no need for me to recite his record of challenging assignments
and accomplishments.

In the interest of time, I would like to move as quickly as pos-
sible to the questions. I would like to yield to Senator Nunn for any
opening comments he may want to make. Senator Nunn.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM NUNN

Senator Nunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, I appreciate you scheduling this hearing. I know that Gen-
eral Estes does and the people at the Department of Defense do be-
cause this is a very important assignment. Of course, General
Estes, I think is very well qualified for this position. So I will join
you in enthusiastic support.

Mr. Chairman, General Estes is well known to this committee as
the Director of Operations of the Joint Staff for the past 2 years.
He has briefed the committee many times on current operations in
Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and elsewhere. I have also had a
chance to visit with him in the field a long time ago, back when
the Stealth Fighter was still a secret, as I recall.

I have known General Estes and his family for a long time. He
is an excellent choice to serve as CINCSPACE. His father was also
an outstanding military officer, and I have had the great honor of
knowing him over the years. So he comes well-qualified.

Among other responsibilities, the next CINCSPACE will face the
challenge of integrating a national missile defense system into an
overall continental air and space defense structure. General Estes,
I would think, certainly you will get a lot of advice from this com-
mittee and its various members, and the advice will not always be
consistent on that subject. But we know you are going to do a good
job. My guess is you may even start getting some of that advice
today.

So we appreciate your splendid record of service and we know
you will do a good job in this position. I look forward to working
with you.

General Estes. Thank you. Senator Nunn.

Chairman THURMOND. The committee asked General Estes to an-
swer a series of advance policy questions. He responded to those
questions. Without objection, I will make the questions and the re-
sponses a part of the record.

General Estes, if you have any opening remarks, we will give you
the opportunity to address the committee now. I will ask you to
keep your remarks brief.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. HOWELL M. ESTES IH, USAF, NOMI-
NEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND
TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES SPACE COM-
MAND/COMMANDER IN CHIEF, NORTH AMERICAN AERO-
SPACE DEFENSE COMMAND

General Estks. Mr. Chairman, I will do just that.
I just want to take the opportunity to say that I am extremely
pleased to be sitting in front of you today. I appreciate the commit-

247

tee taking the time out of a very, very busy schedule to conduct
this hearing. I will ass'.re you, Mr. Chairman and the members of
the committee, that I will do my absolute best, if confirmed as
USCINCSPACE and CINCNORAD, to carry out the great job that
has been done out there by the former CINCs, and to ensure that
we continue to move ahead in the space business and in the de-
fense of the U.S. and Canada in the NORAD side of the house.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am ready for questions.

Chairman Thurmond. Now, I have several questions we ask of
every nominee who appears before the committee. If you will re-
spond to each question, then we can move on to policy questions.

Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest?

General EsTES. Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Have you assumed duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the con-
firmation process?

General Estes. I have not, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Will you reaffirm your written response
that you agree to appear before congressional committees when re-
quested and to provide your personal opinions when asked, even if
your opinion differs from the administration position?

General Estes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will comply with what you
just read.

Chairman Thurmond. Now, General Estes, in your view, what
are the most urgent improvements that need to be made in the way
the Space Command supports the operational requirements of the
warfighting commanders in chief?

General Estes. Mr. Chairman, this is an area, with the jobs that
I have had, having been on the supported end of what U.S. Space
Command has done, where I have seen a lot of the actions that
have already occurred. The operationalization of space as it is
called, in which we are trying to ensure that space systems provide
direct support to the warfighters, is a very important issue. It is
one which previous CINCs have worked hard on, and it is one
which I, if confirmed, will also do.

I think the most important priorities are to make use of things
that are already available from space, and to be sure that the oper-
ators understand what is available and know how to have access
to it, and then put those things into their plans. So, one of the most
important things we can do is to ensure that people are educated
on space, that we normalize the space business even more than we
have in the past. I will assure you and this committee that, if con-
firmed, I will continue to do just that.

Chairman Thurmond. General Estes, do you believe that it is re-
alistic and desirable to work towards forward integration of DOD
and intelligence space systems acquisition and planning? Should
we seek to create a genuine national security Space Architect, as
called for in the Joint Space Management Board's charter?

General Estes. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue, as I understand
it, that is being looked at very hard. Of course, I am very familiar
with the fact that a Joint Space Management Board has been
formed, and that a DOD Architect for Space has been formed. But

248

this does not get at the National issue which you raise, which
would have to bring in the NRO systems.

Again, it is my understanding that there is an integrated pro-
gram team which has been formed to look at this issue. I anxiously
await the outcome of that team. It will help work this issue and
determine how best we can integrate the operations, acquisition
and planning that goes on in the NRO with the other space sys-
tems that DOD works.

Chairman Thurmond. General Estes, do you think that giving
Space Command a greater role in the development and manage-
ment of new space technologies would improve its ability to per-
form existing and future missions?

General EsTES. Mr. Chairman, the roles, as you well know and
this committee well knows, for the CINC at U.S. Space Command
are to state the operational requirements for space, and then to ac-
tually execute and operate the systems. It is awfully important, if
you are going to do those two sort of ends of the process, that you
also be familiar with and be a player in the acquisition business.
I think that the new systems, new boards, new architects that have
been set up in the Department of Defense to help work this and
the involvement of USCINCSPACE in that process is exactly what
ought to happen and is exactly the right direction.

Chairman Thurmond. My time is up.

Senator Nunn.

Senator Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Estes, in your response to questions that the committee
sent, you expressed concern about the lack of well-developed Joint
doctrine. I believe you were referring to both traditional and non-
traditional areas. You stated that, quote: 'This will cause me to
thoroughly think through how Joint forces should be employed to
accomplish the mission."

Have you been working on Joint doctrine in your present posi-
tion? What are the areas of deficiency there that you are obviously
concerned about?

General Estks. Well, Senator Nunn, as we try to work through
the issues of Joint doctrine, as the J-3 of the Joint Staff, Joint doc-
trine does not fall into the J-3. It does fall into the J-7. But, clear-
ly, one of the things that we get involved in as operators is we op-
erate in accordance with Joint doctrine. So it is very important that
it be laid out correctly. General Shali has said many times that we
are going to have a Joint doctrine, we are going to find the best
way to do it, and that is the way we are going to carry out our
business.

Clearly, in accordance with the UCP and directives regarding the
CINCs that have been promulgated from this particular body here
in the Congress, the CINCs have the authority and the ability to
organize their forces to carry out tasks the way they want to. That
obviously needs to happen, because circumstances tend to change
a little bit. Joint doctrine, while it generally fits, may have to re-
quire some modification to work within a given theater, to work
with certain allies.

So, it is really important that we think that through when it
comes particularly to space.

249

Senator NUNN. Do you think we are doing that now? Because I
believe your concern was expressed the last time you were before
the committee. Are we working that problem in the Joint Staff?

General EsTES. We sure are. Of course, the chairman's vision,
Joint Vision 2010, is designed to help with that issue. It has a big
section in it which talks to doctrine, as we try to work toward
where the military is going in the future and the kinds of doctrine
that need to be developed to be ready for the kinds of systems and
the type of military we think we need to have out in 2010.

Senator Nunn. How does this apply to space? I think you were
about to get into that.

General Estes. Well, again, the space business, with all the
great things that have happened previously, and lots of progress
has been made, and CINCs around the world, especially the re-
gional CINCs, are gaining a better and better understanding of
how to use space, the Joint doctrine of how we do that business is
still not well defined in some cases and is going to require some
additional work. This is going on in J-7 now. Lots of work is being
done to create Joint doctrine for space. As we get further along
down the road, we will have a better understanding of what to do.

But what I was specifically addressing in the comment that you
made. Senator Nunn, that you attributed to me from earlier testi-
mony, is the fact that we have a lot of good things happening in
space, and while we have made a distinct amount of progress, sub-
stantial progress in integrating these things doctrinally into the
way we do our Joint warfighting business, we need to continue to
work this. This is a very difficult business to understand. We need
to make it more understandable to operators.

As I said, previous CINCs have made tremendous strides in this.
But it is an area we need to continue to work on. Yu can rest as-
sured that, if confirmed, I will do just that.

Senator NUNN. An item in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, dated
July 27, 1996 — in other words, just 2 or 3 days ago — reports that
175 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were deployed to
Haiti. As far as I know, none of the congressional oversight com-
mittees were informed of that deployment, if it indeed occurred.
Could you tell us if that report is true, and the date of their deploy-
ment, circumstances and so forth?

General Estes. Senator Nunn, the deployment — I am not trying
to pick words with you, but this is actually an exercise that they
are going down to participate in, not a deployment. If it were a de-
ployment, obviously we would have come to you and let you know
that was going on. This is a standard exercise that Atlantic Com-
mand is running. They are putting some of their forces down there
for training, as we have done with a lot of other forces since the
U.S. forces that were part of the U.N. mission there left earlier in
the year.

So, we have continued to do these exercises, in exercising a cou-
ple of different groups of people. The primary one is combat engi-
neers which have gone down there, on the one hand, to get train-
ing. We do this throughout the Latin American and the Caribbean
countries. They go down there and get good training. In addition,
they end up helping the countries out.

250

So these are just different kinds of exercises that we are talking
about.

Senator NuNN. How long would the 82nd Airborne soldiers stay
down there?

General EsTES. They will only be down there about 10 days. So,
it is a very short exercise, going down for a specific period of time
to accomplish a specific purpose, and then they will come back. We
are going to rotate people down through this series of exercises
that ACOM has planned.

Senator NuNN. Are they tied into the U.N. forces still there?

General Estes. They are not. This is separate.

Senator NuNN. Totally separate?

General Estes. Totally separate. This is U.S. unilateral exercis-
ing going on, conducted by Atlantic Command.

Senator NUNN. So, it is not a replacement of the forces we pulled
out?

General Estes. It absolutely is not.

Senator NUNN. One final question. General. How do you rate the
threat to the United States between long-range ballistic missiles
and stealthy cruise missiles or just plain cruise missiles? How do
you rate those in terms of the most likely threat, the most urgent
threat and so forth?

General Estes. Well, I think the National intelligence estimates
speak to the issue of exactly when different threats will come due.
I know there has been some debate over that.

I think both long-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are
a consideration which we must take into account. In my current po-
sition as the J-3, there has been a lot of discussion about stealthy
cruise missiles. We know what is going on in terms of ballistic mis-
siles. Either of those types of weapon systems, if aimed against our
great country, can have the same impact. So, we have got to watch
both of them carefully. We have got to develop plans to handle both
threats.

Again, it is my understanding that U.S. Space Command and
NORAD have both looked at this issue in terms of the priorities.
Defense against ballistic missiles and defense against cruise mis-
siles are in the top three of the priorities for NORAD this past
year. So, my personal feeling is that we have to take both threats
seriously. We must be ready to deal with both when those threats
materialize.

Senator NUNN. Which is the toughest to deal with?

General Estes. Well, I think they both present different and
unique problems. The cruise missile problem — both of them can be
fairly short in times of duration to detect and do something about.
A cruise missile, depending on where it is launched from, might
take a little longer to arrive on its target. So you have got a little
more time to react. But its path may not be as certain as a ballistic
missile, which, once detected, we know what the path is, and the
intercept geometry might be a little easier on. But both are very
difficult problems and both demand our attention.

Senator NuNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Robb.

Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief

251

First of all, Greneral Estes, I would like to thank you for the
many hours that you have spent with members of this committee
and others on issues that might not even be visible on the public
record. I do not think there is a full appreciation of the number of
hours, particularly for the Director of Operations, that are re-
quired. I just want to publicly thank you for the courtesies that you
have extended on any number of occasions for many of us who have
taken advantage of your willingness to brief at very odd hours and
weekends and what have you. Most people would assume that the
rest of the defense establishment was operating on the same kind
of schedule they were, and that is just not the case.

I kidded with you just before the hearing started, Why would you
want to give all this up to go out to a very pleasant location and
become a CINC? The chairman came in about that time, before you
had an opportunity to fully respond. But let me ask just a couple
of questions that relate more to your current duties than your pro-
spective duties, because I think you have a unique vantage point
to share.

You are about to become, certainly with, I believe, the full and
enthusiastic support of this committee and the full Senate, the
Commander in Chief for U.S. Space Command and NORAD. Ques-
tions have been raised whether or not at this particular point in
our development of overall structure, whether or not we need the
precise number of CINCs that we have today, particularly those
that are non-regional, and whether or not there are potential sav-
ings. I suggest that there was considerable debate on the floor with
respect to the request by the Marine Corps to have additional gen-
erals. The proffered reason for that particular request had to do
with staffing additional Joint commands and what have you.

Other CINCs and defense analysts have all come to the conclu-
sion that this is an area that ought to be at least examined. I won-
der what your view at this point is with respect to whether or not
there are potential savings and economies, as well as efficiencies,
for the ability of the Defense Department to carry out our respon-
sibilities in an examination of this particular question.

General Estes. Senator Robb, it is a very difficult question for
me to answer. But you asked me for an opinion, and so I would
simply say that we just had a review of the roles and missions, as
you are well aware. One of the things that would have come out
of that, if in fact there were economies to be made, would have
been out of that roles and mission review.

I think one of the difficulties we run into, as downsizing occurs,
people think that we can eliminate positions at the top. But even
at lower-level organizations, we have found that certain tasks are
required to be done regardless of the size of the armed forces un-
less we change the structure and the mission of the armed forces.
So, it would be easy for me to sit here and try to justify every
CINC based on what I have done as the J-3 and what I have seen.
Obviously, that is not what you are looking for.

But my gut feeling is, having watched what has occurred here
and what I have seen over the last 2 years, every CINC we have
is fully engaged in a very important aspect of the mission. If, in
fact, decisions were made to consolidate CINCs, those missions are

252

not going to go away. All we are going to do is overburden another
CINC with additional responsibilities.

So, I think, in line with what the roles and missions review said,
which is that we afTirm the CINCdoms that we had out there and,
based on my personal experience as the J-3, unless we did some-
thing substantially different in the way we are utilizing our mili-
tary force today, you have got about the right level of CINCs. The
division of responsibility is about right simply because, to do away
with one of them would really overburden another CINC which is
already fully tasked.

Senator ROBB. All right. Well, let me ask you, then, just as a
final question, to slip out on that thin ice of force structure that
you alluded to. The Quadrennial Defense Review is coming up.
There has been a considerable amount of interest expressed on be-
half of this committee and the Congress about how we might ad-
dress that question in the future. What particular guidelines might
you be able to share with us as you depart perhaps the best van-
tage point for addressing that question, as J-3, and go out to the
rarified atmosphere of being USCINCSPACE and CINCNORAD?

General Estes. Senator Robb, I think, again — and I do not mean
to slip your question, because it is a very important question — but
it would be inappropriate for me to raise issues at this point with-
out letting the Quadrennial Defense Review complete its tasks.
Again, without restating what I just said in the previous answer,
I do think, based on where we are today with what we do today,
that we have about the right level of CINCdoms out there, in terms
offeree structure. It is very difficult for me to say.

I can tell you, as the J-3, in watching what our forces go through
on a day-to-day basis, there is not a lot of slack out there. People
are extremely engaged. Our forces are worked hard. We have qual-
ity of life to worry about. This committee has been very under-
standing of that and understands it probably better than any other
part of the Congress, that we cannot have people gone all the time.
So, this requires rotations offerees, which means that more people
are gone for lengths of time to try to carry out the tasks that this
government has asked the military to carry out.

There is not a lot of slack out there. We have a plan underway
right now, which has just been recently approved by the Secretary
of Defense, in which we are looking at what I would call very low-
den sity/high -tasked systems in which we are putting tremendous
pressures on. Things like reconnaissance systems. U-2's are a good
example.

It is the same kind of thing we have been doing with the battle
groups for years, where we say we have so many of these things
that can go on so many deployments. Because we are not going to
tolerate, for an extended period, longer deployments than we al-
ready have them going on. We need to manage this a little better.
We are starting to do this with other parts of the force because of
the tremendous pressure being put on those very low-density sys-
tems, which are in very high demand by the CINCs. So that we can
ensure that we are not overstepping the bounds of what is reason-
able to expect from these forces on a day-to-day basis, we are look-
ing at that.

253

So, we are already tasked — I know people look at it and say —
that is why we are doing this review. Maybe there are some other
opportunities. But, as the J-3, I would simply say, based on the ex-
perience of my last 2 years here, there is not a lot of slack out
there in the military force today to accomplish the tasks that we
have been given today to accomplish.

Senator Robb. General, thank you.

My time has expired. I am going to assume from your answer
that you would prefer to wait to comment until the QDR is finished
sometime next spring, if you are back testifying before this commit-
tee. You might be willing at that point to share some additional ob-
seiA^ations, perhaps with the perspective of having then been away
from the J-3 long enough to view it in a slightly different context.
It is clearly a matter that the Congress is going to be looking at,
and I thank you for your response.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. My time has expired.

Chairman Thurmond. I have a few more questions, but I am
going to let you answer them for the record to save time.

Do you have any other questions?

Senator RoBB. No.

Chairman Thurmond. Now, we will meet this afternoon, I be-
lieve at 3:30, in executive session. I hope we can act on your nomi-
nation at that time. I strongly support you, and I hope we can get
you out of the committee right away.

General Estes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thurmond. We thank you for your appearance and
wish you well in your work.

General Estes. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. The committee now stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:45, the hearing was adjourned.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Lt. Gen. Howell M. Estes III,
USAF, by Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers

supplied follow:]

The Joint Staff
Washington. DC. July 29, 1996.
Hon. Strom Tiiuriviond, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am sincerely honored by my nomination for assignment
to be the Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command/North American Aerospace
Command. Should your committee and the Senate confirm me for those responsibil-
ities, I pledge my full support to our Nation, the President, the Congress, the Sec-
retary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the men and
women of U.S. Space Command and North American Aerospace Command.

As requested in your letter of July 27th, I have enclosed responses to your ques-
tions.

Sincerely,

Howell M. Estes III
Lt. Gen., USAF, Director for Operations.
Enclosure,
cc: Senator Sam Nunn,

Ranking Minority Member.

38-225 97-9

254

Questions and Responses

DEFENSE reforms

Question. More than 9 years have passed since the enactment of the Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Sp)ecial Oper-
ations reforms. You have had an opportunity to observe the implementation and im-
pact of these reforms, particularly in your assignment as Director of Operations, J-
3, Joint Staff.

Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?

Answer. Yes, I strongly support the Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and its
provisions. They have unquestionably strengthened our Armed Forces and the
warfighting combatant commander's ability to conduct operations.

Question. What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have
been implemented?

Answer. I believe the entire Department of Defense has vigorously and success-
fully pursued implementation of these important reforms.

Question. What do you consider to be tne most important aspects of these defense
reforms?

Answer. The most positive aspect is the overall improvement of our joint
warfighting ability. The Goldwater-Nichols Act has resulted in much needed im-
provements in joint doctrine, joint professional military education, and strategic
planning. Another important element is the unambiguous responsibility placed upon
each CLNC for execution of mission and preparedness of assigned forces, and en-
hanced command authority to fulfill that responsibility. Clearly, the legislation is
accomplishing what Congress intended.

Question. Based upon your experience and your assignment as Director for Oper-
ations J-3, Joint Staff, do you believe that the role of the combatant commanders
under the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is appropriate and the policies and proc-
esses in existence allow that role to be fulfillea?

Answer. Yes. Goldwater-Nichols has ensured that the combatant commanders re-
main in a direct command line to the National Command Authority and are com-
pletely responsible for the conduct of operations, including support activities, within
their commands. Combatant commanders ultimately organize their commands; en-
sure they are properly trained, eauipped and led; and then fight with the support
and assistance of the services ana other unified commands. The policies and proc-
esses currently practiced have proven extremely effective in allowing the Joint
Chiefs as a whole and the individual Service Chiefs to achieve the goals of greater
joint interoperability and joint combat effectiveness, as well as more integrated de-
termination of joint requirements. Our fighting forces have proven the benefits of
these initiatives since 1986. Over the past 2 years, I have worked directly with the
functional and regional combatant commanders on a host of strategic and tactical
issues. In that time, I have been impressed with the vitality of the relationship be-
tween the combatant commanders and the Chairman; the candor of communication
between the CINCs and the Secretary of Defense; and with the Chairman's ability
to represent CINC interests in the broad policymaking arena. These are fundamen-
tal outcomes of Goldwater-Nichols that represent significant improvements in the
way national defense policy is formulated and executed. The combatant CINCs have
tremendous infiuence in developing future programs that support their warfighting
missions through participation in such forums as the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC). At the same time, the Chairman ensures combatant commander re-

?uirements receive proper visibility in the budget-development process through his
'rogram Assessment and Recommendations. Tnese examples of policies and proc-
esses refiect my confidence in the strength and effectiveness of the Goldwater-Nich-
ols legislation.

REIJVTIONSHIPS

Question. Section 162(b) of Title 10, United States Code, provides that the chain
of command runs from the IVcsident to the Secretary of Deiense and from the Sec-
retary of Defense to the combatant commands. Other sections of law and traditional
Practice, however, establish important relationships outside the chain of command,
lease describe your understanding of the relationship of the Commander in Chief,
North American Aerospace Command/Commander in Chief, United States Space
Command to the following offices:

The Under Secretaries of Defense.

255

and reciprocate. Formal coordination shall be communicated through the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Question. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

Answer. With the exception of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense for C^I and
Legislative Affairs, all Assistant Secretaries are subordinate to one of the Under
Secretaries of Defense. This means any relationship SPACECOM would require
with any Assistant Secretary of Defense would be through the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, and the Under
Secretary for Acquisition and Technology. Since the Assistant Secretaries of Defense
for C^I and Legislative Affairs are SecDefs principal deputies for overall supervision
of C^I and Legislative matters respectively, any relations required between
SPACECOM and ASD(C^I) or ASD(LA) would be conducted along the same lines as
those discussed above regarding relations with the various Under Secretaries of De-
fense.

Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Chairman is clearly established by Title 10 as the principal military
advisor to the NCA. However, he serves as an advisor and is not, according to the
law, in the chain of command that runs from the NCA directly to each combatant
commander. The law does allow the President to direct that communications be-
tween him or the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders be transmit-
ted through the Chairman. President Clinton has directed this in the Unified Com-
mand Plan. This action keeps the Chairman fully involved so that he can execute
his other legal responsibilities. Certainly a key responsibility is his role as spokes-
man for the CINCs, especially on the operational requirements of their respective
commands. While the legal duties of the Chairman are many and they require ei-
ther his representation or personal participation in a wide range of issues, as a
CINC, I will have the obligation, through the Chairman, to keep the Secretary of
Defense promptly informed on matters for which he may hold me personally ac-
countable. A CENC's duty is to work with the Chairman to provide for the security
of his command and execute NCA-directed taskings.

Question. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chieis of Staff.

Answer. When functioning as the acting Chairman, the Vice Chairman's relation-
ship with CINCs is exactly that of the Chairman. The 103rd Congress amended
Title 10 to give the Vice Chairman the same right and obligation that other mem-
bers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have to submit an opinion or advice to the Presi-
dent, National Security Council, or Secretary of Defense if their views disagree with
those of the Chairman. As a CINC, I would readily listen to and discuss with the
Vice Chairman his thoughts on any general defense matter considered bv the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. Finally, because the vice Chairman also plays a key role on many
boards and panels that effect programming and thereiore the preparedness of
SPACECOM, I believe his insights are extremely valuable and I would certainly
seek his counsel.

Question. The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Answer. The Unified Command Plan makes the CINC the single point of contact
for providing U.S. military representation within his assigned responsibilities. To
meet this responsibility, CINCs must be fully engaged in the interagency process
as it considers matters under their purview. I know that the Assistant to the Chair-
man has an extensive charter to represent the Chairman in the interagency process.
While there are no direct lines connecting the Assistant to the Chairman to any
combatant commander, what the Assistant knows and can share about the inter-
agency process with any CINC is useful and will be requested. The Assistant to the
Cnairman also works on matters of personal interest to the Chairman which may
require him to consult with me as a combatant commander as an issue unfolds.

Question. The Director of the Joint Stall.

Answer. This relationship is a very familiar one to me. The Director of the Joint
Staff has many significant responsibilities which require interaction with
SPACECOM. Most importantly, the Director is generally the point of contact for so-
liciting information from all the CINCs when the Chairman is developing a position
on any important issue. I intend to continue the strong lines of communication with
him.

Question. The Secretaries of the Military Departments.

Answer. Title 10, section 165 provides tnat, subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the SecDef and subject to the authority of combatant commanders, the
Secretaries of Military Departments are responsible for the administration and sup-
port of the forces they have assigned to combatant commands. The authority exer-
cised by a combatant commander over Service components is quite clear, but re-
quires close coordination with each Secretary.

Question. The Chiefs of Staff of the Services.

256

Answer. Service Chiefs are no longer involved in the op)erational chain of com-
mand. They now have two significant roles. First and foremost, they are responsible
for the organization, training, and equipping of their respective Service. Without the
full support and cooperation of the Service Chiefs, no CINC can hope to ensure the
preparedness of his assigned forces for whatever missions the NCA directs. Next,
as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Service Chiefs have a lawful obligation
to provide military advice to the National Command Authority. Individually and col-
lectively, the Joint Chiefs are a source of experience and judgment that every CINC
can and should call upon. If confirmed as Commander in Chief, SPACECOM, I in-
tend to conduct a full dialogue with the Chiefs of all four Services.

Question. The combatant commanders.

Answer. My relationship with the other combatant commanders will be one of mu-
tual support, continued dialog on key issues, and frequent face-to-face interaction
during periodic CINC conferences and other meetings as required. In today's secu-
rity environment, an atmosphere of teamwork and complete trust is critical to exe-
cuting U.S. national policy.

ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

Question. Creation of a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space was in-
tended to provide a single focal point with the OlTice of the Secretary of Defense
for space matters. To what degree has this been achieved and what are the principal
benefits that you can identify? How does this organizational change affect U.S.
Space Command?

Answer. Organizational changes were needed to better coordinate space activities
within DOD. In the past year, changes have been approved and are now a reality.
They include approving a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space, forming a
Joint Space Management Board and a DOD Space Architect. These elements were
needed Decause they fill a void in the governmental process for working the contin-
uum of space issues. USSPACECOM has the responsibility for promulgating mili-
tary requirements, developing appropriate plans, and executing assigned missions.
The adaed elements now give us government organizations responsible for policy de-
velopment, architectures, coordinating acquisition programs, resource allocation,
and reconciling issues between black and white-world space activities. These
changes have organized us better to deal in a focused way with space issues in the
future.

Question. The charter for the new Joint Space Management Board calls for cre-
ation of a "National Security Space Architect' not a DOD Space Architect. To what
extent should the Department of Defense seek to fulfill this charter, and over what
period of time?

Answer. It is my understanding that there is an Integrated Product Team (IPT)
between DOD and the NRO which is addressing specific recommendations on a
transition plan leading to the implementation of a national architecture, and ulti-
mately a "National Security Space Architect." While their work has not been con-
cluded, it is anticipated that they will report on their findings in the spring of 1997
to the Joint Space Management Board. At that time, we will be postured to better
understand the specific milestones for implementation. In the meantime, DOD has
taken an initial step by creating a DOD Space Architect. If confirmed, I intend to
get into this process more deeply as it unfolds.

Question. The Department of Defense Space Architect will soon begin an architec-
ture efibrt dealing with telemetry, tracking and control. Could you describe the
problems that must be fixed with this effort and the efficiencies that you believe
can be attained?

Answer. Recent advancements in processing capabilities make possible significant
improvements in the way we conduct satellite tracking, telemetry, and commanding
(TT&C). It is my understanding that USSPACECOM took the initiative to explore
these advancements in a process called the Future Integrated TT&C Architecture
Study (FIT AS). The study was done by DOD and civil agencies who operate satellite
systems around the globe. They reported their findings in April 1995, which in-
cluded reduced O&M costs from more efficient processing and some consolidation.
Following this study an Integrated IVoduct Team (II'T) comprised of NASA, NOAA,
and USSPACP]COM, under tne auspices of the DOD-NASA Aeronautics and Astro-
nautics Coordinating Board, has continued with this effort and is wrapping up its
findings and recommendations. Because of these efforts, the new DOD Space Archi-
tect will be addressing a TT&C architecture. His work is expected to be completed
in December 1996. However, the work done by the FITAS and IPT will provide im-
portant preliminary inputs to this TT&C project. Efficiencies are difficult to achieve
in the near term because of inherent system incompatibilities. However, establish-

257

ing an integrated TT&C management process among civil and national security
space agencies with agreed i pon standards and common protocols will be key to re-
alizing longer term improvements.

SUPPORT TO THE WARKICIITING CINCS

Question. If confirmed, one of your primary responsibilities as CINCSPACE will
be to provide space support to the warfighting CINCs. Is Space Command properly
organized to fulfill this mission? What improvements, if any, do you intend to pur-
sue?

Answer. Definitely yes. The proper USSPACECOM organization for the planning
and execution of assigned military space missions has been addressed in detail,
most recently by the Commission on Roles and Missions (CORM). Several options
involving the Services were explored. One was the creation of a new Service which
was believed to be unnecessary. Second, was the specification of an existing Service
to do the space mission which was rejected since it was perceived that access to the
requirements process by all of the Services who depend on critical space capabilities
would have been diminished. Several additional alternatives were considered. The
first provision was a Unified Command with functional components (air, land and
sea), out since there are no air, land and sea media in the operational medium of
space, this option was discarded as an unimplementable alternative. The next option
was a Unified Command within the U.S. Unified Command structure comprised of
service components which is certainly acceptable within the specifications of Gold-
water-Nichols. This option permitted a range of contributions by the Services in
terms of people and resources, and it most importantly permits equal access to the
space requirements process. Additionally, the snaring of space-borne capabilities can
and is shared equally among the Services as they provide component forces to the
CENCs. In conclusion, the way USSPACECOM was initially and still is organized
is clearly the best option and was recognized as such by the CORM. It is important
to note that the feedback received from the Services and the CINCs substantiates
this as very favorable. I do not see this changing in the near future.

Question. Is Space Command doing everything possible to ensure that the theater
CINCs fully integrate space support into their planning and operations? What im-
provements, if any, would you recommend?

Answer. Since the Gulf War, USSPACECOM has worked hard to "operationalize"
space. This means access to, understanding of, and therefore effective use and inte-
gration of our critically important space-borne assets into the deliberate and crisis
planning/execution by the warfighting CINCs. The fact is "space support" to the
warfighter (termed enhancement) is a USSPACECOM assigned mission. In this re-
gard, USSPACECOM has completed and continually updates deliberative planning
for the theater CINCs. Space Support Teams have been established for each theater
and functional CINC at the Unified Command level. In addition. Service space sup-
port teams, formed from USSPACECOM's three component commands ana are pro-
viding supjx)rt to the theater CINCs' respective components. Additionally, a system
called Theater Support Operations Cell (TSOC) has been developed and provides a
technical interface oetween all of these elements. I have been toid this system was
demonstrated to the SASC this Spring in a briefing by USCINCSPACE. The re-
gional CINCs understand the importance of space as evidenced by the demand for
deployment of these teams, the continuous process of integrating space into theater
war plans and frequent exercising during Unified Command exercises. As the Direc-
tor of Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, I have seen the importance of "operationalizing
space" by USSPACECOM. Warfighters now realize how critical space systems are
to successfully completing the objectives whether responding to a aeliberate plan or
a crisis action. I will keep the momentum and positive progress going. We need to
continue to educate and train the forces through professional military education,
service-specific courses, and exercises to make space more understandable, usable,
and accessible to all users.

Question. Would you describe the warfighting requirements for our next genera-
tion of communications satellites? To what extent can we place greater emphasis on
commercial systems and still satisfy our military unique requirements?

Answer. The warfighting commands have clearly articulated their need for access,
bandwidth and protection for follow-on military satellite communications systems.
The Quantity of communications capability, which will be served from space, will be
bounded by cost trades, technology advancement, and the reauirements in the re-
spective theaters to serve mobile lorces (where, for example, fiber optic services are
not fwssible). USSPACECOM has been working this aggressively with DOD agen-
cies and the theater CINCs and has consolidated communications reciuirements in
a CAPSTONE Requirements Document (CRD) which was recently enaorsed by the

258

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). The CRD required the consensus of
the Theater CINCs and Services. It is clear, from the persfxjctive of cost and avail-
able technology, that commercial capabilities must be leveraged to the maximum ex-
tent. However, when evaluating some unique military capabilities, the commercial
sector cannot serve them adequately. Therefore, I believe that a small proportion
of the follow-on military satellite communications capability fielded by tne United
States will have to be military-unique systems. The DOI) Space Architect, as one
of his three initial projects, will evaluate and make recommendations on this mix.

Question. The Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all recommended the creation of a Na-
tional Imagery and Mapping Agency to improve imagery exploitation and dissemina-
tion. Are you satisfied that this new organization will improve matters for all poten-
tial customers of imagery and imagery-based products?

Answer. Yes. The consolidation of imagery functions that support both national
and military customers into a single "Combat Support Agency" is the first step to
ensuring assured support to the warfightcr well into the 21st Century. As I look
at the proposals, I'm convinced that improvements will be made in the tasking proc-
ess that will ensure participation by the CINCs. In addition, the consolidation
should improve the processing, exploitation and most importantly the dissemination
of imagery to the customers. In my opinion, NIMA will significantly enhance sup-
port to the warfighters.

INFORMATION WARFARE

Question. Joint Vision 2010 stresses, among other things, the importance of infor-
mation superiority. Information superiority has two aspects, offensive and defensive
information warfare.

What role do you believe the United States Space Command will play in these
two aspects of information superiority?

Answer. As the JCS Director of Operations, I have been very involved in the de-
velopment of information warfare policy, planning, and execution. I would be the
first to tell you there is still much work to be done as we develop a framework that
links the various organizations involved in information warfare to address the full
spectrum of issues that confront us. As relates to USSPACECOM, I believe that
space control and information warfare are very closely related. They overlap consid-
erably, but they are two separate and distinct functions. The bottom line is they are
closely related, but inseparable. Space control is a Unified Command Plan (UCP)
mission which USSPACECOM takes very seriously. If confirmed as CINCSPACE,
I will ensure that USSPACECOM continues to play a big part in articulating re-
quirements, planning for the future, and preparing to expand into the space control
role which must be synchronized with information warfare.

Question. Do you believe that sufficient attention is being paid to defensive war-
fare, particularly with respect to commercial systems upon which U.S. forces rely?

Answer. Much attention is being given to this very important topic. It is clear that
the assured access to our military space systems, particularly the communications
systems, is critical to effective operation of U.S. forces around the globe. Joint Vision
2010 points out we are becoming increasingly vulnerable as we expand the quantity
and reliance on commercial space systems. In this regard, we are confident that crit-
ical, core nodes and systems are adequately robust to provide protection. As we
work with the commercial sector to {jfocure follow-on systems and leverage what the
commercial sector will provide us in\ terms of cheaper and better communications
systems, we will continue to work hand in hand with them to balance the risks and
the rewards of commercial system utilization. Importantly, the commercial sector is
acutely attuned to these vulnerabilities and is building in protective measures which
we believe can be leveraged to our benefit.

ACQUISITION ISSUKS

Question. Space Command is a key player in establishing DOD space require-
ments and hence is a key player in space acquisition. Do you believe that DOD's
space acquisition structure is now optimized for efficient space architecture develop-
ment ana acquisition, or are additional changes needed?

Answer. I believe the past year, with the formation of the organizational elements
previously described, that we are clearly on the right path. USSPACECOM shoul-
ders the responsibility for promulgating space mission requirements (and represents
the other CINCs in this regard). The requirements process has been institutional-
ized into what has been termed the Mission Requirement Planning (MRP) process
to ensure that not only are mission area capabilities properly advocated, but also
to ensure that new requirements are affordable, testable, and technologically achiev-

259

able. These requiremcnls are then presented to the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC) for approval which yields an additional benefit for consensus build-
ing and integration. Based on this foundation, the DUSD (Space), the Joint Space
Management Board, and the DOD Space Architect can perform their respective
functions leading to the successful acquisition programs. Again, I believe that we
are moving in the right direction, and if confirmed as USCINCSPACE, I will stay
closely involved and engaged in this critically imfX)rtant process.

Question. Do you believe that we have adequately integrated DOD space acquisi-
tion with the NRO's acquisition system? What additional steps, if any, would you
advocate?

Answer. This question gets to the heart of why we needed and established a Joint
Space Management Board and a DOD Space Architect — to better integrate the syn-
chronization of the requirements, system acquisition and architectures between the
black and white world of space. I do recognize that there is a difference between
who has the lead for the respective requirements and acquisition processes. If con-
firmed as USCINCSPACE, I will continue to carry out my responsibilities for the
requirements process. Regarding acquisition, I will monitor it from an operations
standpoint closely as the acquisition communities cooperatively address space needs
in a more integrated fashion.

Question. The Congressional Defense Committees have demonstrated strong sup-
port for acceleration of the Space and Missile Tracking System as part of the overall
Space-Based Infrared System program. Do you support acceleration of this program
and the concept of reestablishing competition in the SMTS program? What in your
view is the earliest that we can plan on launching the first SMTS Block I satellites
assuming an acceptable level of technical risk in the development program?

Answer. If confirmed as USCINCSPACE, I will continue to be a strong advocate
for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), because it is critical to serving
USSPACECOM, NORAD, and our other Unified Command customers around the
world. This is especially important in light of the projected estimates for prolifera-
tion of ballistic missile technology and the capability to deliver weapons of mass de-
struction. The SBIRS architecture grew out of the 1994 SBIRS Summer Study and
still enjoys strong consensus among the Services and Theater CINCs. For that ar-
chitecture to be implementable, we must deploy the High Component before the Low
Component (Space and Missile Tracking System — SMTS). The High Component
must be deployed not later than early in the next century to successfully transition
from the Defense Support Program (DSP) to SBIRS without operational degrada-
tion. There is no question for our strategic and theater warfighters of the impor-
tance of being able to track from space cold bodies in space. The Low Component
(SMTS) will give us that capability as we also develop engagement systems. The
first launch of a SMTS payload is now scheduled for 2006. The U.S. Air Force and
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) are currently exploring options
to accelerate this deployment date which will take into account the costs and tech-
nical risks associated with this acceleration. I would have to see the results of the
Air Force study to give you a valid estimate of an accelerated launch date for SMTS.

Question. In your view, should DOD seek to place greater emphasis on small sat-
ellites for a range of defense missions? What areas can benefit the most from minia-
turized space technology developments?

Answer. Small satellites provide definite advantages if we can achieve assigned
missions with them. The costs associated with launch and acquisition will be less.
The transition to small satellites is bounded by at least two factors. The first is
technology advancement and the second is the physics associated with the charac-
teristics of the satellite performing a specific mission. We are already making some
progress as refiected in our plan to downsize the Space-Based Infrared Systems
(SBIRS) payloads from large to smaller sized satellites. This will assist in achieving
substantial savings in launch costs. There is consensus on this notion and I agree
with it wholeheartedly. It should be realized, however, that the transition period
from large to smaller satellites will require some time. First, we must appropriately
utilize what has already been acquired (and is still effective) so as not to waste pre-
cious resources. Second, technological advancement will dictate how quickly we can
move to smaller satellites without mission degradation. So, the key will be to bal-
ance the two in this transition period. As mentioned previously, some mission areas
are already benefiting from small satellite technology, and I predict that all of our
mission areas will eventually benefit whether they be ballistic missile warning, in-
telligence, weather sensing, navigation, or communications.

260

COOPERATION WITH OUR ALLIES

Question. To what exlcnl should the United States seek to foster allied coopera-
tion on Department of Defense space programs? In this regard, which programmatic
areas do you view as the most promising?

Answer. Our National Security Strategy of engagement and enlargement also de-
pends on the development of cooperation between the U.S. and our allies on space-
based capabilities. As the Director of Operations, Joint Staff, I am intimately aware
of the importance of coalition operations around the globe as we execute our respon-
sibilities in the national interests of the U.S. Therefore, we must continue to lead
in space capabilities, while at the same time expanding opportunities to cooperate
with our allies. We already have good cooperation with many of our allies in the
areas of weather and communications support. In addition, we have agreements
with some to share ballistic missile warning data via the USSPACECOM imple-
mented Theater Event System (TES). This yields substantial advantage to the U.S.
in that it enhances stability, provides deterrence, keeps the U.S. in a leadership pos-
ture, and provides opportunities to reap cost-sharing benefits and technology devel-
opment.

GLOBAL BROADCAST SYSTEM

Question. The Committee has supported the Defense Department's initiative to es-
tablish a global broadcast system for DOD. GBS will obviously be a key element in
DOD's overall satellite communications architecture. How will this system fit into
the Department's overall satellite communications master plan?

Answer. The Joint Broadcast Service (JBS) demonstration, and plans for Global
Broadcast Service (GBS) will play key and integral roles as we move toward a fol-
low-on satellite architecture and fielded system. The JBS demonstration in the Bal-
kans is a precursor to GBS and will provide us valuable insight into future employ-
ment concepts. It is also an excellent example of using technology from the commer-
cial sector in a timely and relevant way to vastly improve the How of critical infor-
mation to warfighters in the field. For example, using the Ultra-High Frequency
(UHF) system to transmit a precision photo to a ship at sea, requires a good portion
of a day. During the transmission, nothing else can be communicated through the
system. This is obviously extremely limited. Using the wider band Super-High Fre-
quency (SHF) system, it could take on the order of minutes when nothing else of
critical nature needs to be delivered to the theater users who rely on the system.
But, with the JBS/GBS technology, tens of channels can be utilized to deliver in a
matter of seconds, not only precision photographic products, but also full motion
video, not to mention a full range of other informational services. This incredible
advancement in technology must be made available to mobile warfighters in every
component throughout the world in an affordable way. This will give us high volume
information fiow in a common, integrated, synchronized fashion, not only among our
U.S. forces, but with our allies as we conduct joint, combined operations.

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Question. Section 279 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 requires the Secretary of Defense to prepare a plan for dealing with potential
vulnerabilities associated with jamming and denial of the Global Positioning Sys-
tem. What in your view are the most promising measures that can be taken to
achieve this goal? What do you view as the most cost effective approach?

Answer. The Global Positioning System (GI^) is critically important to imple-
menting our military plans and effectively achieving military objectives. It was built
and deployed, as you well know, to provide precision navigation to our forces. In the
intervening years since deployment, the commercial and civil sectors have become
very dependent on GPS. There are obvious economic and safety benefits from the
system which subsequently led to the recent Presidential policy on GPS. In compli-
ance with Presidential policy, alternatives are being developed to provide means
other than the current selective availability technique to protect and deny this capa-
bility during times of crisis and confiict.

I am aware that USSPACECOM has produced a Mission Needs Statement (MNS)
to cover this requirement. I am also aware that alternative technologies are being
explored in an ongoing Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) spon-
sored by USACOM. If confirmed as CINCSPACE, I will be actively engaged as we
search for the best solution to permit commercial and civil access to the best accu-
racy GPS can produce while at the same time denying such access to support efforts
against U.S. forces or U.S. interests in a crisis.

261

MAJOR CHALLENGES

Question. In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next Com-
mander in Chief, North American Aerospace Command/Commander in Chief, Unit-
ed States Space Command? If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing
these challenges?

Answer. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile tech-
nology around the world will certainly be major challenges for both commands. In
our operational thinking and doctrinal development, space will continue to be an in-
creasingly important operational medium from which to achieve information domi-
nance. USSPACECOM will play a significant role, particularly as we deal with in-
formation warfare and expand into the assigned missions of force application and
space control. To address these challenges, if confirmed as CINCSPACE, I will en-
sure USSPACECOM continues to be integrated into the requirements process as it
relates to assigned mission areas, particularly, for spacelifl, ballistic missile warn-
ing, military satellite communications, missile defense and other key areas. NORAD
is an important bi-national command between Canada and the United States which
continues to play a key role 38 years aller its inception. Appropriately, the NORAD
missions have been continuously adjusted over time as threats and responsibilities
have changed. After this year's eighth renewal of the agreement, we must continue
to assess the missions of attack warning and assessment, air sovereignty, air de-
fense, and the planning to deploy an effective missile defense system. I am aware
of the work that has been completed to date and, if confirmed, will stay totally en-
gaged in this important process.

MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the perform-
ance of the functions of Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Command/
Commander in Chief United States Space Command? What management actions
and time lines would you establish to address these problems?

Answer. Again, having been involved in the U.S. joint process as the Director of
Operations on the Joint Staff, I am very familiar with the development of the Inte-
grated Priority Lists (IPLs) that the Unified Commanders submit through the Joint
Warfighting Capability Assessment (JWCA) process. I believe that NORAD and
USSPACECOM, working in concert with their respective Unified Command col-
leagues, and within the Unified Command system have established very responsive
products from which to address modernization needs as we deal with the ever
changing world. If confirmed as CENCNORAD/USCINCSPACE, I will be intimately
involved in the continuation of this important task. Beyond the need for new sys-
tems, I will have to wait until I have the opportunity to view the situation first
hand before describing management actions required at either USSPACECOM or
NORAD.

QUALIFICATIONS

Question. If confirmed, you will be entering this important position at a time of
heightened tensions and increased potential for deployment of forces. What back-
ground and experience do you have that you believe qualifies you for this position?

Answer. The U.S. military has done a superb job, in my opinion, preparing me
for this moment in time. Most notably, over the years I have been fortunate enough
to command at the squadron, group, air division and numbered air force levels.
Equally important are the three joint positions I have served in. One, working as
the special assistant to General Bemie Rogers when he was SACEUR; the second
working as the Air Component Commander for the Combined U.STKorea Forces
Command under both Generals Riscassi and Luck; lastly, in my current position as
Director of Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, I have appeared before the Senate Armed
Services Committee many times giving testimony and briefings involved in current
U.S. operations and force deployments. While I have not been fortunate enough to
have had an assignment in USSPACECOM or NORAD, I would tell you that I have
had direct involvement with both commands in 9 years as a general officer. The
practical aspects of being on the supported end of the USSPACECOM/NORAD busi-
ness in joint and combined positions gives me an excellent understanding of the
needs of the warfighter. This experience will prove invaluable to me in carrying out
my responsibilities, if confirmed as CINCSPACE.

262

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before this committee
and other appropriate committees of the Congress?

Answer. Yes

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the administration in power?

Answer. Yes

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee, or des-
ignated members of this Committee, and provide information, subject to appropriate
and necessary security protection, with respect to your rcsfwnsibilities as the Com-
mander in Chief, North American Aerospace Command/Commander-in-Chief, Unit-
ed States Space Command?

Answer. Yes

Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions of information are provided to this committee and its staff and other appro-
priate committees?

Answer. Yes

[Questions for the record w^ith answers supplied follow:]
Questions Sub.mitteo by Senator Charles Robb
SPACE architect

Senator ROBB. In the past year, DOD approved a Deputy Under Secretary of De-
fense for Space and a DOD Space Architect. But it's also my understanding that
there are plans to create a position called the National Security Space Architect.

General Estes, can you bring us up to date on all of these organizational changes
and their impact, if any, on the Space Command?

General EsTES. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space (DUSD(S)) and
DOD Space Architect have bieen functioning together over the past year. The office
of DUSD(S) was created to steward space policy development, architectures, coordi-
nated acquisition programs, resource allocation and reconciliation of issues between
Service space activities and DOD and the intelligence community. The DOD Space
Architect is developing space architectures across the full range of DOD space mis-
sion areas. Close coordination with the intelligence community in order to develop
fully integrated space architectures is a priority. To date, I feel that both organiza-
tions have had positive impacts in these areas. DUSD (Space) is aggressively devel-
oping long range goals, or guidestars, for space as part of the National Security
Space Master Plan. The Space Architect is moving ahead to define future space ar-
chitectures in areas such as Military Satellite Communications, space control, and
satellite operations. The National Security Space Architect was called for in the
charter for the Joint Space Management Board (JSMB). An Integrated Product
Team composed of representatives of the DOD and the intelligence community cur-
rently is being established to review and evaluate all aspects of national security
space planning. The results of this review will be used to determine the most effec-
tive processes and organizational responsibilities and relationships for developing
future national security space architectures. They will report on their findings in
the spring of 1997 to the JSMB. At that time, we will be postured to define the spe-
cific milestones for creation of a National Security Space Architect. The creation of
these organizations has had positive benefits ana complements the responsibilities
of U.S. Space Command. USSPACECOM holds the responsibility for promulgating
military space requirements, developing appropriate plans, and executing assigned
missions. These new organizations ensure tnat our requirements lead to successful
acquisition programs that fit into a coherent, long range space master plan and ar-
chitecture. We are working very closely with these organizations, and the overall re-
sult should be a cohesive national space program that supfxjrts the warfighters in
executing their assigned missions.

CO.MMERCIAL VS .MILITARY-UNIQUE SATELLITES

Senator RoBB. Given the need to make cost trade-offs and to leverage whatever
satellite communications systems are accessible, it seems likely that our military
will become increasingly reliant on commercial systems. General Estes, would you

263

offer us your take on the likely mix of commercial and military-unique satellite sys-
tems in the future and on what Space Command is doing to evaluate requirements
that demand military unique systems? Are we paying enough attention to defending
commercial systems that our troops may have to rely on?

General ESTES. We and our industry partners have looked at this hard in the last
12 months. What the commercial providers are telling us is that the marketplace
in 2010 may meet the bulk of our needs, but will not provide for our specialized
warfighter functions such as anti-jam, nuclear protection, or our "push-to-talk radio
nets." We need dedicated military systems to do those sorts of things.

We must therefore have the flexibility to "buy some" and "lease some" systems
based on cost effectiveness and ability to satisfy requirements. For our predictable
day-to-day needs, to surge and augment our military systems in a crisis, and for
"new technology," we are doing the analysis to determine if leased services will be
cheaper. We do need to "own some" high capacity and broadcast systems to provide
our mobile warfighters guaranteed access at a moment's notice wherever they need
to deploy (but those systems should be as close to their commercial "cousins" as pos-
sible to keep costs down). For terminals, we will build some of our own and Duy
some "over the counter". We will want military terminals to also tune to commercial
frequencies.

Along these same lines are incentives or financing to commercial service vendors
to provide for military needs similar to what we do with the Civil Reserve Air Fleet
(CRAF). Allowing DOD to enter into long term commitments in both leasing and
acquisition programs would also facilitate these goals and help reduce life cycle
costs (especially in the international arena where the majority of our leasing dollars
go to foreign service providers).

We strive to protect our satellite systems commensurate with the type of forces
and missions they support. The needs of other customers, such as the financial com-
munity, are converging with ours to make commercial SATCOM more resistant to
"information warfare" attacks. To protect warfighter access to commercial SATCOM,
we will also encrypt our communications for privacy and confidentiality. Where pos-
sible, we will take other measures to prevent our commercial systems from being
exploited by adversaries — for example using our own military "gateways" to access
commercial mobile satellite services. We are examining anti-jam capabilities that
could be employed on either military or commercial systems.

WEAPONS SCHOOL ABSORBS SPACE COURSE

Senator RoBB. General Estes, the Air Force has decided to merge its Space Tac-
tics Course into the Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base as part of an efTort
to integrate space resources and knowledge into "warfighter" units. In essence, the
Air Force wants graduates of this course to bring a better knowledge of space to
the fight.

Can you tell us how Space Command is playing in the development of the curricu-
lum? Are you making progress in your effort to lessen the division between the oper-
ational warfighters in the theater and the space experts?

General ESTES. US Space Command's Air Force Component, Air Force Space
Command, through its executive agent, the Space Warfare Center Director of Oper-
ations at Falcon Air Force Base, CO, developed the Space Tactics School to provide
in-depth training in all aspects of space operations, combat Air Forces operations
and combat applications of space capabilities to space operations specialists. The
goal of the course was to train a select group of officers to work within the broader
warfighter community to ensure space capabilities were being exploited during plan-
ning, execution, and exercise of combat operations. The initiative to migrate this
program to the USAF Weapons School at Nellis AFB is the natural outgrowth of
this highly successful initiative which helped focus the increasingly recognized criti-
cality of space capabilities to combat operations to include weapons employment.

The academic foundation provided by Air F'orce Space Command in all areas of
theory, space operations including DOD and National Systems, and space applica-
tions for combat operations, combined with exercises, field training and direct inter-
face with the other air combat training programs (a total of 197 courses and 749
hours), will provide a small group of uniquely qualified experts to support combat
headquarters and commanders at all levels in the exploitation of space capabilities.

Air Force Space Command will continue to supfwrt the Space Division at Nellis
with course and curriculum review consultation and by hosting students at com-
mand locations to get hands-on experience with various space systems and exploi-
tation tools. In addition. Air Force Space Command supports, primarily through the
Space Division instructors, the continued integration ol space applications training
into the other courses at the Weapons School — a synergy only possible with the

264

stand up of the Space Division. The operation of the school at Nellis will also pro-
vide Air Force Space Command the unique opportunity to get continual inputs for
future development of space systems applications growing out of the lessons learned
by the Space Division, as an integral part of the Air Force combat training center.
Finally, Air Force Space Command is continuing to coordinate the effective use of
the future Weapons School Graduates throughout the Combat Air Forces environ-
ment.

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Senator ROBB. Last year's Defense Authorization Act tasked the Secretary of De-
fense with preparing a plan for dealing with Global Positioning System
vulnerabilities. General Estes, would you give us your assessment of the most prom-
ising and affordable measures that we can take to achieve this goal? What's on the
drawing board?

General ESTES. US Space Command recognized early on that GPS vulnerability
was a genuine issue warranting the highest level attention within the DOD. The
Command has been actively exploring this issue since 1991, together with the GPS
Joint Program OfTice, the other CINCs, Services and governmental agencies. This
culminated in the 1996 JROC approval of the Operational Protection and Preven-
tion for GPS (OPPG) Mission Needs Statement (MNS) and precipitated an Advanced
Concept Technology Demonstration, currently in its second of 4 years, under
USACOM sponsorship to demonstrate GPS prevention and protection capabilities.

The Navigation Warfare Initiative, a related activity under the leadership of the
Undersecretary of Defense (A&T) and the vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
has teamed DOD with industry to identify the most promising and affordable meas-
ures to overcome GPS' vulnerabilities. This team will identify doctrines, tactics and
technologies which will ensure we can exploit GPS on the battlefield without giving
that same advantage to our enemies while ensuring GPS is always available to all
who depend on it outside the war zone. Finally, DOD awarded three contracts to
three key industry leaders to help us find the most promising and affordable ways
to protect GPS.

Specific measures to counter GPS vulnerability are still under test and analysis.
I anticipate this to be a tough and complicated problem, possibly without a foolproof
solution, and involving a combination of tactics, techniques and procedures as well
as material solutions.

CONTROL OF SPACE-BASED INFORMATION

Senator ROBB. General Estes, the Commission on Roles and Missions noted that
some critical space-based information is controlled by the Director of Central Intel-
ligence, not by DOD. As a result, the Commission recommended that DOD's influ-
ence over space-based support be increased and that DOD be given a greater voice
in satellite tasking.

General, can you update us on the status of this issue? Is this still a problem,
and do you plan to direct your attention to it in order to be more responsive to the
other ClNC's requirements?

General ESTES. Tasking, exploitation, and dissemination continue to be the com-
mand's top intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance priorities. CINCs and their
Task Forces require a dominant role in the establishment of intelligence reauire-
ments and allocation of resources during crisis and conflict and improved feedback
in fxjacetime. The CINCs have been given the mission of executing the military ele-
ment of power at the direction of the President. The CINCs must have the tools to
accomplish this mission and have influence over what is required to that end.

CINCs require visibility of their respective AORs on a continual basis to support
planning and execution in an everchanging environment and oflen over denied areas
where national systems are the only way to get "Eyes on Target". They currently
lack the rapid, assured ability to change requirements/tasking of national systems
as well as adequate, timely visibility into status of taskings. The principal issue is
not control over information, but is the inherent inflexibility of the necessarily com-
plicated tasking system which does not provide the timeliness, visibility, control or
feedback sufficient to fully exploit the inherent capabilities of U.S. space-based col-
lection systems to support current and future military operations.

INFOR.MATION WARFARE

Senator RoBB. General Estes, many defense analysts today are talking and writ-
ing about the concepts known as the revolution in military affairs and dominant
battlefield awareness, both tied closely to space control.

265

Would you explore with us for a momenl the importance of information superi-
ority in this context and what still needs to be done in developing a framework that
links the various organizations involved in information warfare to address the full
spectrum of issues confronting us?

General ESTES. Information operations and the mission of space control are close-
ly related. Information operations are actions taken to enable achievement of infor-
mation superiority by affecting adversary information, and information systems,
while simultaneously defending our own information, and information systems. In-
formation operations are conducted across the spectrum from peace to crisis and
war. The unified command plan mission of space control is also conducted across
the spectrum of war and ensures freedom of action in space for friendly forces while
denying adversaries that same freedom. There are four functions associated with
space control: protection of our space assets, surveillance of space, prevention of
enemy use of information derived irom space systems, and negation oi enemy space
capabilities.

Space control and information operations are closely related today because many
of our space control capabilities alfect other's access to information. However, this
relationship will not be as close in the future as our operations in space expand.
The real issue, then, is how do we conduct information operations which contain as
one of its parts, information warfare? In the domain of peace and crisis, other gov-
ernment agencies, in addition to theater Commanders in Chief (CINCs), will have
an interest in information operations to carry out their assigned tasks. This interest
by other government agencies and theater CINCs highlights the importance of de-
ciding how we will conduct information operations in peace, crisis and war that in-
volve more than one government agency. Our challenge lies in synchronizing the ef-
forts of these players into a unified information operations approach. A key compo-
nent of this synchronization is the current and on-going dialogue with other govern-
ment agencies articulating accurate and meaningful requirements, planning for the
future and expanding our space control role in the integration of a comprehensive
and effective information warfare strategy.

TELEMETRY, TRACKING, AND CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS

Senator ROBB. General Estes, it is my understanding that DOD has recently
found a way to dramatically improve the way we conduct satellite tracking, telem-
etry, and command and control of space assets.

What role does Space Command play in all of this? What's the timeline for achiev-
ing these improvements? What is your estimate of savings?

General ESTES. It is a fair statement that substantial savings can be realized over
an extended number of years in the command and control of spacecraft, both within
DOD and possibly cooperatively with civil agencies. U.S. Space Command has been
actively involved in leading and coordinating studies between its components, the
Services and civil agencies dating back to the early 1990's simplifying tne processes
of spacecraft telemetry, tracking, and commanding (T,T&C).

The timelines for realizing spacecraft T,T&C savings are governed by transition
time to convert from existing ground command and control systems to newer gen-
eration processing systems and by the operational lifetimes of spacecraft currently
on orbit or yet to be launched. There are also some savings that can be attained
through consolidation of command and control assets across the DOD and civil agen-
cies. Again, the timing of any consolidation, and hence savings, is constrained by
incompatibilities between existing spacecraft T,T&C systems. DOD Space Architect
is drawing upon previous studies in leading DOD, with participation from NASA
and NOAA, in the development of spacecraft operational architecture alternatives.
This process will more clearly define options and timing of possible cost savings.

Savings will be difficult to attain in the near term, but long term annual saving,
possibly in the hundreds of millions annually by 2010, may be possible.

[The nomination reference of Lt. Gren. Howell M. Estes III,
USAF, follows:]

Nomination Reference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

June 10, 1996.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

266

The following named officer for appointment to the grade of General in the United
States Air Force while assigned to a position of importance and respxinsibility under
title 10, U.S.C, Section 601:

To be General
Lt. Gen. Howell M. Estes III, 5497.

[The biographical sketch of Lt. Gen. Howell M. Estes III, USAF,
which was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomina-
tion was referred, follows:]

Dkpartment of the Air Force
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force,

HQ USAF/DP,
y/ashington, DC, June 10. 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The President, under the privsions of Section 601, Title 10
of the United States Code, has submitted to the Senate the nomination of the follow-
ing general officer for appointment to the grade of general with assignment as indi-
cated:

Name, {rade and SSN

A«e

Assignment (FromAo)

Howell M. Estes III,
Lieutenant General,
5497.

From Director, Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, To Commander In Chief, North American Aero-
space Defense Command; Commander in Chief, United States Space Command; Com-
mander, Air Force Space Command; and Department of Defense Manager for Space
Transportation System Contingency Support Operations

General Estes is replacing General Joseph W. Ashy, United States Air Force, who
is retiring. Confirmation action during June 1996 will help insure a smooth transi-
tion for General Estes. This action will not result in the Air Force exceeding the
number of generals authorized by law.

For the information of the committee, I am enclosing a military history on Gen-
eral Estes.

Sincerely,

Michael D. McGinty,

Lieutenant General, USAF,

Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel.

Attachment:
Military History

Resume of Service Career of Lt. General Howell M. Estes HI

Date and place of birth: December 16, 1941, San Antonio, TX.
Years of active service: Over 31 years as of June 9, 1996.
Schools attended and degrees:

USAF Academy, CO, BS, 1965

Auburn Univ AL, MA, 1975

Air Command and Staff College, 1975

National War College, 1983
Joint Specialty Officer: Yes.
Aeronautical rating: Command Pilot.

MAJOR PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS

Assignment

from

Stu Grad, Undergrad Pit Tng, 3550 Stu Sq. ATC, Moody AFB GA

Jun 65
Nov 66
Apr 67
May 69

Nov 66

Stu Ofcr, USAF Opnl Tng Crs, F 4C, 15 TFWg, TAC, MacDill AFB FL

Apr 67

Pit, Tac Ftr, F^D, 335 TTSq, TAC, Seymour-Johnson AFB NC

May 69

Acft Comdr, F^E, 34 TTSq, PACAF, Korat RTAFB TH

May 70

267

MAJOR PERMANENT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS— Continued

Assitnmenl

Pit, Tac Ffr, F-4E, 32 TFSq, USAFE, Camp New Amsterdam f(T

Ch, Stan/Eval Div, 32 TFSq, USAFE, Camp New Amsterdam NT

Wpns Tactics Stf Ofcr, DCSADps, Hq USAFE, Lindsey AS GE

Briefing Ofcr, DCS/Ops & Intel, Hq USAFE, Lindsey AS GE

Stu, Air Comd & Staff College, AU, Maxwell AFB AL

Air Ops Ofcr, Europe/NATO Div, AF/XOXXE. Hq USAF, Pentagon DC

Comdr, 20 TFTSq, TAC. George AFB CA

Comdr, 35 Equip Maint Sq, TAC, George AFB CA

Asst Oep Comdr for Maint, 35 TFWg, TAC. George AFB CA

Dep Comdr for Maint. 35 TFWg. TAC, George AFB CA

Stu, National War College. NDU, Ft McNair, Pentagon DC

Dep Asst Oir for Jt & NSC Mtrs, AF/XOJ, Hq USAF. Pentagon DC

Comdr, 4450 Tactical Gp, TAC, Nellis AFB NV

Sped Asst to Ch of Stf, Hq SHAPE, Mons BE

Comdr, 14 AD, SAC, Beale AFB CA

Asst DCS/Plans & Prgms, Hq SAC, Offutt AFB NE

DCS/Plans L Rscs, Hq SAC, Offutt AFB NE

DCS/Ops; & Dep Dir, Ops, STRACOS, Hq SAC, Offutt AFB NE

Dir, Plans, AF/XOX, Hq USAF. Pentagon, Pentagon DC

Comdr, 7AF, PACAF; DCINC, UNC Korea, Dep Comdr, USFK; & Comdr, Air Component Comd, ROK/US

CFC. Osan AB KOR

Director, Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, Pentagon DC

From

May 70

Nov 70
Apr 72
Jul 73
Aug 74
Aug 75
Feb 79
Feb 80
Aug 80
Mar 81
Aug 82
Jul 83
Jun 84
Jan 86
Jun 87
Aug 88
Sep 89
Jan 91
Jul 91

Aug 92
Oct 94

Nov 70
Apr 72
Jul 73
Aug 74
Aug 75
Jan 79
Feb 80
Aug 80
Mar 81
Aug 82
Jul 83
Jun 84
Jan 86
Jun 87
Aug 88
Sep 89
Jan 91
Jul 91
Aug 92

Oct 94
Present

Promotions

Etfedive
date

Second Lieutenant
First Lieutenant ....

Captain

Major

Lieutenant Colonel

Colonel

Brigadier General .

Major General

Lieutenant General

9 Jun 65
9 Dec 66
13 Jun 68
1 Mar 75
1 Apr 78
1 Nov 80
1 Oct 87
1 Mar 90
17 Aug 92

Decorations:

Air Force Distinguished Service Medal

Defense Superior Service Medal

Legion of Merit

Distinguished Flying Cross with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster

Meritorious Service Medal with three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters

Air Medal with two Silver Oak Leaf Clusters

Air Force Commendation Medal with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS

Assignments

Dir, Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, Pentagon DC

Comdr, 7AF. PACAF; DCINC, UNC Korea: Dep Comdr, USFK; & Comdr. Air Component Comd,

ROKAJSCFC, Osan AB KOR

Special Asst to Chief of Staff, Supreme HQ Allied Powers Europe, Mons BE

* Dep Asst Dir for Joint & National Security Council Matters, Dep Chief of Staff/Plans &

Ops, HQ USAF, Pentagon DC

*Air Ops Officer, Europe/North Atlantic Treaty Organization Oiv, Dep Chief of Staff/Plans &

Ops, HQ USAF, Pentagon DC

Oct 94-Present

Aug 92-Oct 94
Jan 86-Jun 87

Jul 83-Jun 84

Aug 75-Jan 79

Lt Gen

Lt Gen
Colonel

Colonel

Lt Colonel
Ma)or

'Joint EquKalent

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details

268

the biographical, financial and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Lt. Gen. Howell M. Estes III, USAF, in con-
nection with his nomination follows:]

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Room SR-228

Washington, DC 20510-6050

(202) 224^871

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM

BIOGRAPHICAL AND P^INANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF

NOMINEES

Instructions to THK No.mI.NKK: Complete all requested information. If more
space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B-4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

Part A— Biogimpfiical Information

Instructio.NS to TIIK Nominke: 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.)
Howell M. Estes III.

2. Position to which nominated:

Commander in Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command; Commander
in Chief, United States Space Command; Commander, Air Force Space Command;
and Department of Defense Manager for Space Transportation System Contingency
Support Operations

3. Date of nomination:
May 9, 1996.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and ofTice addresses.)

[Nominee responded and tne information is contained in the committee's executive
files. J

5. Date and place of birth:
December 16, 1941; San Antonio, TX.

6. Marital Status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Jordana Ayrcs Estes, Maiden Name: Graziano.

7. Names and ages of children:

Howell M. IV, 28; Susan V., 25; Jordan L., 7.

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

None.

10. Memberships: Li.st all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

Air Force Association

Association of Graduates — U.S. Air Force Academy

269

None.

12. Commitinent to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views difTer from
the administration in power.

Yes.

Signature and Date

Howell M. Estes III.

This 26th day of April, 1996.

[The nomination of Lt. Gen. Howell M. Estes III, USAF, was re-
ported to the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on July 31, 1996,
with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on August 2, 1996.]

NOMINATION OF ADM. JAY L. JOHNSON, USN,
FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF
ADMIRAL AND TO BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OP-
ERATIONS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1996

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:32 p.m. in room SR-
222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond
(chairman) presiding.

Committee members present: Senators Thurmond, Warner,
McCain, Coats, Kempthorne, Hutchison, Inhofe, Nunn, Exon, and
Lieberman.

Committee staff members present: Romie L. Brownlee, staff di-
rector, George W. Lauffer, deputy staff director, Marie Fabrizio
Dickinson, deputy chief clerk, and Christine K. Cimko, press sec-
retary.

Professional staff members present: Charles S. Abell, John R.
Barnes, Steven C. Saulnier, and Cord A. Sterling.

Minority staff members present: Arnold L. Punaro, minority staff
director, Andrew S. Effron, minority counsel, Richard D. DeBobes,
counsel, Creighton Greene, professional staff member, Patrick T.
Henry, professional staff member, and Frank Norton, professional
staff member.

Staff assistants present: Shawn H. Edwards, and Sharen E.
Reaves.

Research assistants present: Deasy Wagner.

Committee members' assistants present: Judith A. Ansley, and
John H. Hoggard, assistants to Senator Warner; John Molino, as-
sistant to Senator Coats; Glen E. Tait, assistant to Senator
Kempthorne; David W. Davis, assistant to Senator Hutchison; John
F. Luddy II, assistant to Senator Inhofe; Patricia L. Stolnacker, as-
sistant to Senator Santorum; Andrew W. Johnson, assistant to Sen-
ator Exon; Suzanne M. McKenna, and John P. Stevens, assistants
to Senator Glenn; C. Richard D'Amato, and Lisa W. Tuite, assist-
ants to Senator Byrd; Suzanne Dabkowski, assistant to Senator
Robb; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman, and
Mary Weaver Bennett, assistant to Senator Bryan.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND

Chairman Thurmond. The committee will come to order. The
committee will now receive testimony concerning a very important

(271)

272

nomination. Admiral Jay Johnson has been nominated for re-
appointment to the grade of admiral and assignment as the Chief
of Naval Operations. This is a very critical position which needs to
be filled as soon as practical.

We all know Admiral Johnson. He is currently the Vice Chief of
Naval Operations and has been the Acting Chief of Naval Oper-
ations since Admiral Boorda's death. I believe every member of the
committee has a copy of his biography, and there is no need for me
to read his record of challenging assignments and accomplish-
ments.

Admiral, I understand that your wife. Garland, and your daugh-
ter, Cullen, are here today. Ms. Johnson, will you and Cullen
please raise your hands, so we can see you? I welcome you this
afternoon. I am glad you could be here. I think it will be a special
memory for the whole family.

Admiral Johnson, you have received a notable degree of attention
and interest from the media. You have a number of challenges be-
fore you. You attended Tailhook in 1991. The Senate has confirmed
you twice since you attended Tailhook, but there is room for debate
about whether this committee and this Senate were completely in-
formed concerning your participation, and any subsequent action
before these boards.

In your responses to the advance policy questions posed by the
committee, you said, "We should have been more proactive in rais-
ing the behavior standard." You also said you have learned from
your personal inaction. I believe your responses to the advance
questions pertaining to Tailhook clearly demonstrate that you have
learned from the unfortunate events of Tailhook and will use those
lessons to be a better officer and help the Navy become a better
service.

Now, while you acted within the regulations and policies in effect
at the time, you served on the board of directors of the United
Services Automobile Association and received compensation for
that service. I have reviewed your financial disclosure documents,
and note that you fully disclosed your service on the board and the
compensation which you received.

As you know, I was surprised and dismayed to find the Depart-
ment of Defense policy permitted active duty officers to receive
compensation for such service. I have been very clear in my state-
ments publicly and privately on this issue. I urged you to resign
from the board, and you did. I urged the Secretary of Defense to
review the policy, and determine whether it was appropriate for ac-
tive duty officers to receive compensation for serving on boards of
directors.

On July 23, 1996, Deputy Secretary White announced a revision
to the DOD policy which will now prohibit general and flag officers
from receiving compensation for service on the board of directors of
any non-Federal entity.

While this new policy is a step forward, I will continue my own
review to determine if the policy needs even more tightening.

Admiral Johnson, I do not find your service on the board of direc-
tors of United Services Automobile Association to be a disqualifying
activity. Each Member of the Senate will have to make his or her
own judgment on how to cast his or her vote. I will ask my col-

273

leagues in the Senate to consider your outstanding record of service
and the record of this hearing.

I do want to congratulate you on the quality of your responses
to the advance policy questions the committee asked. The commit-
tee asked you a number of very detailed, direct questions, and you
answered each one with candor and in a straightforward manner.
Without objection, I will make the questions and the responses part
of the record.

Chairman Thurmond. I would like to yield to Senator Nunn for
any opening comments he may want to make. Senator Nunn.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM NUNN

Senator Nunn. Thank you very much, Chairman Thurmond.

I want to start by complimenting you, Mr. Chairman, for bring-
ing the defense conference authorization bill to a successful conclu-
sion yesterday. This was a tremendous effort.

You and Les Brownlee and all of the staff that works under your
direction have done, I think, a very commendable job, considering
the size and scope of the bill, and considering the number of mat-
ters we had at issue. It is remarkable it was finished in 4 weeks,
so Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you and Les and the entire staff,
including the minority staff under Arnold Punaro.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you very much, and I want to say
I appreciate the fine cooperation that you and the Democratic staff
have given to us, too.

Senator Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Johnson, I congratulate you on your nomination by the
President to be the Chief of Naval Operations. I join Senator Thur-
mond in welcoming you and your family here today. I strongly sup-
port your nomination.

I have reviewed the record that has been submitted to us, and
based on that record, and based on what I know of you personally
and have heard from others, I certainly find nothing disqualifying
in any of the material the committee has reviewed. Your record
commends itself, I think, for this important position.

Senator Thurmond and I hope to get the committee first and
then the Senate to act on your nomination and, if possible, the
nomination of General Estes before we break for recess this week.

Admiral Johnson, I know how closely you worked with Admiral
Mike Boorda as his Vice Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral
Boorda was an outstanding Chief of Naval Operations, a superb
military commander who kept the welfare of the men and women
of the Navy foremost in his thoughts and actions.

Admiral Boorda's distinguished record of service to the Navy and
the Nation is a lasting legacy to him as an outstanding Naval offi-
cer. We all regret the circumstances that require us to confirm a
new CNO 2 years after we confirmed your predecessor, and I know
you share in that feeling.

Mr. Chairman, you have already outlined Admiral Johnson's out-
standing record of naval service. He has participated in most of our
recent military operations in Haiti, in Bosnia, and in Iraq as an
operational commander. As Commander of the Second Fleet, and as
Commander of the Striking Fleet Atlantic for the last 4 years. Ad-
miral Johnson has gained first-hand insight into the whole range

274

of operational issues facing our naval forces, as well as the needs
and concerns of our Navy men and women and their families.

Admiral Johnson, your next assignment will certainly be the
most challenging of your entire career. It will require all the skills
and expertise that you have demonstrated in your past assign-
ments. You will face challenges as well as problems. Just a few of
them are apparent: balancing the requirement to maintain the
readiness of the Navy today while meeting the modernization re-
quirements of the Navy of the future in a period of stable or even
aeclining resources, taking full advantage of tactical operational
and technological innovations in developing the next generation of
platforms and systems so that the Navy can meet its national secu-
rity commitments in the most effective and affordable way, ensur-
ing the welfare of the men and women of the Navy and their fami-
lies, particularly with respect to their operation and personnel tem-
pos, and providing strong leadership and accountability for a Navy
that has faced and continues to face some very serious personnel
problems.

Of course, all these challenges must be dealt with while you are
participating as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and provid-
ing your best military advice to the Secretary of Defense, the Na-
tional Security Council, the President, and the Congress.

Like Senator Thurmond, Admiral Johnson, I want to compliment
you on the quality and the candor of your answers to the commit-
tee's advance questions. It is obvious that you spent a great deal
of personal time and effort on these answers, and that is very help-
ful to the committee, and I think that period of reflection that is
obvious in your answers will serve you well as you move forward
in your new position if confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I will have some questions for the admiral as we
proceed here, after we hear his remarks and we have your ques-
tions.

Chairman Thurmond. Now I want to welcome our friend. Sen-
ator Bums, from the great State of Montana. Incidentally, my
wife's father and mother were from Montana. He is here to intro-
duce Admiral Johnson. Senator Burns, please go ahead.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appre-
ciate the opportunity to appear before this distinguished commit-
tee, and of course consider it a great honor to introduce, or help
introduce, Adm. Jay Lynn Johnson. He has a distinguished career
in the United States Navy. Being a former Marine, I do have re-
marks about the Navy. I will withhold those at this time.

Admiral Johnson, I am sure the committee will hear a lot about
your distinguished record, and we are very proud of you in the
great State of Montana.

But aside from his great leadership abilities and being elevated
to this position, it is assuring to me that the great tradition of the
Navy of the United States is carried on. Looking over his record
and some of his writings, I am very, very proud to be associated
with this introduction today.

He not only has distinguished himself as a great leader of men
and women in the Armed Forces, but he should be very proud, be-

275

cause his daughter Cullen, who sits behind us, was a runner-up in
the Miss America Pageant of late, and he has to be very proud of
that.

So the Navy has a lot to look forward to in the leadership of this

Ereat American, so with that, I am proud to introduce Adm. Jay
ynn Johnson and recommend his confirmation to this rank.

Thank you for this opportunity, and I thank Admiral Johnson for
allowing me to do this.

Senator Nunn. Maybe we could get Senator Burns to introduce
his daughter.

Senator Burns. That did come up in a conversation. However, it
was discounted at this time. I think it was protocol.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator, feel free to stay if you would care
to.

Senator Burns. I have other duties to attend to. He is in able
hands.

Chairman Thurmond. OK We will miss you.

Admiral Johnson, if you have any opening remarks, we will give
you an opportunity to address the committee.

STATEMENT OF ADM. JAY LYNN JOHNSON, USN, NOMINEE
FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF ADMIRAL AND TO
BE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

Admiral Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, Senator Burns, for that kind introduction. I am hon-
ored, and I am humbled to be here before this committee in this
historic chamber. I am proud to be the President's nominee, and I
am grateful for the support of my leaders, General Shalikashvili,
Secretary Dalton, and Secretary Perry.

I, too, Mr. Chairman, would like to recognize the two ladies seat-
ed right behind me. Garland, my wife of almost 28 years, and
Cullen, my daughter of 25 years. Quite simply, sir, I would not be
here without them.

I would like to make three brief points, if I could. First, today's
Navy. You have said, and it is true, I have spent most of my time
at sea, close to sailors. I just left the waterfront some months ago,
at the end of February. I can assure you, sir, that your Navy today
is on course and ready to meet any challenge.

This morning, 48 percent of our Navy is underway, 28 percent
of our Navy — that is 100 ships — is forward-deployed. That is over
52,000 proud sailors, and they range from the critical salvage oper-
ations that are ongoing off the coast of Long Island, to the Adriatic
Sea, to the Persian Gulf, and throughout the Pacific. Your Navy is
answering the call as well as it has ever been answered, and I am
proud to even be considered to lead such a force.

I need to say a word about our friend Mike Boorda and our sail-
ors. You have mentioned, and I know well from him, his close rela-
tionship with this committee and the close personal relationship he
enjoyed with many of you. Because of those relationships, you
know well his commitment to our sailors, their betterment, and
their well-being. I need to just tell you up-front that if I am con-
firmed to be the CNO, that commitment to our people will not di-
minish. I am Mike Boorda-trained, and I am intensely proud of it,
and I will not back away from our sailors.

276

Thirdly, as a vision for the future, let me just say we will steer
by the stars and not by the wake, and I see four stars of equal
magnitude in the constellation that will guide us: operational pri-
macy, leadership, teamwork, and pride.

The key to that vision will be our great people. They will give
us the best ideas, they will harness the new technologies, they will
embrace change and make it our ally, and they will continue to
make us proud.

Now, the one final subject I would like to address is my attend-
ance at Tailhook. As you said, I attended Tailhook. I did it in 1990
and 1991 in my official capacity as assistant Chief of Naval Person-
nel for Distribution. We, the leadership of naval aviation, inclusive
of myself, permitted an atmosphere to exist wherein bad things
could happen, and did happen. We should have been, as vou said,
Mr. Chairman, more proactive in raising the standard of oehavior.
We did not, and I sincerely regret that.

While I cannot change the past, I can and I did learn from it,
and so did the rest of tne Navy. I was cautioned by the Secretary
of the Navy for not being proactive in monitoring the conduct of
junior officers and not taking effective action to prevent misconduct
at Tailhook 1991.

Because I was there, and because I have seen and felt first-hand
how much Tailhook hurt our great Navy, I am even more commit-
ted to ensuring that such an atmosphere will never again be toler-
ated.

In closing, I would like to assure this committee, the Congress,
and the American people that if confirmed, I will set the example
in leadership and make sure the Navy which sails us into the 21st
Century will continue to be the premier maritime force in the
world, and will measure itself by a set of standards that will make
us all very proud.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. I have several questions we ask of every
nominee who appears before the committee. If you will respond to
each question, then we can move on to policy questions.

Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
conflict of interest?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Have you assumed any duties or under-
taken any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of
the confirmation process?

Admiral Johnson. No, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Would you reaffirm your written response
that you agree to appear before congressional committees when re-
quested, and to provide your personal opinion when asked, even if
your opinion differs from the administration's policy?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Now, Admiral, you have served as Vice
Chief of Naval Operations and Acting Chief of Naval Operations for
6 months. Based on the experience you have gained, what are your
top three priorities to confront challenges that demand immediate
action?

Admiral Johnson. Mr. Chairman, the number 1 priority will be
people. It is people, it will continue to be people. Without them, the

277

equipment, the mission, all falls by the boards, so the number 1
challenge that I see coming is to maintain the care, the nurturing,
and the betterment of the people of the Navy.

That embraces a lot. It embraces quality of life, and my defini-
tion of quality of life includes operational quality of life, which
means giving them the platforms, the weapons systems, and the
equipment to carry out the many missions that we are tasked to
do in such a way that they can crisply execute the mission and
come home safely.

It also includes the more traditional quality of life aspects of pay,
medical support, retirement, et cetera. I am committed, as I men-
tioned in my opening remarks, to people, and I consider that both
a challenge and an opportunity.

Second, sir, I think the challenge that lies before all of us is one
of dealing with innovation in a way that captures the very best of
the technology that is out there, puts it in affordable and rational
and relevant schemes that allows us to take full advantage of it as
operating forces. So innovation is number 2.

Number 3 most certainly has to be the balance between readi-
ness and modernization. You know we consider readiness to be our
top priority right now, so that we can sustain the mission accom-
plishment that I described earlier. I would just say that the chal-
lenge as we step into the next century that will confront all of us
will be balancing our readiness requirements against the need to
capitalize our force.

So those would be my top three, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Admiral Johnson, do you agree with Gren-
eral Sheehan that downsizing has created an imbalance between
headquarter staffs and operating forces?

Admiral Johnson. Well, sir, I worked very closely with General
Sheehan in my last assignment. I understand his concern. I share
his concern. My answer would be from a Navy perspective only
that I believe we are attentive to that concern but I am not trou-
bled by it at this point. We are very much invested in making sure
that our tooth-to-tail, our headquarters staff balance remains prop-
er so that we best service our requirements out of the tip of the
spear.

I would comment that I believe historically within the Navy, at
least in the past couple of decades, we have maintained a tooth-
to-tail ratio, if you will, in the neighborhood of 40 to 45 percent,
and been fairly consistent with that.

So (1) we watch it, (2) we always look for better ways to do it,
and (3) I think it is okay now, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. Admiral Johnson, your written responses
to the committee questions pointed out the increased emphasis on
mine warfare as an example of how the Navy has restructured it-
self to reflect its increased emphasis on littoral warfare.

During hearings this year, Department of the Navy witnesses
testified that the percentage of the Department's resources devoted
to this mission area was less than 1 percent of the budget and had
fallen steadily in the past 3 years while numerous capability gaps
remain unfilled.

What is your view on the progress that the Navy has made in
addressing the weaknesses revealed during Desert Storm?

278

Admiral Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I accept the reaHty that says
we needed to do bett.r in the mine warfare business. Admiral
Boorda, as you know, took that challenge very seriously. He and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps, as a team, have put to-
gether a mine warfare plan that we are in the process of executing
right now.

I would tell you that we have historically underfunded the mine
warfare business, but we are now reversing that trend and are very
encouraged by many of the initiatives that are ongoing right now —
the consolidation of a mine warfare center of excellence down in
Ingleside, Texas, wherein the newly designated U.S.S. Inchon, a
mine control ship, command ship, has just reported for duty in
Ingleside, and the consolidation of the air mine countermeasures
force. We have taken new strain on mine warfare, and I can tell
you from my perspective as Second Fleet Commander that we were
very much invested in including the mine assets in all of our joint
and Navy-specific exercises.

So I feel a strong commitment to the importance of mine counter-
measures and mine warfare, and I see nothing that will bring us
off of that, sir.

Chairman Thurmond. My time is up. Senator Nunn.

Senator NuNN. Admiral Johnson, operating tempo and personnel
tempo are one of the major concerns of Navy men and women in
the fleet. Will you be able to maintain the Navy's current operating
personnel tempo goals with the operating tempo commitments that
you have now, and with the force levels and end strength that are
planned over the future years defense program?

Admiral Johnson. Senator Nunn, today's answer to that ques-
tion is yes, sir, but I would tell you, and you are well aware, it is
somethmg that we constantly have to keep centered up in our
scope, because we have learned very painfully in decades past what
happens when we extend our cruises beyond a 6-month time frame,
and so on. It is a short-term gain for a long-term loss, so we are
absolutely committed to the PERSTEMPO and OPTEMPO rules by
which the Navy has governed itself since 1985.

So, I believe that if the tasking stays relatively consistent, and
the force structure stays where we are, we can ao the mission. If
either of those comes out of balance, then we are in trouble in that
regard.

But I would reaffirm to you, sir, that as was the case with Admi-
ral Boorda and his immediate predecessors, we are absolutely wed-
ded to the PERSTEMPO, OPTEMPO policies that we have right
now, and I will not come off of that, sir.

Senator Nunn. Admiral, there has been much written in the
press recently about low morale in the Navy aviation community
and unprecedented resignations of post command aviators.

Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb asserted during a re-
cent speech at the Naval Academy that 53 percent of post com-
mand commanders in naval aviation left the Navy last year.

As the senior aviator in the Navy, do you agree with former Sec-
retary Webb's assessment of the low morale in the naval aviation
community today, and are those numbers correct that are cited?

Admiral Johnson. Well, sir, the numbers that Secretary Webb
used I believe need a little bit of clarification. The 53-percent num-

279

ber that he used was an increase in numbers of retirements and
not a percentage of the total post-commander pool. So we have
some issue with the former Secretary's number. My real concern
with what he put out there was with the morale issue. Any discus-
sion of low morale is something that we take very seriously.

I personally believe that within the naval aviation community
and the aviators that I talk to and deal with, that we do not have
a large morale problem. I also believe very fundamentally that to
do the things that naval aviation is doing day-in and day-out
throughout the world, you simply cannot execute to that level of
precision if your morale is that low.

So I have to tell you, sir, that I do not concur point for point with
Secretary Webb. I do share a concern that morale, particularly
within naval aviation, is something we have to be especially at-
tuned to, and if I am confirmed, I will have that as one of my top
priorities.

Senator Nunn. What are the factors that you are concerned
about in terms of morale?

Admiral Johnson. The factors that I am concerned about, sir,
would be why are they leaving if there is an excess departure rate
which I do not think there is, but in terms of what we could do
to make things better, the specific concern areas that Secretary
Webb was discussing I think had to do in the post-command, com-
mander area.

The issue was one of time in grade to 06, which I think is being
addressed by seeking some grade relief, and we are grateful for
that. Increased airline hirings, things of that nature, also increase
our retirement numbers.

So one of the challenges and responsibilities that I think will be
incumbent on the leadership of naval aviation is to take a look, and
we are doing that, at the career pattern flow for our aviators and
see if there is perhaps some refinement and some better way of
doing it to make that part of a naval aviator's career more palat-
able.

Senator Nunn. Well then, are you concluding at this point in
time, at this stage, that you have not had an excessive number of
departures? Is that what I understand?

Admiral Johnson. The numbers I have seen would not have me
indicate an excess number, no, sir. I believe the absolute number
was about 12 to 14 percent in the post command commanders last
year.

Senator NuNN. So that 53 percent, then, that we are hearing is
nowhere near the mark?

Admiral Johnson. That is an incorrect number, sir, by what I
have been given.

Senator Nunn. Admiral Johnson, in the answers you provided to
the committee's written policy questions, you addressed the stand-
ards of responsibility and accountability in Navy regulations and
the state of leadership in today's Navy.

How would you characterize the Navy Officer Corps in terms of
understanding support, supporting and incorporating into their
daily activities the standard of responsibility and accountability set
forth in naval regulations? In your view, has the Navy leadership
done enough to encourage the leaders in the Officer Corps of the

280

Navy to do the right thing as a routine part of the officer's day-
to-day activities in life?

Admiral Johnson. I would characterize that, Senator Nunn, as
a work in progress. I think we have taken great strides forward.
I am not satisfied that we are there yet.

One of the things that Admiral Boorda started that we will con-
tinue if I am confirmed, or if I am the Vice Chief we are going to
continue this program, and that is the leadership, the Navy's lead-
ership training continuum which will put career-spanning rigor
into a leadership training piece for officer and enlisted in a way
that formalizes the training as we pass through our careers.

So I am very much committed to ensuring that we reinforce the
basic tenets that are out there now, and I am confident that we
have programs coming on line, combined with the ones that are in
place, to do exactly that, sir.

Senator Nunn. Would that also apply to the Naval Academy?

Admiral Johnson. Indeed it would, sir.

Senator Nunn. Thank you.

Admiral Johnson. It really goes seaman to admiral, and I would
be happy to provide you with the detail of the building block ap-
proach that that continuum has, but it is for everyone, sir.

Senator NuNN. Thank you. Chairman Thurmond.

Chairman Thurmond. Senator Kempthorne.

Senator Kt:Ml'THORNE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Admiral Johnson, I appreciated that in your opening comments
you were right up front about your attendance at Tailhook. Also,
as you noted, you had received a caution from the Secretary of the
Navy because of your attendance at Tailhook. I called and spoke
to Secretary Dalton on Friday, who at the time was in Russia, ask-
ing him to give me greater insight into this caution that he had
given to you.

As he stated, Admiral Johnson was there on orders. Admiral
Johnson did not participate in any untoward activity. He went on
to say that he wished you had been more aware, more proactive,
which you have indicated. I have looked at the material that has
been provided, and it is very clear that you were not involved in
any wrong-doing.

Having said that, you then have this implication of Tailhook.
Does that in any way impair you, as Chief of Naval Operations,
with all of these young sailors? As you stated, one of the four stars
is leadership, so does this impair you at all?

Admiral Johnson. Senator Kempthorne, I believe very strongly
that it brings me strength. That experience, that caution, that inac-
tion brings me great strength as a leader.

I regret, as I said in my opening statement, every day that we
got ourselves into a situation where we have to be still talking
about Tailhook. There was a fundamental flaw in all of us as lead-
ers to allow that to happen, and I am committed to making sure
we never get there again.

So I would tell you, sir, that I believe — and I am very much
aware that I am not perfect. I do not know anybody else who is,
and the key in all of that is to perhaps make sure that we all are
going to make mistakes. The essence will be to capture those mis-
takes, learn from them, and press on, and I believe I have dem-

281

onstrated very clearly I am capable of doing that, and I will con-
tinue to do so, and so will the rest of the Navy.

Senator Kempthornp:. I appreciate that response.

With regard to the USAA board of directors that you served on,
and the fact that there was compensation for that, when you first
received the invitation to join that board, were you concerned that
there may be a conflict of interest? Would you just outline for me
what caused you to determine that, in fact, it was appropriate and
legal for you to participate?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir. I discussed it with the USAA offi-
cials. I discussed it with the other board members who were on ac-
tive duty. I discussed it with Bureau of Navy Personnel to make
sure it was in compliance with regulations, and quite honestly, it
just did not occur to me that there was any impropriety there be-
cause of all I have just stated and the fact that (1) USAA is a very
quality organization, and (2) that they had been paying active duty
board members since 1922, and that it was done in my private ca-
pacity with no interference with my Navy responsibilities.

Senator Kempthorne. Again, I think the record is very clear
that you were in full compliance with the existing regulations.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.

Senator Kempthorne. The record needs to reflect that.

General Krulak has extended basic training for new Marines by
1 week to place additional emphasis on the importance of values
and standards. Do you think this extra emphasis is a good idea?

Admiral Johnson. I will not speak to the Marine Corps specific.
I have not had a chance to talk that with General Krulak.

I would say, though, I mentioned to Senator Nunn the leadership
training continuum. I would tell you that based upon what I see
now, there are two ends of the spectrum that I am still, if I am
to become the CNO, would like to deal with relative to the contin-
uum as it exists right now, and one is the fi-ont end, and the other
is the top end with fiag officers.

So again, this is a work in progress. I look forward to talking to
General Krulak and learning more of the specifics of what they
have just done. It intrigues me.

Senator Kempthorne. Thank you.

Admiral Johnson, how is the integration of women serving on
combat ships progressing? How can we make this integration more
effective?

Admiral Johnson. I am very optimistic, and I am very pleased
with the integration of women aboard combat ships. In my Second
Fleet command role I was the beneficiary of a staff of men and
women on a ship of men and women. They were all equally busy,
they were all equally productive, and I was extremely proud of
every one of them, so my personal experience has been very posi-
tive.

From an organization standpoint for the whole Navy, I would tell
you we are about half-way down a 6-year road map that we started
to integrate women into the combatant force, and as I say, it is
going well.

We have discussed, and I appreciate our discussion the other
day, a little bit about how there is a right way to do it, and so the

282

pace we have set for implementation is set to make sure that we
do it exactly the right way, and we will see that through.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right.

Mr. Chairman, I have a few additional questions, and I will wait
for the next round, if I may. Mv time has expired.

Chairman Thurmond. Thank you. Senator Exon.

Senator Exon. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and wel-
come. Admiral, to you and your family.

I want to say up front that I am very enthusiastic about your
nomination, and am in total support, because from your counter-
parts I have heard, and the study of the resume that I have done
indicate to me that there just could not be any person more quali-
fied to take over from our dear friend and colleague. Admiral
Boorda, and I really appreciate the fact that you mentioned him up
front.

I have had the pleasure of being associated with many people in
the Joint Chiefs over the years, and I have always most appre-
ciated the fact that there is a cohesiveness about you people, the
general respect that you have for each other. The Secretary of the
Navy called me and talked about some other things, and I was
wondering why he was calling me.

He was really calling me to see if I had any concerns about your
nomination, and when he asked the question, I simply told him,
Mr. Secretary, please do not waste your time or mine lobbying me
on behalf of Admiral Johnson. He is just super, and I am delighted
that somebody of your stature has been nominated by the Presi-
dent to carry on.

General Shalikashvili has also told me of his fondness for you,
and I know that you are going to fit right in and take over and do
the job that has to be done.

I have just two or three questions for the record that I would like
to have you answer.

Admiral, I am sure that you share our concern about the image
of collective integrity of the United States Naval Academy, which
has received some blemishes, to put it mildly, over the past few
years. Are there any further steps that should be taken to make
sure the best we can that these shortcomings are not repeated in
the future?

Admiral Johnson. Well, sir, I share your concern with the Naval
Academy, because as you know I am a graduate, and I care pas-
sionately for the institution.

I do believe that Admiral Chuck Larson is doing a commendable
job of leading the Naval Academy. Recall, he went in there for a
4-year term, and he is, I believe, just about at the mid-point of that
term, so he, too, has a work in progress.

I have spent some time with him. I intend to spend much more
time with him getting into the details of what he is doing to make
a different Naval Academy environment.

I am very encouraged by the character development program,
some of the leadership initiatives, the ethics training that is in
place, but you do not see the effect of those things like turning a
light switch on and off. The midshipmen must invest in them, and
that investment will take a period of time, so I believe personally
that with regard to the Naval Academy we ought to have faith in

283

the leadership that exists there and give them the opportunity to
run the course with the very important programs that they have
put into place.

Senator ExoN. I am a close friend of the Admiral. He is a Ne-
braskan. I think he has done a truly outstanding iob of turning
things around over there. I was very pleased, thougn, to hear you
talk about the close relationship you have with him.

I guess I was asking primarily, is there anything that you think
we here as members of this committee should do to assist you and
the Admiral, because I think he is doing a tremendous job over
there. You are satisfied completely with the way things are going,
but you are going to stay on top of it. Is that a fair synopsis of
what you said?

Admiral Johnson. That is pretty fair, Senator Exon. I would
make one slight adjustment, and that is, so long as we have inci-
dents that we read about in the paper, I am not, and I know Admi-
ral Larson is not satisfied, but I think as I mentioned before we
need to keep that in perspective, take a bit of a longer view, and
realize that he, too, is dealing with people across the full spectrum
of upbringing and so forth.

So I would not presume to counsel the committee, but you asked
the question, so I will just tell you in response I think the most
useful thing we could do for the Naval Academy right now would
be to provide our support to Admiral Larson in the tremendous ef-
fort he is putting into a program he has given his life to.

Senator Exon. Thank you. Admiral.

Admiral, during this year's budgets hearing we heard testimony
from the Navy that they will need a maximum effort, particularly
in the area of acquisition reform, in order to meet the bow wave
costs of ship construction in the years ahead. This bow wave must
be mitigated. I am wondering how concerned you are about this,
and what additional tools, if any, in your opinion should Congress
consider providing the Navy to meet tnis concern?

Admiral Johnson. I would answer that. Senator, by telling you
that I am very much aware of the bow wave. I am very concerned
about it.

I am working very diligently with Mr. Douglass, our Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition
on the acquisition reform and how it relates to us dealing with the
bow wave, and beyond that, sir, I would tell you that I am not pre-
pared to get into a detailed discussion, other than to say I am fully
aware of the gravity of the situation, and if I am confirmed, that
will be first order of business.

Senator Exon. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I just wanted one
last quick question. I know you cannot comment on this at any
great length in open session, but I have come to the belief, right
or wrong, that since the cold war the range of superiority, generally
speaking, that our submarine forces had over the Russian fleet has
been reduced dramatically. We are still the best submarine force in
the world by far, are we not?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir, we are, and our challenge and our re-
sponsibility and our obligation to the American people is to make
sure we stay that way.

Senator ExoN. Thank you. Admiral. Good luck.

284

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Kemithoknk [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Exon.

Senator McCain.

Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and con-
gratulations. Admiral, for your selection.

I want to thank both Senator Nunn and the chairman of our
committee. Senator Thurmond, for making every effort to move
your nomination forward so that hopefully we can have you con-
firmed by the Senate before we go out of session on Friday.

Admiral, I think you have already been asked if you will provide
your personal views if asked by any member of this committee in
testimony before the committee. Have you already been asked that?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir, and I would.

Senator McCain. I believe that we need someone who will stand
up for the men and women in the Navy today. No one else seems
to be doing so.

I would ask if you believe that there is a morale problem
amongst some junior officers in the Navy today, especially amongst
young aviators.

Admiral Johnson. I believe, sir, that we can do better with the
morale of the junior officers. I do not think we have a tremendous
problem. My barometer for that is the reality that says our junior
aviators are out forward every day doing wonderful, difficult work
at the tip of the spear, and if the morale were really, really low,
they could not execute with the precision that they are doing.

But I take that very seriously if there is any concern about mo-
rale amongst the aviators, and so I consider that to be one of my
top priorities and one of my top responsibilities, regardless of my
job as a senior aviator, and I will keep that focus for as long as
I am on active duty.

Senator McCain. What do you think we can do, both the Navy
and the Congress, to finally bring closure to the Tailhook issue?

Admiral Johnson. I think, sir, from my perspective what we
need to do is accept the realities of our mistakes, and commit our-
selves to a standard of behavior and a standard of performance
that will not let us fall down that path again, and quite simply, to
take better care of one another.

Senator McCain. Are you satisfied that the Navy is doing
enough to ensure that an environment of gender equality is preva-
lent in the Navy, much as we had to do in the military and the
Navy in the sixties and seventies to engender an environment of
racial equality, and if not, what do you think we need to do in addi-
tion to what we are doing today?

Admiral Johnson. I think all the trend lines are in the right di-
rection. I consider it to be a work in progress. It requires steadfast
leadership, it requires lots of attention to detail, but I think we are
generally in the right direction now, and I am encouraged by the
integration of women, particularly in our combatant force.

Senator McCain. Occasionally there has been a complaint, which
I have not seen evidence to corroborate, but there has been a com-
plaint that for some women in pilot training they are given some
kind of special consideration or preference over their male peers in
order that they may progress. Is that a concern to you?

285

Admiral Johnson. No, sir. I have heard the same kinds of ru-
mors, but when you run those rumors down to numbers, the num-
bers would tell you that, for instance, in aviation attrition num-
bers, male, female, pilot, NFO, are very much at parity with one
another.

Senator McCain. You are satisfied that the women combat pilots
in the Navy today are on a par at least with their male counter-
parts?

Admiral Johnson. The feedback I am getting says exactly that,
sir.

Senator McCain. So we have a challenge to overcome some of the
bias that exists. You are in agreement that there is still existing
bias?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir. We are not there vet. It is a work
in progress. I think we have taken great strides, but we can never
consider that job complete.

Senator McCain. Are you concerned about the lack of sealift, air-
lift, and aircraft to man our carrier decks in the next century?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir. In terms of vertical replenishment
and CODS and things like that, yes, sir, I am.

Senator McCain. Tactical aircraft?

Admiral Johnson. Tactical aircraft as well, and that is why I
think the recapitalization of our tactical air force is absolutely es-
sential.

Senator McCain. Naval aviators who have been recommended
for promotion are flagged for their involvement in Tailhook. Do you
think that practice needs to continue?

Admiral Johnson. To me. Senator McCain, the answer is that I
believe it must be dealt with in a manner most fair to everyone,
which tells me that on the first time, the first time any naval avi-
ator who was at Tailhook comes up to a career milestone that
would put him before this committee, this committee needs to know
about it.

At such time, when the committee renders its decision, if the de-
cision is to promote, for instance, then the next time that individ-
ual comes up before this committee, the committee ought to be
dealing with what happened since the last confirmation and the
present, rather than going back and recapturing Tailhook time and
time again.

Senator McCain. Well, thank you, Admiral. I hear, as you might
imagine, from a lot of retired and active duty Navy people. Over
last weekend, just by coincidence, I was in Pensacola, where I met
a number of retired people who you and I know and respect enor-
mously who served in other wars with distinction and courage and
sacrifice, and they are very concerned.

They are very concerned about the future of the Navy. They are
concerned about our image with the American people. They are
concerned about morale, and I do not have to tell you, there is a
lot of hopes and faith resting on your shoulders now as you assume
this new duty, and I hope that you are fully appreciative of that.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.

Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Kempthorne. Senator McCain, thank you very much.

Senator Inhofe.

286

Senator I^fHOFK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me
echo the remarks made by Senator Exon in terms of my feelings
towards your nomination. I am very supportive, as I told you in my
office, and I am looking forward to working with you.

I had a couple of issues to address. One is related to what Sen-
ator McCain was just talking about, the people we talk to who are
so concerned about the things that are happening in the military
in general, not just the Navy.

I have always felt that a lot of it is due to the fact that our fund-
ing has been dropping for the last 12 years, and it is the only area
of Gk)vernment where that is the case. I am deeply concerned, as
I expressed to you in my office, over all the services.

I was very proud here at the Senate Armed Services Committee
when the four Chiefs came in and stated very emphatically that we
are underfunded by about $20 billion in our procurement accounts.
I felt that took a lot of courage, and I think Admiral Boorda has
said that the Navy specifically was underfunded by approximately
$7.9 billion. Do you agree with that?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir, that is roughly the number that I
have in terms of where we think we need to go.

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate it. I guess the question I was going
to ask is, when you come before this committee, and when you —
let me be very straightforward, as you have demonstrated today
that you will be. You are probably aware that there have been law-
suits filed against the President.

There are eight plaintiffs — there may be more right now, I do not
know, but four of those are on this committee — alleging that he is
not carrying out the mandates from both the Missile Defense Act
of 1995, and the DOD Appropriations Act of 1996 insofar as the
Theater Missile Defense system is concerned. Of course a very im-
portant component of that is the Navy upper tier.

I will not ask you to comment as far as the lawsuit is concerned,
but that at least expresses to you the depth of our concern over
both the National Missile Defense System and the Theater Missile
Defense System, and I would like to have you share with this com-
mittee your feelings about the priority of a Navy upper tier and
both the theater and national missile defense system, where we are
today.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir. I am aware of the lawsuit, and I
would not propose to comment on it, but as we have discussed be-
fore, in the business of Theater Missile Defense, I really do believe
that the Navy has a tremendous contribution to make with an
Aegis force that is already well invested in billions of dollars.

The lower tier area capability, the upper tier — I am excited about
the potential. I am committed to working it as hard as I can, and
I think it is something that is relevant and very, very potent in ca-
pability for our country, so I really look forward to working that
issue.

Senator Inhokk. You have heard quotes attributed to a number
of experts in the field, including former CIA Director Jim Woolsey
concerning the number of nations out there that currently have
weapons of mass destruction — biological, chemical and nuclear.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.

287

Senator Inhofe. First of all, do you agree with his assessment,
and second, are you equally concerned?

Admiral Johnson. Well, I am not familiar with the details of his
assessment. I am in general, so I probably should not comment, ex-
cept to sav that I share the concern of any proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, and to me, all the more reason for us within
the Navy to focus on the potential contributions we could make
with OUT Aegis force in terms of both area and theater-wide capabil-
ity.

Senator Inhofe. Well, Admiral, with the investment of what,
some $22 billion in that system, and being virtually almost 90 per-
cent paid for, I hope that you will use the force of your office to
try to get us to that point as quickly as possible, and I am sure
you will, and I look forward to working with you.

Admiral Johnson. Thanks very much. Senator Inhofe.

Senator Inhop^e. Thank you.

Senator Kempthohne. Senator Inhofe, thank you very much.

Senator Coats.

Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, welcome.
Congratulations to you.

In your written responses to the committee's questions, you indi-
cated that one of your first actions as CNO would be to travel
throughout the fleet and decide on some management activities
and timetables for the Navy.

Clearly, as Vice Chief and now Acting Chief of Naval Operations,
and your other experience as a senior naval officer, I am sure you
have some thoughts and opinions about where you would like to
take the Navy.

I wonder, just based on your current experience, which obviously
will be supplemented by your visits and evaluations, what you
would list as your top priorities and challenges and how you plan
to address those?

Admiral Johnson. Well, Senator Coats, I think the top priority
challenges for the Navy would first of all be people, and the care
and the education and the employment of those people. Clearly
that is number 1.

I wrap quality of life into that, and some have heard me say that
my definition of quality of life contains an operational slice that
says you must also have good ships, good airplanes, good equip-
ment, good weapons systems for our people so that they may go for-
ward, do the missions that they are tasked to do, and come home
safely is the ultimate quality oi life, and then the more traditional
aspects of quality of life, convey importantly as well.

So taking care of people in that regard I think is the first chal-
lenge.

Senator Coats. Where do you rate the Navy currently, in terms
of addressing those issues?

Admiral Johnson. I would rate us doing pretty well. Within the
fiscal realities of the day, I would rate us doing very well, but it
is something that we can never, ever, (1) certainly take our eye off,
and (2) I think ever be satisfied with.

Senator Coats. Within quality of life issues, are there areas
where the red light is blinking that you think need to be addressed
more immediately, or that give you more concern than others? Pay,

288

equipment, bonuses, housing, whatever? Is there anything that
stands out as being deficient?

Admiral Johnson. To me, the red hght is always flashing on pay,
because I do not think it is possible to pay our sailors enough for
what we ask them to do, but beyond that, sir, I think we are work-
ing the programs very hard to provide a quality of life that is rep-
resentative of one that makes all our people proud. We have got
a lot of work going on in housing. We have got a lot of work to do
in housing. So that is an amber light, at least, that is flashing to
me, but I think we are very attentive to the requirement, and we
are working it as best we can and getting lots of help in doing so.

The second area I would mention to you is innovation, and that
really touches on the technology. At one level there is an oper-
ational innovation, there is organizational innovation, and there is
technological innovation, and there are probably lots more, but we
are focusing on each of those as challenges to take us forward, and
then, I think, third, obviously, and third perhaps not in order of
importance, but third just by the way I list them, is the business
of balancing our short-term readiness requirements with our long-
term recapitalization modernization requirements, a daunting chal-
lenge in the next century, and one that if I am confirmed I will
work very hard, as you would expect.

Senator Coats. One of the issues that the committee is going to
have to deal with next year in a significant way is this whole ques-
tion of F/A 18's, E/F series versus the C/D's.

Some have raised the question of, since we are developing the
joint strike fighter, would it not be more cost-effective to just bring
the C's and D's up to a certain standard and bypass the E/F devel-
opment. Do you want to comment on that?

Admiral Johnson. I appreciate the chance to comment on that,
Senator Coats.

Senator Coats. I thought you would.

Admiral Johnson. I would put it this way. We in the Navy feel
very much committed to the F-18 E/F. I am fully aware that there
is discussion and debate and controversy over that, but we are very
much committed to what it brings us, and I would just tell you
anecdotally that in a former life I was a Hornet pilot, and I loved
it, but I would also tell you that when I used to get into a brand-
new F-18C and climb up on the side of the airplane and inspect
the ejection seat, when I would look behind it, there was a big tub
back there with nothing in it. You could have put three suitcases
in there. That was on my first air wing commander tour.

When I fiew the Hornet on my last fiying tour as a battle group
commander, I would climb up the side of that same F-18C, and I
would look behind the ejection seat, and there was not enough
room to put a helmet bag, because the airplane had grown. We had
filled that airplane up.

So that to me is an eyeball reality check that says, we do not
have any growth room in the F-18C, and for the Navy's mission
set, we need a new airplane, and that is the E/F. The E/F are fiy-
ing. We are very encouraged by what we see. They are under-
weight, they are under cost, they are on schedule, so we are very
much wedded to it, sir, to take us to joint strike fighter, at which
time they will become complementary assets.

289

Senator Coats. Thank you. My time has expired. I know we will
have more questions on this subject and others. Thank you very
much.

Admiral Johnson. Thank you, Senator Coats.

Senator Kempthornk. Senator Coats, thank you very much.

Senator Hutchison, are you prepared?

Senator Hutchison. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I hate to
come into a hearing that is going, not knowing what has been said,
but let me just say that I have talked to Admiral Johnson in the
previsits that he had with everyone, but I did not get a chance to
hear his opening statement. I am very supportive of his nomina-
tion. I think the Navy deserves to have a leader, and I would hope
that we would be able to expedite the choice that has been made
by the Department of the Navy.

I hate to ask you to repeat yourself, but I think it is clear that
the Navy is facing an era of very tough decisions, and this is a piv-
otal point in the Navy's present and more importantly I think we
have the chance to take the Navy in the next century.

My husband is a product of the Navy, and I will never forget
when he met Admiral Boorda. He said that he was a seaman sec-
ond class, and he said, gosh, if I had known that I could be Chief
of Staff, I might have stayed in the Navy, and they had a good
laugh about that.

I want very much for the Navy to succeed, as I know you do. Let
me just ask you what you think are the two or three most impor-
tant things that the Navy must address immediately, and what
your priority would be.

Admiral Johnson. Well, we have touched on a number of dif-
ferent elements, Senator Hutchison, and I would, I think, charac-
terize it this way. We have some leadership challenges, as you have
said, but I think in terms of the priorities and the challenges/re-
sponsibilities that I would have, clearly number 1 would be to the
people, because they are the source of everything within our Navy,
and if they are not well-tended, well-educated, and working in an
environment that allows them to reach full productivity, then we
are not doing the job, and we cannot operate that way. So I am
very much committed to our sailors, and will stay that way as long
as I am in uniform.

Second, we talked a little bit about innovation, and the respon-
sibilities attendant to that in harnessing new technologies and
looking at better and more efficient and more operationally sound
ways to employ the force that we have and the force that will take
us forward into the next century, and third will be the daunting
challenge of matching, balancing readiness, which is critically im-
portant every day out forward with modernization and recapitaliza-
tion. So those would be my top three, ma'am.

Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
get more of a report from my staff on what he has addressed, and
then perhaps come back if I feel that there is something that has
not been addressed at this time.

Senator Kemi'THORNK. All right. Senator Hutchison, thank you
very much. We appreciate your involvement.

Senator Warner.

290

Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also I want to
thank you personally. You have just assumed the duties as chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Personnel, and when I and Senator
McCain went to the chairman, we suggested that you take over and
shepherd this nomination through the committee and hopefully
through the Senate. You are going to have my strong support in
that leadership role both here in committee and, indeed, on the
floor of the Senate.

Admiral, I, as you might imagine, made my own independent
analysis of your qualifications, partially through a conversation we
had, but also through a number of former active duty officers now
in retirement who have seen you through your formative years, and
you come out with a 4.0 award from a peer group that is very
tough.

As a matter of fact, one told me that the soul of the Navy has
examined you, and you are the right man at the right time to take
the helm in the wake of the tragedy of the loss of the former CNO,
a great friend of mine as well as yours and others.

Consequently, as you hopefully will be confirmed by the Senate
and assume your duties, foremost is this critical question of this
Nation's participation in the operation in Bosnia, and I want you
quietly to reflect for a moment, as you will be around the table
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and others to advise the
President.

The President had made it very clear, and repeatedly stated, that
he felt the U.S. participation in this current operation could be con-
cluded in the November-December time frame. Have you made any
independent analysis, and do you have an opinion on that?

Admiral Johnson. I have not yet made such an analysis, Senator
Warner, and I would just comment that the subject I am sure will
be one that the Joint Chiefs will be dealing with, and if I am con-
firmed I will be very straightforward in my participation in those
discussions.

Senator Warnp:r. Well, bear in mind that this country has made
a very heavy investment in that operation to date. Prior to the cur-
rent deployment of troops in this multinational force, we were the
principal logistician, principal one at sea, principal one in terms of
air, and it has been a heavy drain on the American taxpayer, and
likewise it has drained the Department of Defense budget, and
there was no provision in the President's budget last year or this
year for this continued operation.

That cuts into my next question, and that is the readiness today
and the ability of the Department of the Navy to procure and com-
mit to those contracts that will enable it to be in a position 10
years hence to have the same quality of equipment that the Navy
possesses today.

I do not know whether he has commented on this, Mr. Chairman,
but my question to you would be, what is your assessment of the
current level of funding for research and development and procure-
ment, and what would you like to see in the outyears?

Admiral Johnson. Of course, the acquisition piece is one which
I am becoming more familiar with as time goes on. I am very sen-
sitive to the concern for recapitalization of our force and the pro-
curement needs we will face as we step into the next century, but

291

I think for me to get any more specific at this point, Senator War-
ner, I might be giving you numbers and figures that will not serve
me well.

Senator Warner. Well, you are aware of the fact that your pred-
ecessor and other members of the Joint Staff appeared in this
room, sat at those very seats, and in response to questions from
myself and other members on this committee very clearly exercised
their responsibility under an earlier question from the chairman,
namely, gave this committee their personal opinion that the cur-
rent level of research and development, the current level of pro-
curement, was inadequate to meet the future requirements of
America's military forces. Do you generally share that view?

Admiral Johnson. I do absolutely, sir, and I will tell you that in
the shipbuilding account in particular, we find ourselves in a posi-
tion, as you know, where we must recapitalize to maintain a force
to do the job of roughly 346 ships. The present rate of recapitaliza-
tion will not get us that number, so yes, sir, I share that concern
very seriously.

Senator Warner. I would urge you to put up on the wall in your
office the phrase from the Constitution of the United States which
very clearly imposes on the President and most specifically on the
Congress to maintain a Navy.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. That means we cannot wait from year to year
to build those ships that are required to defend basically what we
have here is an island Nation, and maintain these four deployed
forces, which are integral to any operational plan of deterrence and
defense that we have.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir.

Senator Warner. In the balance of the three elements of your
Department, namely the aviation, the surface, and the subsurface,
which will be the future program for new submarine construction.
This subject has been very actively considered by the Congress and
most specifically this committee, and over a period of several years
now we have evolved a clear, legislative package. The third piece
is about to be enacted into law, hopefully with the President's sig-
nature on a conference report, which will be hopefully forthcoming
from the Senate in a few days, and in it we state that you have
got to have a balance between the air, surface, and subsurface, and
that a new submarine program in the attack area has to be under-
taken, and it should be undertaken in a manner that is most cost-
effective for the American taxpayers. The decision was that we
would have two yards in active competition throughout that pro-
gram. Would you generally continue to support the mandates of the
Congress along those lines?

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir. As I understand the fiscal year 1996
authorization on that subject, I believe us to be in compliance, and
that the shipbuilding profile is one that we are taking under study
right now, as you say, submarine, air, and surface, so yes, sir.

Senator Warn1':r. Those programs should, and this one is de-
signed, the new attack submarine, to be fair and equitable competi-
tion between two yards to get the best possible technical product
at the lowest possible cost to the American taxpayer. Do you agree
with those tenets?

292

Admiral Johnson, Well, I agree that we ought to be looking to
get the best dollar value for the taxpayer, yes, sir, I certainly do.

Senator Warni<:r. The best technical package that we can.

Admiral Johnson. The best technical package.

Senator Warner. Because while we cannot go into technical in-
telligence at this time, you know full well that Russia is at flank
speed, in terms of its R&D and development of new classes of sub-
marine. You can acknowledge that.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, sir, and I am very encouraged, by the
way, at what I have seen and learned since I have been here about
what we are doing in terms of future submarine capabilities for
ourselves, so as I mentioned earlier, I think the bottom line of all
of it is that we must — we have a commitment, a requirement to the
American people to ensure that our submarine force stays well
ahead of anyone else in the world.

Senator Warner. The reasons Russia is doing this are not clear
to all of us.

Admiral Johnson. No, sir.

Senator Warner. But they are doing it, and let there be no doubt
about their putting an enormous emphasis on all their subsurface
tactical and strategic programs, particularly new classes of sub-
marines.

I thank the chair.

Senator Kempthorne. Senator Warner, thank you very much.

Senator Robb.

Senator Robb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, I was not
able to get here at the start of the hearing. I had several other con-
flicts. But I have had some veiy good meetings, including one I
think Friday of last week with Admiral Johnson.

We had a very thorough discussion at the end of the day, so it
was not limited by time constraints, and we had an opportunity to
review a number of issues. I would simply state, Mr. Chairman,
that number 1, I am pleased that the hearing has taken place
today. I am fully supportive of Admiral Johnson's nomination to be
the Chief of Naval Operations.

I have had an opportunity to review all of the relevant material,
and I am confident that the committee will act, I hope with una-
nimity at the appropriate time, and I hope that we are able to com-
plete floor action so that Admiral Johnson can remove the title of
acting from his title currently.

I think it is fair to say that the Navy has been performing a
number of very difficult and challenging tasks extremely well over
an extended period of time, and there is an enormous amount of
accomplishment to which members of the Naval Service can point
with great pride. But that has not always been the focal point or
the public focus of late, and it is extremely important that we
change that focus, and I think that Admiral Johnson has indicated
through all of the private conversations and the various meetings
that we have had that he is certainly prepared to tackle that task
and provide the leadership the Navy needs at this particular junc-
ture in our history.

So I will not extend the hearing with any additional questions.
I have had all of my questions resolved in other meetings in other
forums, but I thank you for holding the hearing, and I look forward

293

to a speedy confirmation and to working with Admiral Johnson as
the new formally confirmed Chief of Naval Operations in the very
near future.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

Senator Kempthorne. Senator Robb, thank you very much.

Admiral Johnson, today, in fact, we have a very important debate
taking place on the floor of the Senate concerning nuclear waste.
When we talk about the submarines, truly the finest submarines
built anywhere in the world, we recognize that when we think of
them being built in a shipyard there is another responsibility that
goes with that, and that is the spent fuel rods that come from those
submarines.

The State of Idaho, for example, is a recipient of those spent nu-
clear fuel rods, and really the country does not have a program to
deal with nuclear waste, a permanent solution.

Would you comment, please, on the importance of the Navy's
agreement with the State of Idaho regarding the Navy's ability to
perform its national security missions? Is the Navy fully committed
to implement all of the terms and conditions of the agreement with
the State of Idaho, even in tough budget times?

Admiral Johnson. Mr. Chairman, with my understanding of that
agreement, my answer to that would be yes. We are very proud of
the relationship we have with the State of Idaho in terms of how
we are dealing with spent nuclear fuel, and we are also proud of
our mutual efforts together in Bayview and Lake Pend Oreille sub-
marine acoustic research detachment, so my answer is yes, sir, we
will be in compliance and look forward to a continued relationship
with the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INL) and the
State of Idaho.

Senator Kempthorne. Thank you very much. I say that not from
a parochial perspective, but I say that for other Senators of the
shipyard States that resolve the dilemma that when you began to
keep the spent fuel there in those States the shipyards were nega-
tively impacted.

Admiral Johnson. The ability to move that spent fuel is critical
to us, as you have alluded, to ensure that the shipbuilding and ship
maintenance schedules may be maintained, so it is absolutely es-
sential that we have that ability to move, and that is why we are
appreciative.

Senator Kempthorne. Admiral, what will your confirmation as
Chief of Naval Operations signal to the men and women of the
United States Navy?

Admiral Johnson. I hope it will signal to them that we have a
new start into the next century, and they will capture the four
stars in the constellation that I talked about, operational primacy,
leadership, teamwork, and pride, and that we will all vector to-
gether in that journey forward.

Senator Kp:mi'THORNE. The Navy is in need of your leadership,
and I enthusiastically will support your confirmation.

I think you have tremendous support from the members of this
committee. I will acknowledge also the support of Garland and
Cullen and how important that is. None of us should ever take for
granted that support and love of families; we need to acknowledge

294

it and know that it is there, so I commend your wife and daughter
for their being here today.

I would just say, I think all of us will be very proud with you
as Chief of Naval Operations, and we look forward to your tenure
and what that could mean to the United States Navy.

Admiral Johnson. Thank you very much, Senator Kempthorne.

Senator Ki<:mpthohnk. Any other questions or comments from
any other Senator? Senator Coats.

Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, one statement and a couple of
brief questions.

One, I second the statement just given by Senator Kempthorne.
We obviously recognize that the Navy has been through some
rough seas here in the last few years, and I do not think anybody
on this committee wants anything but smooth sailing for you and
for the Navy.

The contribution of our Navy to the National security has been
critical in the past and will be critical in the future, and we think
we have a Navy with fme leadership and fine people, and we look
forward to your leadership and working closely with you, and I look
forward to supporting that effort.

Let me just ask you a couple of followup questions I did not have
time to ask in the earlier round. Back to the tacair question. As
Vice Chief of Naval Operations, you had a joint assignment on the
JROC. Can you just bring me up to date as to where the JROC is
on the whole tacair. Navy tacair question, and when do you think
they will be making their recommendations?

Admiral Johnson. The JROC, in fact as we speak, my fellow
Service Vice Chiefs and the Vice Chairman are airborne, just arriv-
ing in Tampa to begin their round of CINC visits to get feedback
from our war-fighting CINCS. Specific to the tacair piece, the
JROC, I would tell you, has been very much involved in the tacair
recapitalization, and that will continue as part of their program, I
am sure, here for the next few months.

They are involved in the deep attack weapons mixed study that
I am sure you are familiar with and a number of ongoing efforts
to bring some clarity to the tacair requirements business, and so
I cannot put a specific date on any of that for you here today. I can
provide it for the record if you like, sir, but the JROC is very heav-
ily invested in tacair.

Senator Coats. The second question has to do with the EA-6B
upgrade. With the phasing out of the F-111 and the movement to-
ward EA-6B and providing the capabilities that that provides,'
where does the Navy stand on that program?

Admiral Johnson. The Navy stands wedded to the agreed con-
cept that says that the Navy and the Air Force and the Marine
Corps are going to work together to provide an EA-6B force that
will meet the requirement as we step into the next century. That
includes creation of some more EA-6B squadrons.

The time line for that is set. We are underway and doing that
right now, and so I would tell you that the program is off the start-
ing blocks, and we are working the memorandum of agreement in
terms of the training and all that, but I can tell you that the Navy
is committed to that program, and we are proud to be driving it

295

right now in terms of working the memorandum with our friends
in the Air Force and the Marine Corps.

Senator Coats. Good. Thank you.

Senator Kempthorne. Senator Hutchison.

Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I forgot to say that the only
thing that would have kept me away from this hearing earlier was
that I am on the An ti -Terrorism Task Force, and we were in meet-
ings on that, but I did consult with my staff, and several of the
questions that I had have been answered by you, so I will not be-
labor those.

There is one other thing, though, that I did want to ask that no
one else did, and that is, in my State, as you know, we have a
great naval presence, and we are very proud of that. One of the
Navy presences of which I am most proud is the joint reserve base
in Fort Worth. It is sort of the incubator in this country for a fully
integrated reserve base, in which as you know the Navy is in com-
mand, and I remember meeting there with the very first people
that were in the transition, and there was a bit of nervousness
about whether it would actually work with Navy and Air Force
coming together and working as a unit.

In fact, everything I hear is that it is working terrifically well,
and I just wanted to ask you how you feel about this joint reserve
activity, if you think there is a future for that for not only perhaps
reserve units but even active units in some parts of the country,
or the world, and if you feel that it is working as well as it seems
to be from my reports.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am. I appreciate the chance to com-
ment on that. I will tell you that from my previous experience as
a numbered fieet and joint force commander that the strength that
we get from operating jointly is one that I take very seriously and
very proudly, and I would only comment that I think out in the
field, and even afioat, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine and
Coast Guard work extremely well together, so jointness is really a
way of life out there, active or reserve.

I am excited about what has happened down at the joint reserve
base. I look forward to going down there to see it myself, and I am
getting nothing but good reports from the Navy side of that, so I
am very encouraged by that.

Senator Hutchison. Well, I think that is a step in the right di-
rection. I think the joint trainer that is on the drawing boards now
is certainly a step in the right direction, and I would hope that you,
as well as the Chiefs of all the services, would be committed to
more joint use of facilities, of equipment, because the more that we
can be integrated, the more efficient we can be, and hopefully
stronger by the meshing of the units. Do you have any comment
on that?

Admiral Johnson. Only that my view of joint operations, or my
experience with joint operations are such that I would say that one
of the things when you enter into a joint operation people worry
about is that, if you go joint, it is going to take something away
from me and give something to somebody else.

My experience has been quite the contrary. The strength in joint
operations and in jointness as an entity is that everybody brings
their own core competencies and core capabilities to the table or to

296

the operation, and you pick from those the strengths that you need
to build, to meld whatever specific task you are being asked to
carry out, so I am very much committed to that.

Senator Hutchison. Well, I just hope that by supporting it, that
perhaps there can be ideas that might of use.

Admiral Johnson. Yes, ma'am. I think we have much to learn
down there.

Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Admiral Johnson. I will just add
my comments to those of our Acting Chairman, or whatever you
are. Maybe there has been a coup.

I would just like to add, seriously, that I look forward to working
with you. We are going to try to move your nomination so that the
Navy can have their leadership intact immediately. They deserve
it and you deserve it, and I think you will do a fine job.

Admiral Johnson. Thank you. Senator Hutchison.

Senator Kemithorne. Admiral, in the Navy do they ever address
you as whoever you may be?

Admiral Johnson. All the time, sir.

Senator Kemi'THORNI":. How have you enjoyed the session here
this afternoon?

Admiral Johnson. Fine, sir, thanks. [Laughter.]

Senator Kemithorne. You have been candid all the way up to
this point.

Admiral Johnson. I would be lying if I said I did not know there
was a clock behind your head that I can see that you cannot see,
and that I am looking at. I am doing fine, sir.

Senator Kemithorne. That is great.

Well, I believe that concludes this hearing, and Admiral, again,
we thank you for your forthright responses.

[Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

[Prepared questions submitted to Adm. Jay J. Johnson, USN, by
Senator Thurmond prior to the hearing with answers supplied fol-
low:]

Vice Chief of Naval Operations,

2000 Navy Pentagon,
Washington, DC, July 12. 1996.

Hon. Strom Thurmond, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to respond to
your questions and to share my views on a number of important issues facing the
Navy. I am enclosing responses to each question you forwarded.

I look forward to appearing before you and the other members of your committee.
Sincerely,

Jay L. Johnson,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.

Enclosure,
cc: Hon. Sam Nunn,

Ranking Minority Member.

297

Questions and Responses
vision for the navy

If confirmed, you will have the opportunity to lead the Navy during a period of
significant change and to infiuence the shape of the Navy as it approaches and en-
ters the 21st Century.

Question. What do you consider to be the most serious challenges and problems
in the management and operation of the Navy?

Answer. In my view, there are four principal challenges which we must address
in order to move the Navy into the next century: people, innovation, force structure,
and modernization.

The bedrock of our capability now and in the future is people. Taking care of their
professional and personal needs must remain our first order challenge and respon-
sibility. We must continue to attract men and women of the caliber who have made
our Navy the best in the world. In order to do that, quality of life must remain a
top priority. My definition of quality of life encompasses providing our men and
women with first rate weapons platforms and equipment with which to swiftly and
surely execute their myriad operational missions and return home safely. In addi-
tion, the more traditionally held aspects of quality of life must remain a part of our
commitment: fair compensation, housing, health care, commissary/exchanges, MWR,
and educational opportunities are principal areas of concern. We must also strive
to closely monitor the burdens imposed by our operating tempo and ensure we do
not demand an unacceptable level of personal sacrifice from our people.

Fostering innovation in the Navy of the 21st Century is our second major chal-
lenge. The Navy has a proud, rich heritage of technological, operational, and organi-
zational innovation. We are today engaged in a number of efforts to develop innova-
tive platforms and capabilities. They include technological innovations such as the
Cooperative Engagement Capability, Arsenal Ship, Smart Ship, and sea-based bal-
listic missile defense; operational innovations such as controlling unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVS) from submarines and advances in operational maneuver; and orga-
nizational innovations such as the realignment of the Atlantic Fleet cruiser/de-
stroyer force to include the establishment of the Western Hemisphere Group, and
flexible integration with joint forces. If confirmed, I will work to sustain and expand
such efTorts.

Furthermore, we have unprecedented opportunities — and obligations — to foster in-
novation in the development of our next generation of platforms and systems. Stud-
ies are underway to define and design the combatants of the next century — surface,
air, space, and submarines — and the C^I architecture which will link them together
with each other and the assets of the other services. These studies are exploring
a wide range of alternatives. Our emphasis on innovation will enable us to exploit
the potentially revolutionar>' capabilities offered by emerging technology and per-
form a wide range of new roles and tasks critical to future joint operations. Concur-
rently, innovation will help us deliver platforms and systems that are afibrdable and
have lower life cycle costs. The Navy of 50 years from now will be the product of
sustained, iterative efforts at innovation that we are embarked on today and must
continue in the future.

With respect to force structure, there is simply no alternative to having the right
mix and adequate number of ships, submarines, and aircraft forward-deployed,
ready to manage crises and to protect and advance our national interests. "Being
there" still counts — and I do not envision any change in that fundamental reality.
Now and for the foreseeable future, maintaining fiexible combat forces in-theater,
ready to meet the tasking of the warfighting CINCs, remains the cornerstone of
American infiuence, alliance cohesiveness, and regional stability. To do this, we
must maintain a force sufficiently sized to meet those commitments without running
our people and equipment into the ground. Drawing down too far would be a false
economy.

Finally, our most pressing long term challenge is to improve our balance between
readiness and modernization. In recent years, we properly and necessarily focused
on maintaining the readiness of our relatively modern fleet. Because we are respon-
sible for deploying forces forward to carry out our Nation's will, we are obligated
to maintain our full measure of combat readiness. Yet, as the downsizing nears com-
pletion and the fieet continues to age, we must find the resources to address and
redraw the balance between readiness and future modernization. That will be much
easier to say than to do, but our nation deserves our collective best efforts to ensure
that it happens. I will describe later our plan to address this challenge.

Question. What management activities and timetables would you establish to ad-
dress these challenges and problems?

298

Answer. While it is certair that the challenges cited above will have my complete
attention, I am not yet in a position to put specific management activities or a time-
table in place until I have fully reviewed and thoroughly understand all the issues
related to these matters. My sense is that a "steady strain" approach will be the
path of choice, but I intend to spend a good deal of time talking and listening to
our leaders — officer and enlistea — throughout the Navy before putting pencil to
paper.

If confirmed, the only sjjecific timetable I have will be to travel extensively
throughout the F'leet during my first weeks as CNO, visiting as many commands
as possible. These Fleet visits will allow me to really get the pulse of our Sailors
ancf to confirm and update the waterfront perspective I had when I left Norfolk ear-
lier this year. I would like to hear first-hand what is on the minds of the men and
women who make our Navy so great.

As you already know, most oT our really good ideas will come from them anyway,
so I will be a serious listener. Making these visits during the first weeks of my ten-
ure will ensure that I am aware of the primary concerns of our great Sailors and
that they in turn understand where their new CNO is coming from regarding lead-
ership, standards, and our vision for the Navy.

Question. What do you believe the Navy's highest priority should be in preparing
itself for operations in the 21st Century?

Answer. The first priority in navigation is to have some idea where you want to
go. That is no less true in preparing for 21st Century naval operations. If we are
to avoid preparing for the last war, and are to make the best use of scarce defense
resources, we must start with a clear, focused picture of what 21st Century oper-
ations might entail and what naval forces must be able to do. If confirmed, I hope
to encourage innovative thinking about how Navy can best leverage new tecn-
nologies with tactics, techniques, and procedures to meet our national security com-
mitments in the most affordable way. We must, in short, find the best means to use
mobile, fiexible, high technology forces to have a dominant impact afioat and ashore,
in peace, crisis, and war. We must ensure we always have the ability to execute
Navy's core competencies of Sea Control, Deterrence, and Power Projection. We
must also maintain a force sufficiently sized to meet these commitments. Finally,
we must create a coherent long-range plan to get us to the future. Like navigation,
this is an iterative process, not a single action. I intend to take an active interest
in ensuring our plan is revisited regularly so that we remain on the right course
for the right destination. Thanks to the work of my predecessor, such a plan will
become reality in the coming months.

Question. What do you see as being the major technology thrusts of your tenure?

Answer. It is clear to me as both an operator and a steward of the public trust
that by effectively harnessing the revolutionary advancements in information tech-
nology, we can generate both quantum leaps in warfighting effectiveness and signifi-
cant improvement in business practice efficiency. If confirmed, I intend to empha-
size investment in the technologies required to achieve these two goals.

We are already engaged in a long-term commitment to improving business effi-
ciency. Just like the rest of society, we must continue to leverage inlormation tech-
nology to help us reduce the daily cost of doing business. This is a key aspect of
the information revolution that promises me meaningful savings over the long run.

Likewise we must tap the benefits that information technology promises to bring
to warfighting. Seamless connectivity of Command, Control, Communications, Com-

fiuters and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C'*ISR) across the sea-
and-space interface in a joint warfighting environment, and assimilation of that in-
formation into a coherent tactical picture, is critical to future warfighting. We want
to develop a multi-dimensional netted architecture that will enhance protection of
the force (maritime dominance), while providing rapid sensor-to-shooter connectivity
to enable projection of a mix of sophisticated weapons and forces in support of the
land battle. This netted capability supports both the Navy's mission in tne littoral,
as well as our mission to maintain maritime dominance. Technologies which enable
landward power projection from the littorals are key to an even more productive role
for Navy in support of the land battle. Other technologies to be pursued include the-
ater ballistic missile, cruise missile, and air defense capabilities, and families of
weapons capable of more responsive support to land forces. Technologies in core
areas such as undersea superiority, ship self defense, mine countermeasures and
unmanned vehicles will also continue to oe critical. P^inally, information-based tech-
nologies that support sustainment and affordability of our forces are additional
areas for pursuit.

Clearly, other technologies will emerge in the coming years and I am committed
to maintaining an aggressive research and development base to rapidly and effi-

299

ciently bring these new ideas into the Fleet to maintain our warfighting edge over
any potential adversary.

Question. Your predecessor, Admiral Boorda, was near completion of a document,
2020 Vision, intended to provide future direction for the Navy. Please describe the
principal findings of this paper and the extent to which they reflect your views.

Answer. My present intent, if confirmed, is to conduct a thorough review of the
2020 Vision draft document to ensure that I: (1) fully understand it in present form,
(2) share it with the new leadership team and ensure it refiects the benefits of their
thinking, and (3) work with the Commandant of the Marine Corps to make certain
that the document captures the realities of where we intend to go as a Naval team.
Once that review is complete, and any necessary changes have been incorporated,
the document will become a reality. If confirmed, my goal would be to have it in
the Fleet by this fall.

2020 Vision projects into the next century the principles of our strategic concepts
espoused in the white papers From the Sea and Forward . . . From the Sea. It pro-
vides a picture of how we think the Navy can serve the Nation through harnessing
the potential of precision operations and maneuver from the sea. In eflect, the Navy
Vision picks up where the Joint Vision 2010 leaves off and describes how Navy in-
tends to implement the Chairman's guidance.

We foresee that the fundamental missions of the Navy — sea control, deterrence,
and power projection — will remain, but believe that the utility of naval forces to the
Nation can be substantially increased by using new technologies. 2020 Vision de-
fines three broad concepts for technology application: precision, maneuver, and
massed fires from the sea. These have the potential for reshaping how we look at
conventional deterrence and how we project power. However, this potential must be
kept in perspective. For example, we cannot assume that the preconditions for suc-
cessful precision operations — such as the right target intelligence — will always be
available, and we must continue to be able to excel in the more traditional forms
of naval warfare. What precision, maneuver and massed fires can offer are a range
of flexible military options and the possibility of having a decisive impact without
excessive cost and risk to U.S. personnel. Wnat will not change is the reality that
our naval forces will continue to be forward-deployed in order to shape the strategic
environment, control crises, and deter aggression.

THE navy's role

Question. Do you agree with the concept, thrust, primary area of emphasis and
tasks contained in the From the Sea and Forward . . . From the Sea doctrine?

Answer. Yes. These are forward-looking documents which accurately describe the
robust role of naval forces in the present and future strategic environment.

Question. Are there areas which, in your opinion, need modification or refine-
ment?

Answer. Yes. In the process of implementing the two documents, Navy and Ma-
rine Corps are working in concert to give the ideas in them a closer look. Our objec-
tive is to more fully develop and refine the strategic concepts outlined in From the
Sea and Forward . . . From the Sea. The 2020 Vision review I mentioned will con-
tribute to that process and assist me in determining where modifications or refine-
ments are needed. Both documents energized a wide range of continuing efforts —
from exploring new operational concepts with the Marine Corps to wargames and
at-sea exercises. The lessons learned from reviewing them will be integral to our fu-
ture vision.

Question. Did you have any part in the development of the From the Sea and/or
Forward . . . From the Sea concepts? If so, what was your role and contribution?

Answer. No. Because I was at-sca throughout the development of these docu-
ments, I practiced, rather than developed, their concepts. First as a deployed Car-
rier Group Commander and then as a Numbered Fleet Commander, I had the op-
portunity to execute the tenets of Forward . . . From the Sea. My experiences vali-
dated this document many times over — in Bosnia, in Iraq, and in Haiti — particu-
larly with respect to joint and combined operations.

Question. Based on your experience, arc there any aspects of the Department of
the Navy white papers From the Sea and Forward . . . From the Sea that should
be changed?

Answer. Today's short answer is no; however, as previously outlined, we are look-
ing carefully at tomorrow. That said, I believe we must be careful in interpreting
and applying two aspects of those papers.

First, From the Sea stated that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S.
Navy, supported by allied navies, enjoyed uncontested command of the high seas
and coula focus its efforts on operations in the littorals and projecting power ashore

300

in joint operations. While that premise will remain fundamentally true for the fore-
seeable future, we can already see a trend among certain potential future adversar-
ies toward expanding the capabilities of their sea denial forces and extending their
reach farther out to sea. This does not portend a global naval opponent contesting
command of the sea. It does however, mean that in certain conflicts we may have
to fight our way into the littorals and be ready to counter potent blue water .sea
denial threats that could seriously disrupt sea lanes critical to the success of U.S.
joint operations. This evolving threat does not demand we alter the basic thrust of
the two white papers, but may change how we execute them.

Second, expanded capacity to generate high intensity combat power through tech-
nological ana operational innovation makes it clear that naval forces will play an
increasingly important role in deterrence, crisis response and joint warfare, doing
well beyond the enabling function emphasized in Forward . . . From the Sea. Our
enabling role will still be critical for the introduction of joint forces, as naval forces
continue to serve as "first in, last out" in future joint campaigns.

Question. What do you see as the Navy's role in contributing to the protection of
our national interests in the changing world?

Answer. Navy will continue to play a unique and invaluable role in protecting our
national interests in a multi-polar world of diffuse and highly challenging threats.
Navy's ability to provide deterrence, sea control, power projection, and strategic sea-
lift enhances regional stability and provides critical crisis response capability, while
still bringing reassurance to our friends and safeguarding America's citizens and in-
terests abroad.

These traditional Navy strengths are magnified when operating in an integrated
and practiced manner with our sister Services and multinational partners. This
ability to leverage crisis response and warfighting skills with the complementary
strengths to be gained via joint warfighting is a central tenet of Navy planning and
one which I fully support.

I see Navy's role as primarily forward deployed — actively engaged in shaping the
strategic environment before crisis erupts. Our Navy is a superb national instru-
ment in this regard, providing credible combat power for prolonged on-scene pres-
ence— free of host nation constraints, highly mobile, and skilled at executing the Na-
tional will via a wide spectrum of activities.

Question. Should the Navy be restructured to meet the challenges of the next cen-
tury? If so, how?

Answer. I would say that we have largely achieved our goal of restructuring to
meet the challenges of the next century. This was one of the fundamental purposes
of From the Sea, which shifted our emphasis from countering a global, blue water
threat to operating in the littorals and projecting power ashore. That shift in em-

6 basis shaped the manner in which naval forces were restructured as part of the
lOD-wide post-Cold War drawdown. From the Sea also shaped the manner in which
naval forces were assessed in the Bottom-Up Review, leading to the current Navy
force structure. Our efforts at technological and operational innovation must be the
foundation for future restructuring Navy's innovation efforts, described earlier, will
help us examine the potential for further restructuring. In sum, we have restruc-
tured for at least the first third of the 21st Century and further restructuring will
be driven by ongoing innovation efforts.

Question. What is the future of the carrier battle group?

Answer. The carrier battle group will continue its central role in naval operations
for the foreseeable future. This is not because the Navy is inextricably wedded to
a static concept. Far from it. The composition and employment of carrier battle
groups have changed significantly over the years, refiecting the inherent flexibility
and vitality of the concept.

The specific mission essential tasks integral to every forward deployed carrier bat-
tle group are as follows:

• Crisis and Deterrence

• Surveillance/intelligence in the littoral environment

• Command and control of U.S. and multinational forces

• Air superiority in the littoral environment

• Maritime superiority in coastal regions, bounded seas, choke points, and
the open ocean

• Power projection ashore on short notice against a wide range of strategic,
operational, and tactical targets

• Support U.S. diplomacy through cooperative engagement with designated
allied forces, normal peacetime operations, and shows of force

• Extend maritime and air superiority to cover Marine Air-Ground Task
Force (MAGTF) operations, and provide close air support to the MAGTF

301

• Provide cover and support to enable the delivery and removal of joint
and/or multinational ground, forces and equipment and land-based air ex-
peditionary tactical units into a littoral region

• Conduct a variety of special operations

• Conduct combat searcn and rescue

• Conduct offensive mining and mine countermeasure operations

• Sustain combat and peacetime operations through the use of organic
sustainment supplemented through underway replenishment.

New technology has created and will continue to create new missions for carrier
battle groups — such as ballistic missile defense. A carrier battle ^roup can be inte-
grated with an amphibious ready group and its embarked Marine Expeditionary
Unit into a Naval Expeditionary Task Force. Other joint forces can also be inte-
grated with a carrier battle group. We expect the naval expeditionary task force to
nave even greater relevance in the future as a prime instrument of landward influ-
ence from tne sea. Thus, although it may look and operate much differently in the
future, the carrier battle group will continue to serve as a prime national asset well
into the 21st Century due to its unique flexibility, adaptability, and power.

Still, looking to the future, the Navy will strive to develop new technologies which
enable us to achieve our power projection objectives with even greater effectiveness
and affordability. The F/A-18E/F moves us along that path. The Joint Strike Fight-
er also holds promise for greater warfighting effectiveness and strike efficiencies.
Looking beyond those programs, we may move toward employing artificial intel-
ligence or remote sensing capabilities to help accomplish strike missions. No avenue
oiprogress will be excluded irom consideration as we attempt to leverage technology
to the fullest.

Question. Do you anticipate significant changes in the way the Navy deploys to
meet the global commitments?

Answer. The manner in which the Navy deploys to meet global commitments is
largely determined by the naval forward presence requirements articulated by
USCINCEUR, USCINCCENT, and USCINCPAC. They base their requirements on
the strategic situation in their theaters and the strategic objectives set for their the-
aters by the National Command Authorities. I do not envision any significant
change in the manner in which the Navy deploys unless the requirements of one
or more of the warfighting ClNCs are altered based on a changing strategic situa-
tion. Navy is constantly examining innovative options for meeting forward presence
requirements of the CINCs within limited naval resources.

I am always concerned about the effects of excessive PERSTEMPO on our for-
ward-deployed forces. If confirmed, I am committed to maintaining the
PERSTEMPO policy of my immediate predecessors because it provides our Sailors
with a reasonaole quality of life. Although we could meet the same number of com-
mitments with a smaller force structure if we were to increase deployment lengths
and reduce turnaround ratios, such expediencies are, quite simply, losers for every-
one. We have learned painfully in the past the flaws oi such moves. Our Sailors will
serve proudly, bearing the hardship of extended out-of-homeport deployments in
times of war or crisis, as they have always done. I know from personal experience
that deployments longer than 6 months, turnaround ratios of less than two-to-one,
and less than 50 percent homeport time are not sustainable on a long-term basis
in peacetime without significant degradation to readiness, retention, and quality of
life. We cannot — and I will not — break faith with our Sailors on this fundamental
issue.

Question. Are there opportunities or methods to change how we effect "presence"
to better address Third World threats while using our naval forces more emciently?

Answer. There may be opportunities to more efficiently achieve the objectives of
presence as technology advances and new and more capable assets join our fleet.
We are committed to constantly looking for opportunities to use our forces more effi-
ciently.

Achieving the objectives of presence — regional stability, deterrence, crisis re-
sponse, and early and effective transition to warfighting — is the reason the CINCs
have requested and the Joint Staff has promulgated the current level of naval pres-
ence. The CINCs believe, as I do, that sustained, forward deployed, combat ready
forces are vital to achieving these goals and are critical to ensuring timely crisis re-
sponse.

Therefore, it is the capabilities inherent in our on-scene assets which lies at the
heart of addressing opportunities to more effectively achieve presence. Time and
again over the past 50 years, the carrier battle group and amphibious readiness
group have proven irreplaceable in achieving the goals of presence, combining ro-
bust crisis response capability with the firepower needed to protect U.S. interests
should confiict erupt. These capabilities are known and respected throughout the

oo -TIC nn

302

world, thereby reinforcing deterrence. Simply stated, there is no substitute for being
there before the crisis starts.

We should use caution whenever reflexively prescribing a lesser presence to ad-
dress 'Third World threats." Unfortunately, some developing countries have ex-
tremely advanced weapons development programs, and are fully capable of taking
aggressive action against U.S. and allied interests. In some cases, a confluence of
military capability, societal instability, governmental illegitimacy, and regional ten-
sions earmark the "Third World" as particularly volatile. Sustained presence com-
prised of technically advanced, combat ready forces is critical to enhancing deter-
rence and regional stability in such cases.

THE ROLK OF THE MARINE CORPS

Question. What do you see as the role of the Marine Corps as part of the Navy-
Marine Corps Team?

Answer. I view the Marine Corps as an equal member of the team. In order to
influence events overseas — to protect our vital national interests — America requires
a credible forward deployablc power projection capability. The Navy-Marine Corps
team provides that capability, most visibly in the form of Carrier Battle Groups and
Amphibious Ready Groups. A sustainable forcible entry capability that is independ-
ent of forward staging bases, friendly borders, overflight rights, and other politically
dependent support can come only from the sea. The chaos of the future requires that
we maintain the capability to project power and influence ashore against a wide
range of contingencies — from humanitarian and disaster relief efforts, to warfare
across the full spectrum of conflict. Naval forces are the flexible response instru-
ments necessary to meet these contingencies. The Marine Corps provides the unique
landward element of that response in a way no other combat organization can.

Question. Do you anticipate an increased emphasis on being able to provide Ma-
rine units transportation and support for contingency operations?

Answer. Department of the Navy is committed to amphibious lift for 2.5 Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) equivalents in accordance with Defense Planning
Guidance. This force is built around 12 big deck amphibious ships. We have the ap-
propriate level of liR to ensure our Navy and Marine Corps team will be ready to
carry out its missions in support of our National Strategy. We will continue to woric
closely with the Marine Corps as wc balance required capabilities with funds avail-
able.

Question. Does the Navy have adequate resources in the Future Years Defense
Plan to support the Marine Corps in contingency operations?

Answer. Navy's portion of the fiscal year 1997 IVesident's Budget Future Years
Defense Plan provides the resources necessary to support Marine Corps needs for
amphibious lifl, tactical aviation, naval fire support, mine countermeasures, and
other capabilities required for contingency operations. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Commandant to ensure we have mutually supportive and properly
balanced "naval" — Navy and Marine Corps — programs in support of our National
Strategy.

DEFENSE REFORMS

It has been nearly 10 years since the enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Depart-
ment of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operation Reforms.

Question. Do you support full implementation of these reforms?

Answer. Yes. The positive record of the reforms mandated by enactment of the
Goldwater-Nichols Act is reflected in more reali.stic joint training and operations. It
was certainly manifested during DESERT STORM. It has been reinforced during
Operations UPHOLD DEMOCRACY in Haiti and JOINT ENDEAVOR in Bosnia.
Goldwater-Nichols has improved the operational effectiveness of the American mili-
tary and greatly facilitated joint and combined arms operations in actual contin-
gencies. The emphasis we have placed on operating as a joint team will ensure we
?[et the most from all our capabilities and enhance our collective potential as armed
orces. I am committed to the reforms in Goldwater-Nichols and fully intend to con-
tinue supporting its provisions.

Question. What do you consider the most positive aspect of this legislation?

Answer. There are three aspects that I consider most positive. First, and perhaps
most fundamental, it caused us to take jointness seriously. Second, the legislation
guided the Armed P'orces in improving our ability to operate elTectively as joint and
combined forces. It did so by ensuring that our best prepared and Ofx;rationally
proven officers are assigned to joint stalls, and by markedly improving the processes
oy which we derive joint requirements and produce joint doctrine. Third, the author-

303

ity of the Warfighting CINCs over assigned forces was expanded to establish a clear
chain of command to accomplish assigned missions.

Question. In your opinion, have the reforms been fully implemented?

Answer. Yes. I believe Navy and all the services have successfully implemented
the reforms mandated under Goldwater-Nichols. I am absolutely confident that the
President gets the best possible advice from the Nation's senior military leadership;
that he can place absolute responsibility on the combatant CINCs for the outcome
of military operations; and the Nation's Armed Forces can successfully execute joint
operations. As a former operational joint force commander, I can report to you that
Croldwater-Nichols is working well, and I believe it will get even better.

Question. Do you have any plans to ensure that these reforms are fully institu-
tionalized within the Navy?

Answer. For Navy, the reality is that every day forward-deployed is a day in
which our operations arc either joint, combined, or Doth. My goal, if confirmed, will
be to ensure that we remain focused on our responsibility to ensure the fleet main-
tains the highest state of readiness for successlul execution of joint and combined
operations. Based on my experience as a practitioner of joint operations and train-
ing, I am convinced that these reforms have significantly improved the effectiveness
of our joint warfighting. I am committed to building on the success of Goldwater-
Nichols, and to more fully developing joint programs, plans and doctrine.

Question. What do you understand to be the role of the Service Chiefs under the
Goldwater-Nichols Act relative to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the
Navy, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders?

Answer. Service Chiefs perform their duties under the authority, direction, and
control of — and are directly responsible to— their respective scj-vice secretaries. In
presiding over the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, the CNO is responsible
for managing and controlling the organization to ensure it meets its statutory re-
sponsibilities to the Secretary of the Navy.

Specifically, OPNAV is responsible to tne Secretary for recruiting, organizing, sup-
plying, equipping, training, servicing, mobilizing, demobilizing, administering and
maintaining the Navy to support military operations of the Combatant Command-
ers. In addition, the CNO assists the Secretary of the Navy in developing plans and
recommendations for the Department's effective and efilcient operation. As a mem-
ber of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CNO, like the other service chiefs, is a military
advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense. In that capacity, he may pro-
vide advice in disagreement with or in addition to advice presented by the Chair-
man to the President or the Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I intend to actively
exercise my responsibilities as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition,
though perhaps not statutory, the most fundamental duty of this CNO (if confirmed)
will be to set the standard for leadership and set the example in word and deed
for the entire Navy.

Question. In your opinions is there sufficient planning and adequate resources to
support the Navy Seal Community and role in Low Intensity Conflict and contin-
gency operations/

Answer. Yes. I have extensive operational experience with our SEALs and am
proud to consider myself among their strongest advocates. The Navy fully supports
the emphasis on Special Operations Forces (SOF). The fleet is working in tandem
with Navy SOF as well as other USSOCOM SOF components in direct support of
the requirements established by the geographic CINCs.

In this period of declining resources and manpower, SOF are a versatile and pow-
erful force multiplier. Navy SOF continues to provide valuable support to conven-
tional fieet operations. For example, approximately 60 percent of all deployed Naval
Special Warfare assets (SEALs and Special Boat Squadron Detachments) operate
under the operational control of fieet commanders. With regard to shared interests
between USSOCOM and Navy, such as host submarine support for special warfare.
Navy shares funding responsibility with USCLNCSOC. In other areas, such as the
employment of the new CYCLONP] class Patrol Coastal Ships, and the incorporation
of oEAL Platoons in carrier battle groups, special operations missions dovetail nice-
ly with conventional maritime operations. I will continue to work closely with Gen-
eral Shelton at USCINCSOC to realize the full potential and synergy of our respec-
tive forces.

Question. Based upon your experience, including as Commander SECOND Fleet
during Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY in which Navy aircraft carriers served
as platforms for Army helicopters and forces, what is your view of the ability of the
U.S. armed forces to carry cut contingency planning and conduct joint operations?

Answer. I have complete confidence in our ability to both plan and execute joint
operations. Our National Military Strategy relies on the ability of each Service to
operate jointly, and to ensure successful mission performance across the full range

304

of military operations. Essential to the success of joint operations is the total force
integration of all supporting arms. Because of our concerted efforts at joint delib-
erate planning, we nave the most effective contingency planning system in the
world. The abuity to rapidly respond anywhere is further supported by our forward
presence and the inherent flexioility of forward deployed Navy and Marine Corps
forces. These forces regularly train in the joint arena and are prepared to carry out
joint operations at a moment's notice. Using lessons learned from successful joint
operations such as DESERT STORM, UPHOLD DEMOCRACY, and JOINT EN-
DEAVOR, we have honed our joint war fighting skills.

QUALIFICATIONS

Question. Section 5033(aX2) of title 10, United States Code, provides that an offi-
cer may be appointed as the Chief of Naval OpKjrations, without a Presidential waiv-
er, only if the officer has had significant experience in joint duty assignments and
such duty assignments as a Hag officer. Do you meet these qualifications or did the
President have to grant a waiver in your case?

Answer. I meet the qualifications. As a flag officer, I have served as Commander
Second Fleet/Commander Striking Fleet Atlantic/Commander Joint Task Force 120/
950, a full joint assignment. I do not require a waiver.

Question. Do you believe that you have the requisite background and experience
for this assignment?

Answer. Yes.

TAILHOOK

The Tailhook incident, the manner in which it was handled, and the perceptions
it created regarding the attitudes on Naval Officers toward women have attracted
significant attention for almost 5 years. Of particular concern is the fact, while
many senior officers were aware of the type oi behavior for which Tailhook conven-
tions had become famous over the years, no one took action to preclude that type
of behavior at Tailhook 1991. Additionally, while senior officers either witnessed in-
appropriate behavior at the Convention or specifically avoided certain locations to
avoid witnessing this behavior, few took action until the behavior of certain
attendees attracted national attention. Some former Navy officials and other have
even suggested that the disgrace of Tailhook and the pressure of the follow-on ac-
tivities were instrumental in driving Admiral Boorda to suicide.

Question. What actions will you take, if confirmed, to create an atmosphere in the
Navy in which Tailhook type behavior does not occur, and, if it should occur, to en-
sure that it is not viewed as acceptable or quietly tolerated?

Answer. First and foremost, 1 will set the example in leadership and set the
standard in word and deed for the entire Navy. That will be my primary obligation
if confirmed as CNO. As you know, I attended Tailhook 1991. Bad things happened
there and we, the leadership of Naval Aviation, permitted an atmosphere to exist
wherein such things could happen. I deeply regret that. We should have been more
proactive in raising the behavior standard for the symposium. We did not — and I
can't change the past. However, I can learn from our collective — and my personal —
inaction and I have learned. Because I was there and have seen and felt first hand
how much Tailhook hurt our great Navy, I am even more committed to ensuring
that such an atmosphere will never again be tolerated.

Through personal example and programs under my direction, I will give meaning
to Navy's principles of integrity, responsibility, accountability, commitment, and
high standards oi professional and personal conduct. In dealing with each other, we
will start with the Golden Rule — simple, yet almost foolproof. We will work tire-
lessly to ensure that at all levels of the chain of command, we will lock out for each
other. Mike Boorda's one-on-one leadership and mentoring programs are exactly the
right starting point, and 1 am committed to seeing them through to Navy-wide im-
plementation. In addition, if confirmed, 1 would expand our Navy I>eadership Con-
tinuum which requires formal leadership training for officers and enlisted at specific
and critical milestones in each individual's career. I would also institute a Navy
Core Values Workshop to reinforce formal cla.ssroom training and bridge the inter-
val between continuum classes.

The intent will be to help each member of the team realize their full potential.
This must be accomplished through the fair and equitable treatment of all hands
by all hands at all times. Discrimination and sexual harassment are contrary to
good order and discipline and will not be tolerated. I am fully committed to ensuring
that every member of our Navy is able to contribute to his or her fullest potential
in an atmosphere of dignity, respect, and productivity. We will be proactive leaders
vice reactive. Any who ao not measure up will be dealt with swiftly and fairly.

305

The Armed Services Committee has a clear understanding of the unique values
and standards of military service, including the responsibility and accountability of
military commanders for their subordinates. The committee also has a clear under-
standing of the enduring military principle that a promotion is a judgment on the
fitness of an officer for increased levels of responsibility, not a reward for past serv-
ice. Section 5947 of title 10, U.S. Code, establishes the affirmative obligation of com-
manding officers, to demonstrate "a good example of virtue, ... to be vigilant in
inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command; to guard
against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices . . . and to take all nec-
essary and proper measures, under the laws, regulations, and customs of the Naval
service, to promote and safeguard the morale, the physical well-being, and general
welfare of the officers . . . under their command or charge." This statute does not
reflect contemporaiy situational ethics, political correctness, or feminist pressure. It
was first set forth in the regulations for the Navy drafted by John Adams and ap-
proved by the Continental Congress in 1775, enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1789,
and codified at the express request of the Navy in 1956.

Question. Do you supoort the standards for responsibility and accountability set
forth in the statute ana Navy regulations?

Answer. Yes, without reservation. I believe that Navy standards of responsibility
and accountability — particularly for commanding officers and others in position of
authority — must be applied sensibly and consistently. I think John Paul Jones said
it best with his "Qualifications of the Naval Officer" (today's version would read gen-
der neutral but the message is timeless):

'It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mari-
ner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well
a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the
nicest sense of personal honor. He should be the soul of tact, patience, justice, firm-
ness, and charity. No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention
or be left to pass without its reward, even if the reward is only a word of approval.
Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate, though, at
the same time, he should be quick and unfailing to distinguish error from malice,
thoughtlessness from incompetency, and well meant shortcoming from heedless or
stiipid blunder."

Question. Do you believe that an officer can be technically proficient, have supe-
rior performance reports and possibly even be selected by a promotion board while
not meeting the standards of responsibility and accountability set forth in the stat-
ute and Navy regulation? If that were to occur, what action would you recommend
to the Secretary of the Navy, if asked, with regard to that officer's nomination?

Answer. Yes. It is possible — though, in my opinion, not likely — that an officer's
service record, upon which a selection recommendation is made, would not reflect
deficiencies that are disqualifying for promotion. If such information came to light
after a promotion selection board, or prior to a military personnel action, as set forth
in DODENST 1320.4, it would be fully investigated. Assuming the misconduct in-
volved warranted it, I would recommend to the Secretary of the Navy that the ofli-
cer not be nominated for promotion.

Question. There has been much written in the press recently about low morale
in the Naval Aviation community and unprecedented resignations of post-command
aviators. Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb asserted during a recent speech
at the Naval Academy that 53 percent of post-command commanders in naval avia-
tion left the Navy last year. In the absence of a challenge from the Navy, this exit
rate has been repeated by others who speak with authority about the Navy. (1) Do
you agree with former Secretary Webb s assessment of low morale in the Naval
Aviation community? (2) Do you agree with his characterization of exit rates among
post-command commanders in the Naval Aviation community? (3) In your opinion,
are there measures which need to be taken to address the morale of Naval aviators?
(4) Does the Navy have a responsibility for the accuracy of information about the
Navy in the public domain?

Answer. I do not agree with former Secretary Webb's assessment of morale or his
exit rates. First, as a Naval Aviator, I pay particular attention to the morale of the
aviation community as a whole. Overall, I think we are doing well. Morale is gen-
erally high and deservedly so. Our aviators are mission ana pjerformance focused
and proud of their achievements. I share their pride. Can we improve morale? You
bet and I am committed to do just that.

Regarding the exit rates among post-command commanders (PCCs), I believe the
former Secretary's numbers need clarification. Our data show that in 1995, the 28
pilot PCC retirees were 12.4 percent of the total PCC pool. For 1996, as of the end
of May, the 43 pilot PCC retirees were less than 20 percent of the total PCC pool.

306

That said, I do agree that any increase in Commander aviator retirements is
cause for concern. I believe the increased numbers of retirements were partially the
result of an increased flow point to 0-6 coupled with increased airline hiring. To
correct this circumstance, we are seeking DOPMA grade relief which will help main-
tain acceptable 0-6 promotion flow point timing. Ix;t me assure the committee that
if we are losing aviators for other reasons, such as low morale, if confirmed I will
make sure we find the problem and fix it.

Finally, we must ensure that any official information in testimony, statements,
press releases or publications is accurate. When we find erroneous statements, we
work to correct them. In fact, we analyzed former Secretary Webb's statement and
provided correct information to the public domain via the Chief of Naval Informa-
tion.

Question. Given your participation in Tailhook 1991 and the follow-on actions, are
there any aspects of the continuing processes and procedures concerning Navy offi-
cer nominations from which you envision recusing yourself? If so, what would those
be? If not, explain why you believe that your participation in the convention and
the follow-on actions does not disqualify you.

Answer. As I have noted above, I believe that my leadership as CNO, should I
be confirmed, will be more informed, principled, proactive and fair because I was
present at Tailhook and have learned its lessons. As a result, I believe that my par-
ticipation or action in Tailhook-rclatcd officer nominations outweighs any concern
that the appearance of impartiality of my participation or action could be questioned
because of my presence at Tailhook. For that reason, I would participate or act in
such cases unless the specific facts of the case indicate that it would be proper for
me to recuse myself. Where I do participate or act, I will be guided by the principles
of fairness and consistency with decisions in prior Tailhook cases.

LKADKRSHIP

Deputy Secretary John White spoke at the Naval War College Strategy Forum on
June 11, 1996. During that presentation, in addressing the leadership challenge fac-
ing the Navy, he posed several questions: What values do we want our officers to
share? What skills, of all kinds, do we want our officers to possess? What changes
should be made to career patterns to assure sufficient time for leadership training
and education? How should the standards of Navy leadership be demonstrated by
senior officers? How can they be inculcated in junior officers? What changes are nec-
essary in day-to-day practice. Are there officer perquisites that should be changed
or abandoned? How do we ensure a strong Navy leadership?

Question. How would you answer Secretary White's questions?

Answer, a. What values do we want our ofTicers to share?

It is unrealistic for us to expect all our people to report to boot camp, OCS,
NROTC or the Naval Academy with a clear set of these values, so we have estab-
lished a Navy I^eadership Continuum to provide formal training at crucial career
points from accession through Flag Officer indoctrination. This training continually
re-emphasizes leadership responsibilities, and interweaves ethical decision-making
through all courses, starting with instilling our Core Values of Honor, Courage, and
Commitment at all officer accession courses . . . and at boot camp.

As you well know, Tailhook 1991 was a wake-up call for us. It made us take a
hard look at ourselves. The Navy of old condoned, and even encouraged, a "work
hard, play hard" mindset . . . but we've changed our perspective since then. We rec-
ognize now that "playing hard" does not mean taking a vacation from responsibility
to self and/or shipmate. I believe that the vast majority of our people — many of
whom have served honorably before, during and since Tailhook — understand that
clearly, and are completely on board with our values and standards. In the past 5
years, we've worked hard to incorporate and disseminate straightforward, unambig-
uous standards and values into the very culture of our Navy, and I know that our
efforts are paying off.

Tailhook is not what we're about today, and it is not what we've been about for
quite some time. I expect the men and women of the world's greatest Navy to share
and demonstrate tho.sc values which represent the very best of our American soci-
ety.

b. What skills, of all kinds, do we want our officers to possess?

First and foremost, our officer corps must possess the utmost professional knowl-
edge and skill. This is true not only for our officers, but our enlisted personnel as
well. It is key that our Navy men and women become proficient in subordinate de-
velopment, using motivation, delegation, evaluation and counseling, recognition, and
mentoring. We want them to be skilled in written, oral, situational and inter-

307

personal communications so that they express themselves clearly and interact with
their shipmates fairly and impartially for the greater benefit of the Navy.

We are providing our personnel with the tools to sharpen these skills with the
previously mentioned Ixjadership Continuum, an eight course effort which we have
Seen developing that will be fully on line or piloted by the end of this calendar year.
These initiatives clearly set behavioral standards ana provide guidance to ensure all
levels of the chain of command know what is expected. We nave redefined Equal
Opportunity ("Fair and equal treatment of all hands, by all hands, at all times") and
implemented a discrimination/sexual harassment complaint process that ensures
thorough investigation of complaints, keeps the complainant informed, and prevents
reprisal. We have also revitalized our Command Managed Equal Opportunity
(CMEO) program to improve leadership's awareness of the command climate, iden-
tify issues before they become problems, and develop plans to resolve them. In addi-
tion, we've launched the "Right Spirit" campaign — and we're the service to spear-
head this type of effort — to clarify the responsibility of shipmates, leaders, and com-
mands alike regarding the use of alcohol.

c. What changes should be made to career patterns to assure sufficient time for
leadership training and education?

To properly manage the careers of both our officer and enlisted communities, we
must provide strong, clear leadership and ethics training early on and then conduct
regular refresher training in these areas. We also understand the importance of
early joint duty qualification for officers, repeat assignment to joint billets. Profes-
sional Military Education (PME) at one of the service colleges, and attendance by
our best enlisted leaders at our Senior Enlisted Academy. We are challenged by fac-
tors such as sea/shore rotation and required at-sea and operational assignments, but
we continue to work hard to balance our operational obligations with the leadership
and overall professional development of our people. The uniqueness of sea duty, sea/
shore rotation requirements, and the absolute necessity for seasoned leaders with
Fleet operational experience clearly frame our career patterns and requirements. As
we have found in our own recent study "Offtcer Career Management in the Year
2000," a career limit of 30 years for an 0-6 and 35 years for a Flag Officer (perma-
nent grade 0-8) seems impractical for a successful leader to accomplish all we
would like in an ideal career. Extension of career limits to 35 and 40 years respec-
tively would allow us to fully incorporate leadership training, educational, joint
duty, and promotion requirements. Tnis, of course, would require legislative relief.

d. How should the standards of Navy leadership be demonstrated by senior offi-
cers? How can they be inculcated in junior officers/

I am convinced that leaders should lead by personal example and personal in-
volvement, each and every day. They must educate, discipline, and constantly rein-
force their subordinates to imbue in them our core values of Honor, Courage and
Commitment. We have a wealth of outstanding leaders — officer and enlisted, women
and men. Their effectiveness can be readily validated by Navy's many operational
successes around the globe, accomplishing our diverse missions in defense of the Na-
tion. Our Navy Leadership Continuum will formalize and standardize our leader-
ship development. Additionally, to further emphasize a Naval leader's daily respon-
sibilities, we recently refined the concept of "One-on-one Leadership" to focus on the
basics of each leader really knowing his or her own people and taking care of their
professional and personal needs in a proactive vice reactive manner.

e. What changes are necessary in day-to-day practice?

I do not believe changes in our day-to-day practice are needed; however, we will
continue to emphasize good leadership characteristics at every opportunity. Our core
values, equal opportunity, heritage, chain of command, communication, one-on-one
leadership, and character and ethics are already a key part of conducting the day-
to-day business of the Navy and will stay that way.

f. Are there officer perquisites that should be changed and abandoned?

As I stated earlier, I am committed to adhering to a standard of fair and equal
treatment of all hands, by all hands, at all times. Our officers are placed in positions
of great responsibility. As they progress in their careers, they are expected to as-
sume even greater responsibilities. I believe the considerations afToraed to senior
military leaders, such as designated quarters or personal staff, are essential to en-
able them to properly and efficiently perform the challenging duties to which they
are assigned. That does not mean, however, that we should not vigilantly monitor
the privileges afforded to our officers to ensure they are not abused.

f. How do we ensure a strong Navy leadership?
am confident that our leadership across the board is sound and improving, and
I am committed to keeping it that way. The best, and most objective evidence of
this can be found by looKing at what we, as a Navy, do from day to day. For exam-
ple, recent F'leet operational data, taken just last week, has been typical since the

308

Cold War ended and tells it all: 196 of 362 ships are at sea (54 percent); 107 of those
ships (which are manned b^' 43,039 Sailors) are deployed; we are participating in
24 at-sea exercises and visiting 10 foreign ports; 36 SSNs (46 percent) and 9 SSBNs
(56 percent) are at sea; 5 earners are at sea or deployed; and 4 Amphibious Ready
Groups are at sea. As always, we are ready, well-respxjcted, and well-trained, and
most importantly, our Navy leaders, upon whom we place so much responsibility,
are performing their demanding duties professionally and effectively.

If that weren't so, we certainly would not continue to experience our forward pres-
ence, and operational successes. In short, we remain at the very tip of our nation's
defense spear and I cite our recently demonstrated outstanding operational (and
leadership) successes in the Adriatic, in the South China Sea, off Korea and Liberia,
and in the Persian Gulf as proof.

Finally, I believe that the best way to ensure strong Navy leadership is to learn
from, and to never forget, how we became the greatest Navy in the world. The lead-
ers who came before us — Nimitz, Burke, Boorda — were men of vision, vigor, and val-
ues. They helf)ed make Navy an institution with those same characteristics — an in-
stitution with unwavering support of human dignity and worth. But they did not
do that alone. Our Navy is not defined by the momentary excellence of a few or the
momentary failings of a few. I submit it is defined by the millions who have served
in its history, and by the hundreds of thousands who serve today. They show us
why we lead, and how to lead with honor, courage and commitment.

LKADKRSHIP

An op-ed piece in The New York Times on June 8, 1996 asserts that the feeling
inside the Navy is that "it has lost its way as a fighting force and that three prob-
lems that are corroding confidence in the Navy's leadership include:

• the decision to assign women to warships,

• weapons programs that do not support the Navy's post-Cold War strat-
egy; and

• a sinister perception that integrity can be hazardous to one's career — if
it means airing problems that might embarrass the brass."

Question. Do you find any merit in such assertions? If not, what is your basis for
reflecting them? If you do, what do you intend to do to address these problems?

Answer. I find no merit whatsoever in those assertions. They are contradicted by
the preponderance of facts and are, in my opinion, little more than one individual's
expression of his opinions. The Navy has a clear sense of direction as a fighting
force and as an institution. Our forces consistently demonstrate outstanding f)er-
formance conducting strenuous operations, and we are focused on the capabilities
and operational concepts we will need to remain the IVemier fighting force in the
21st (Jentury.

I do not believe that assigning women to combat ships has eroded confidence in
the Navy's leadership. There arc undoubtedly some personnel who are still not on-
board with the policy of assigning women to warships. There were similar feelings
expressed when women were assigned to ships for the first time some 20 years ago.
We learned a lot of lessons during that time and have applied those lessons learned
to the way we are conducting the integration process of combatants. The first
women were assigned to the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower in March 1994. Since
then, 32 combatants have been fully integrated and another 15 have women ofTicers
assigned. We now have 7,294 women assigned to ships: 2,012 enlisted and 326 offi-
cers on combatants; and 4,765 enlisted and 190 officers on support ships. We have
been tracking this carefully and the feedback Navy received from Commanding Offi-
cers and senior enlisted personnel from these ships has been positive. We have had
our concerns but effective leadership is making this transition successful. So, I
would say that the feeling by most Navy personnel is that we are a team that ac-
complishes the mission and most Sailors, men and women, are proud to be a part
of the most capable Navy in the world. We will aggressively continue integrating
women into combat assignments and continue to accomplish Navy's mission.

The assertion that Navy weapons programs do not support the Navy's post-Cold
War strategy is misinformed and reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of
the nature of naval forces. Forward . . . From the Sea has been shaping the restruc-
turing of naval forces from a blue water to a littoral focus. For example, the Toma-
hawk anti-ship missile (an open ocean weapon) was retired and the airframes con-
verted to lana attack missiles (a littoral power projection weapon). Additionally,
open ocean antisubmarine warfare forces have been drawn down while mine coun-
termeasure forces have been incrc-ased. We are developing shipboard anti-ballistic
missile capabilities not so much to defend the fieet as U) defena joint forces and al-
lies ashore. Further, the arsenal ship shows great promise as a littoral warfare plat-

309

form, and from its inception is envisioned as a joint warfighting asset. Finally, the
F-14 fighter, originally designed for open ocean fleet air defense, is being modified
to also serve as a highly effective strike aircraft — giving it a new littoral power pro-
jection mission. I could give scores of other examples. Suffice it to say our weapons
are in line with our strategy of Forward From the Sea.

The article in question contends that the F/A-18E is more supportive of a high
seas, as opposed to littoral, focus; that the Navy should give more emphasis to shal-
low-water mine clearing; and that the Navy should bring back mothballed battle-
ships for shore bombardment purposes.

The author does not elaborate on why he sees the F/A-18E as a blue water, as
opposed to littoral, asset. I can state categorically, however, that the Hornet is a key
player in our strategy of Forward . . . From the Sea. Its design gives it robust capa-
tilities across mission areas formerly covered by highly spt^cialized air wing assets,
specifically the F-14 air superiority fighter, the A-6 medium attack bomber, and the
A-7 light attack bomber. To operate successfully in the littorals a combat aircraft
must be multi-mission capable to penetrate sophisticated land-based air defense sys-
tems, then establish air superiority while striking a multitude of targets with a va-
riety of weapons. The increased range, payload, and survivability capabilities of the
F/A-18E maKe it eminently suitable for the littoral combat environment.

Mineclearing and naval surface fire support are certainly critical missions sup-
portive of our strategy of engaging in the littorals. The author mixes apples and or-
anges when he spealcs of the arsenal ship in the context of a surface fire support
platform, like the venerable battleship. The arsenal ship will be capable of launch-
ing every surface-launched missile in the Navy inventory. That gives the arsenal
ship a strike mission with Tomahawk land attack missiles and an air defense mis-
sion with Standard missiles. In the future it will gain a ballistic missile defense mis-
sion with Standard missiles and a fire support mission with the navalized version
of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). An arsenal ship carrying scores,
or even hundreds, of navalized ATACMS with a range of about 74 miles is a potent
fire support platform. Other new weapons currently under development could ex-
pand tne arsenal ship's missions to include battlefield interdiction. Valuable as they
are, battleships cannot perform such a wide range of missions. Additionally, the
Navy is actively pursuing weapons development programs, including longer range,
more capable guns and munitions, to enhance our fire support capabilities. Bringing
back the battleships to provide fire support would provide us a boost in one specific
mission area, but would draw down on financial resources we need to cover all our
mission needs.

Some confusion among those unfamiliar with naval operations arises from the in-
herent flexibility of many naval platforms. Cruisers and destroyers equipjsed with
the powerful Aegis air surveillance radar are just as valuable in littoral warfare as
they are for open ocean operations. Nuclear powered attack submarines are ex-
tremely capable of performing littoral missions and have been used for them since
the first one was launched over 40 years ago. In sum, the overall picture clearly
shows that the Navy is rapidly and effectively adapting to the demands of littoral
warfare.

The media have reported many stories about organizations that have employees
who believe integrity is hazardous to a career. So, this perception is not unique to
the Navy. The Navy leadership is working hard to ensure that Sailors know we ex-
pect them to give us the bad news as well as the good, and that we respect them
for having the courage to do so. If I become CNO, integrity will always come before
concern over embarrassment to "the brass." We all make mistakes. The key is not
to hide the mistake, but rather learn from it in order not to repeat it. That will be
the Navy way.

RECRUIT QUALITY

Question. What is the Navy's approach to "quality versus quantity" in terms of
recruiting difficulties? Do you support the committee's long-standing policy to em-
phasize quality over quantity? Wnat is your view as to any option to increase and
recruit additional mental category IV personnel to alleviate possible shortfalls?

Answer. In 1991, Mike Boorda, then Chief of Naval Personnel, considered the
fleet's requirements and balanced them against the cost to recruit high quality sail-
ors. The result was today's current quality minimums of 95 percent high school di-
?loma graduates, 62 percent who score above 49 on the Armed Forces Qualification
est (Category I-IILA) and no one who scores below 31 (Category IV). Our approach
hasn't changed. Right now, our Chief of Naval Personnel is re-examining these
standards in light of today's down-sized, higher tech Navy. This year over 70 per-
cent of our new recruits must qualify for advanced rate training compared to less

310

than 50 percent just 2 years ago. If Navy's quality requirements change, they are
more likely to go up than down. As far as balancing quality and quantity, we are
going to recruit adequate numbers and sufficient quality to meet our mission. There
IS no trading one for the other — we determine accession requirements, minimum

auality standards and then resource the recruiting and training process to get it
one. At the same time, we continually improve the recruiting and training process
to drive costs down and be more reactive to market difficulties.

Compared to 1991, we are in a better position now to estimate the costs associ-
ated with recruitment of CAT IV personnel. Higher attrition, longer training time,
more discipline problems and lower career performance all translate to lower CI
percentages and nigher costs in the long run. At this point, I am not convinced that
recruitment of CAT IV personnel is a viable solution in dealing with short term re-
cruiting market difficulties or accession shortfalls. We will hold the line.

RESERVES

The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs has indi-
cated to the committee in written answers to policy questions that ". . . the reserves
must continue to receive the vigorous support of both the active component and
Congress to maintain a properly structured, funded, equipped and trained force."

Question. Do you believe that the Navy Reserve receives the vigorous support of
the active component of the Navy? What evidence would you offer to support that
belief? Should you become Chief of Naval Operations, what actions will you take to
ensure a strong, viable Naval Reserve, fully integrated with the active component?

Answer. The Total Force is a reality in the United States Navy, and as such, the
contributions and requirements of our Reserve component are fully appreciated.

Evidence of our commitment to the Total Force is the Naval Reserve's participa-
tion in a broad spectrum of Navy roles and missions. The active duty missions de-
Rend on the Contributory Support provided by the Naval Reserve. The use of the
[aval Reserve represents sound utilization of a Navy resource and acknowledges
the wealth of experience and commitment resident in the Naval Reserve. The Total
Force is a reality in the United States Navy, our missions depend on this Total
Force policy, and therefore, all components/programs are vigorously supported.

We in the Navy have been able to achieve the seamless integration and unprece-
dented use of our Naval Reserve because we have the highest quality and most
dedicated Reservists in our history. Should I become Chiefof Naval Operations, I
will continue to vigorously support our Naval Reserve. We simply can not do our
job without them and that will not change.

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

Question. Please describe in detail the circumstances surrounding your becoming
a member of the Board of Directors of USAA. Was that a position for which you
applied or actively sought?

Answer. I did not apply for or seek appointment to the Board of Directors of
USAA. I was offered a seat on the Board in a telephone call to me by Robert F.
McDermott, USAA's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

Question. What, in your view, led USAA to offer you that position? What benefit,
in your view, did USAA derive from having you as a member of its Board of Direc-
tors?

Answer. I do not know why USAA offered me a position on its Board. I believe
that USAA and its members have benefited from my understanding and apprecia-
tion of the needs of the military community served by USAA, my knowledge of mili-
tary approaches to the management of large organizations with many thousands of
personnel, and my innate abilities and values.

Question. What steps, if any, did you take prior to accepting that position to en-
sure that serving in such a position did not violate the Standards of Conduct regula-
tions or other regulations?

Answer. Prior to accepting the position, I personally reviewed the ethics rules that
governed flag officers' conduct. With the assistance of retired General Herbert L.
F^manuel, USAA's Chief Administrative Officer, I also reviewed USAA's rules of con-
duct for Board members to ensure that I would not be asked to engage in any action
that would be or appear to be an impropriety. For example, I satisfied myself that
I would never be identified in any USAA documents or literature as an active duty
military member so that USAA and 1 would not appear to use my military status
to endorse USAA. In addition, I spoke with then-current members of the Board who
were also active duty military members and who advised mc that membership on
the Board in my private capacity would be consistent with ethics regulations. Since
joining the Board, I have fully disclosed my membership, rampensation and expense

311

reimbursements on my annual public ethics filings which have been reviewed by
Navy ethics counselors. In accordance with advice from those counselors, I have re-
frained from exercising any responsibility or otherwise participating in my official
capacity as a government employee in any decision or action affecting USAA.

Question. Please describe in detail your responsibilities as a member of the Board
of Directors. Include specific information concerning the amount of time reqfuired to
fulfill those responsibilities.

Answer. I attended meetings and participated in the deliberations of the Board
and its audit and personnel committees. As a member of the Board and the commit-
tees, I was briefea on, gave advice and rendered decisions about management, per-
sonnel, performance parameters and compensation policies and oversight concerning
the company, the policies and services offered by it, and its 16,000 employees. I
spent time at home studying periodicals, industry-specific publications and USAA-
specific documents and materials. I spent time at home preparing for my participa-
tion at Board meetings. I also participated in four telephone conference calls among
board members.

The following is a list of the dates I attended Board meetings, the meetings I did
not attend, the dates on which I participated in telephone conference calls and my
official leave status for those times as refiected in my Navy leave records. I believe
that the computer records from which the data reflected below were taken are in
error. Sjiecifically, the computer records did not reflect my official leave status on
the two Saturdays noted below (11/2/91 and 11/14/92).

Attendance at USAA Board of Director Meetings

Leave Taken

Date Attended Board meeting:

11/2/91 No. Saturday

12/6/91 12/5-8

3/20/92 3/19-21

6/20/92 6/18-20

9/24/92 (Meeting held during travel to Europe which included

visits to USAA offices in I^ndon, Frankfurt, Seville) 9/10-27

9/10-27

11/14/92 11/12-13

(14 Saturday)

3/5/93 3/4-5

11/13/93 11/11-14

11/12/94 11/9-13

3/4/95 3/3-6

5/27/95 5/25-27

8/11/95 8/10-12

10/14/95 10/12-15

12/2/95 11/30-12/2

Meetings not attended:

5/14/93

8/21/93

5/6/94

8/12/94

3/9/96

5/25/96

Participation in Conference Calls:

12/30/93

3/4/94

1/24/95

1/24/96

I typically spent 3 to 5 hours of personal time each weekend reviewing periodicals
and other materials, and a greater amount of time during weekends preparing for
Board meetings. I participated in the January 24, 1996 telephone conference call
from my office through an 800-line conference call operator at no cost to the govern-
ment during personal time I would otherwise have devoted to lunch or other non-
work activities. My participation in the other conference calls took place during eve-
nings or non-workdays from my home.

Question. Please describe any interface between your responsibilities as a member
of the Board of Directors and your responsibilities as an officer in the Navy. Please
include the tyf>es of issues with which you dealt.

312

Answer. None. I understood from the inception of my USAA Board membership
that I could not be involved on behalf of the Government in any matter involving
USAA, and I have adhered to that rule.

Question. If your responsibilities reauired attendance at annual meetings or other
USAA-sponsored events, please proviae the number, location and duration of such
meetings or events.

Answer. See the list previously provided, Attendance at USAA Board of Directors
Meetings.

Question. In the event that you attended USAA-sponsored events in your capacity
as a member of the Board of Directors, what was your duty status traveling to and
from such events and during the conduct of such events?

Answer. With the exception of the travel to USAA's European offices I noted in
the list previously provided, Attendance at USAA Board of Directors Meetings, I did
not attend any USAA-sponsored event other than Board meetings. For the duration
of the European travel and during every weekday on which I traveled to or from
or attended a Board meeting, I was in a leave status.

Question. Have you conducted USAA-related business from your military office
during duty hours or at other times? If so, please describe.

Answer. No. I have never conducted USAA-related business from my military of-
fice during duty hours. As I noted in my earlier response setting forth Participation
in Conference Calls, on one occasion I participated in a telephone conference call
among USAA board members through an 800-line conference call operator at no cost
to the Government during personal time I would otherwise have devoted to lunch
or other non-work activities.

Question. Please describe in detail the agreement or arrangement under which
you received compensation from USAA including a breakdown of the amounts re-
ceived during your tenure on the Board.

Answer. The following is a full accounting of monies received from USAA for my
services on the Board oi Directors:

Dates

Dir fees

Travel

Total

1991

$12,871
$29,537
$25,651
$27,839
$33,400
$10,450

$12,871

1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

$16,689
$4,744
$6,331
$9,219

$46,226
$30,395
$34,170
$42,619
$10,450

$139,748

$36,983

$176,731

USAA paid travel expenses for my wife to accompany me to board meetings, in-
cluding a meeting in England in 1992. I reported those reimbursements on my in-
come tax returns. USAA is not a public company. Therefore, I received no stock as
compensation for my board service. I did not receive free insurance.

For each year that I was a member of the Board, my compensation consisted of
two components — per-meeting payments for attendance at Board meetings and at
orientation sessions, and an annual retainer for serving on the audit or personnel
policy committee or the Board itself.

Question. Would you have taken such a position in the absence of financial com-
pensation other than reimbursement for expenses incident to board membership?

Answer. Yes. I believe that my exposure to and participation in the management
of a leading corporation and its business practices and standards have enhanced my
professional development and the .skills I have brought to the performance of my
duties as a naval Hag ofTicer and have made me a more effective leader for our
Navy.

STRATEGY-RESOURCE RELATIONSHIP

Question. What role do you believe the Chief of Naval Operations should play in
ensuring that the stratcgv drives the budget?

Answer. The Chief of Naval Operations is the principal advisor to the Secretary
of the Navy and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding Navy's role
in supporting the National Military Strategy. If confirmed, I expect to participate
in both the formulation of the Secretary of Defense's Defense Planning Guidance,
and the Secretary of the Navy's I'rogramming Guidance. Also, Chief of Naval Oper-
ations has an important role working closely with the civilian leadership of the De-
partment of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with Congress to present the
needs of the Navy for resources required to execute approved strategy and guidance.

313

Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to enhance the process?

Answer. I believe that the current mechanisms, procedures, and organizational
structures created to balance strategy and investment decisions are about right, and
the Navy's participation in these deliberative processes will continue to serve us
well in the years ahead as we restructure our (orces. Certainly, if confirmed, I will
ensure active Navy staff participation in recommended initiatives such as the up-
coming Quadrennial Defense Review.

The committee is concerned about the continued growth in Headquarters
strengths, especially officers. As fiscal constraints continue to pressure active end
strengths, we cannot afford continued growth in Headquarters staffs. There are 9
unified commands, 5 sub-unified commands, and 28 Service component commands.
Additionally, each Service has numerous supporting commands and headquarters.
In his testimony before this committee in March of this year. General Sheehan,
Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command, testified that our tooth-to-tail ratio
is unbalanced, that junior officers are not experiencing sufficient time in combat-
related assignments, and that it is necessary to review the size and number of head-
quarters and the defense agencies.

Question. Do you share General Sheehan's concerns?

Answer. I agree that periodic review of the size and number of headquarters and
defense agencies is necessary to ensure we are directing our manpower resources
where we get the most payback. However, I disagree that Navy's tooth-to-tail ratio
is unbalanced as the result of growth in the number of officers serving on head-

3uarters staffs and defense agencies. Currently, 42 percent of Navy endstrength is
edicated to combat forces, as compared to 42 percent in 1976 and 45 percent in
1986. It has remained relatively constant over the past 20 years.

Navy headquarters staffs and our contribution to the Joint Staff, Unified Com-
mands, and defense agencies have grown where it makes sense, such as in billets
that directly support ongoing, operations and agencies that provide the technology,
intelligence and logistics support needed by our operational forces. It is important
to note that Navy administrative headquarters staffs, such as the Navy Staff and
the Bureau of Naval Personnel have decreased in size by over 40 piercent since 1990.

Question. Do you believe that it would be possible to consolidate some Navy head-
quarters, particularly support headquarters, and/or reduce the officer stafTing of
some Navy commands?

Answer. Yes. Through the drawdown, we worked hard at consolidating and
streamlining stafT and billet structure to more efficiently utilize our people. I will
continue to work closely with the Secretary of the Navy and Navy Component Com-
manders to ensure our forces are structured correctly to most emciently utilize our
military capabilities and retain a high state of operational readiness.

Question. Do you have any recommendations to control the appetite for the growth
of officer billets in both Service and joint headquarters?

Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary
of the Navy, Unified CINCs, Fleet Commanders and Joint Staff to ensure every, bil-
let requested contributes to combat capability, and is not provided at the expense
of our operational forces.

Question. What recommendations would you make to reverse the trend toward in-
creased support activities and fewer combat forces?

Answer. The Navy is participating in several initiatives to reverse this trend. The
Base Realignment and Closure Commission has been one of the more important ini-
tiatives, and there may be room for further reduction in our shore infrastructure.
We support DOD efforts to increase outsourcing of support activities that can be
provided at less cost by commercial firms. Reducing the number of different aircraft
in inventory helps reduce maintenance and training costs. The common support air-
craft program will contribute to this goal in Navy, and the Joint Strike Fighter
could contribute in the joint arena. Innovative approaches to training may also nelp.
I will promote these and other efforts that contribute to reducing support activities
or providing the support in a more cost-cfiective manner.

Question. Just prior to Admiral Boorda's confirmation. Admiral Kelso imple-
mented the last major reorganization of the Navy staff. Another reorganization of
the Navy's headquarters staff has been under consideration for some time. Do you
consider such a reorganization necessary? If so, what form should it take and wnat
would be its principal organizational objectives?

Answer. When the Navy Staff reorganized in 1992, our purpose was to parallel
established codes within the Joint Staff. I believe we should continuously look at
better ways of doing business and that is what the latest reorganization study en-
tails. Whether it is necessary to reorganize the staff will depend on the outcome of
the study. If confirmed as CNO, the review of the reorganization study will be
among the first orders of business.

314

Question. Recent testimony and press reports indicate the Department of the
Navy faces a $15 to $20 billion shortfall in the years beyond fiscal year 2000. Do
you agree with these assertions? What is your view of how these shortfalls can and
should be resolved?

Answer. I agree that increases in Navy procurement rates, particularly new ship
construction, must be achieved and sustained in the years beyond fiscal year 2000.
To support Bottom-Up Review ship force levels of 330 to 346 ships, an average of
9 to 10 new ships must eventually be built per year. This is roughly a 3 ship in-
crease over the current average building rate of 6.4 ships per year (32 new ships
total) across the fiscal year 97-01 President's Budget F'YDP.

If additional ship construction funding were available in the near-term, the out-
year "bow wave" could become more manageable. Additions to the New Attack Sub-
marine, LPD-17, DDG-51 and CVN-77 programs in particular would help to relieve
pressure on the future procurement accounts.

We intend to actively pursue acquisition reform and other efforts, such as
outsourcing and off-the-shelf purchasing, directed at reducing the costs of recapital-
ization. If confirmed, I will give the highest priority to continuing to drive down the
cost of acquiring, and then supporting, future components of our force structure.
While savings through cost-cutting will not, by itself, resolve the shortfall beyond
fiscal year 2000, we hope to reduce the amount necessary to maintain a fully effec-
tive and capable force.

Question. In preparing its fiscal year 1995 budget request, the Navy developed a
plan for recapitalization that relied on savings associated with infrastructure reduc-
tion, a sharp reduction in force structure, and new regional maintenance policies to
generate the funds that would be needed for recapitalization. What success has the
Navy had in achieving the goals of this plan? Is it still valid? If not, what plan has
replaced it?

Answer. This is still a complicated picture. While I can point to success in achiev-
ing our goals in a number of important areas, there is much work yet to be done,
and no one should underestimate the challenges and risks we face in generating the
funds we need to recapitalize the Navy. If confirmed, the most difficult challenge
I face is the same one my predeces.sor faced, and his predecessor before that — how
to build to the capabilities we will think we will need for the future, while also oper-
ating combat-ready forces to meet today's commitments, all within given resource
levels. The overarching issue is ensuring adequate and stable funding for our plan,
so that we don't carry a lot of bills forward each year.

How are we getting there? F"'irst, we are achieving manpower, operations and
maintenance and military construction savings through implementation of actions
directed by successive Base Realignment and Closure Commissions (BRAC). We
have closed naval shipyards (Philadelphia, Mare Island and Charleston) and avia-
tion depots (Pensacola, Norfolk and Alameda). Recruit Training Center activity at
Orlando and San Diego has been consolidated at Great I>akes. As a result of BRAC,
DoN annual savings from closing bases will reach $2.6B a year by fiscal year 2001.
In earlier years some savings will be offset by the costs of executing closures and
disposing of excess property.

Exclusive of the BRAC process, several training, base security, and maintenance
activities have been outsourced to the private sector. I believe we must continue
these and other shore infrastructure cost reduction initiatives if we are to continue
to realize recapitalization savings.

As part of our overall plan, sharp reductions in force structure are also occurring.
For example, planned Battle Force ship force levels for fiscal year 1999 have been
reduced from 420 ships in POM-94 planning to 336 ships in the current fiscal year
1997 Resident's Budget FYDP. However, continued high demands for naval forces
by the Combatant Commands and PEIiSTEMPO guidelines that balance the need
for deployed naval forces overseas and the maintenance of an adequate quality of
life for our sailors have placed limits on how far additional force level reductions
can be taken.

The overall strategy of reducing infrastructure in order to free up funding to sup-
port recapitalization without sacrificing near-term readiness is still valid. I recog-
nize this is a long term strategy, to be modified as difficulties and new opportunities
arise. I intend to continue this course to put modernization on a reasonable track
by the end of this century.

In closing, we expect to get the funds needed for recapitalization from within the
three categories you described. If the level of savings we anticipate does not mate-
rialize, then our recapitalization plan will be at substantial risk. That is a real con-
cern of mine for the future, but especially for the next 2 to 5 years.

315

BASES IN OKINAWA

The United States is under intense pressure to reduce the number of military
bases in Okinawa.

Question. In the event the Department of Defense is forced to give up bases in
Okinawa and relocate its forces to either Japan or other nations in the region, what
impact would such a realignment have on this ability to fight a conflict in the Pa-
cific region?

Answer. In my view, this realignment of forces could have a significant and pos-
sibly damaging impact on our ability to fight a conflict in the Pacific region.

Okinawa and the forces there, in relation to critical sea lines of communication
(SLOG), the Korean peninsula, and the Asian region, provide a unique power projec-
tion capability needed in order to maintain regional stability. U.S. forces and logistic
supplies presently on Okinawa, together with the Amphibious Ready Group and
Garrier Battle Group deployed to Japan, provide forces tnat can respond to regional
contingencies much more quickly than if tney were located elsewhere.

I recognize that the relocation of Okinawa-stationed forces to the main islands of
Japan is a very sensitive and hotly contested domestic political issue, one which the
people of Japan must resolve throiigh their political process. An element of that
process is the United States-Japan Special Action Gommittee on Okinawa (SAGO).
The SAGO process addresses adjustments to bases, facilities, and procedures for
U.S. forces in Okinawa. We want to minimize our intrusiveness on the people of
Okinawa and be good neighbors. This process and others in progress are specifically
to address base issues in Japan. Force structure, however, is key to our ability to
respond to regional contingencies and to the defense of Japan. The government of
Japan understands and values this as a key component of our bilateral security re-
lationship. If confirmed, I will work closely with USGINGPAG and General Krulak
to ensure the best possible strategic solution to this problem, one which promotes
reCTonal stability and supports our national interest.

Specific impact of base relocations include:

• Possible longer transit times to deploy forces to the area of conflict

• Lack of available training areas andi increased time to reach areas out-
side of Japan.

• Slowing of the logistics train to support forward-deployed forces, if the
new bases have less access to necessary infrastructure sucn as a nearby air-
field.

Question. There has been recent speculation in the media that the Marine Gorps
may be considering relocating the Marine forces on Okinawa to Australia. Has tne
Navy been part of any such planning? Are there other alternatives which may be
closer to Japan from which the United States could demonstrate "presence" and
project power in the region?

Answer. The Department of Defense is discussing training opportunities in Aus-
tralia with the Australian Government. It is my understanding that these discus-
sions do not include, and DOD is not contemplating, stationing forces in Australia.

I.\F-OR.MATION WARFARE

Question. Admiral Johnson, there is an increasing awareness of the vulnerabilities
that exist with regard to the intrusion and manipulation of automated data process-
ing (ADP) systems/ information. How would you characterize the U.S. Navy's "Infor-
mation Warfare" efforts with regard to ensuring the safety/survivability of the
Navy's ADP systems and information?

Answer. The Navy has placed great emphasis on the assurance of information
critical to the defense of the United States. Traditionally, Navy has relied on seg-
regated Department of Defense information services with a heavy reliance on
encryption to protect Navy's information. Our persfXK:tive on information assurance
has broadened as a result of the information technology revolution and our invest-
ment in Gommercial-Off-the-Shelf (GOTS) solutions.

Navy's particular concern is with information that is in transit or is stored in
Navy information systems, whether it is obtained from other Department of Defense
(DOD) information systems or traverses the Defense Information Infrastructure
(DID and the public networks of our National Information Infrastructure (Nil). In
addition to ensuring the confidentiality of information, we also realize the added im-
portance of ensuring the authenticity, integrity, reliability, and non-repudiation of
information.

Based on these concerns, Navy is engaged in defining an Information Warfare De-
fense (IW-D) strategy. The cornerstone/foundation of this strategy is the Navy's In-
formation Systems Security (INFOSEG) program. However, we realize INFOSEG
products alone will not solve all the security and survivability issues associated with

316

a problem of this complexity. VADM John M. McConnell's statement to the House
Select Committee on Intelligence in March, 1995 outlines the major issues confront-
ing any FW-D program: "The challenges facing the INFOSEC mission are, if any-
thing, even more severe in terms of scope and complexity. Exponential growth in
the use of networked systems has opened broad avenues for unauthorized access,
expanded the technical fx)ssibilities for degrading or damaging data and systems
and fundamentally changed security requirements."

Navy recognizes that the defensive component of information warfare integrates
a number of disciplines to protect information and information systems. Physical se-
curity, electronic security, operations security, counter psychological operations, and
other disciplines plan strong supporting roles. However, the critical defenses against
exploitation and information denial, destruction, and degradation are supplied by
INFOSEC.

Navy is improving the development and acquisition process for information de-
pendent systems, whether they are command and control or weapon systems. We
are in the process of promulgating an information assurance jx)licy to ensure the
safety and survivability of our systems. Navy will ensure acquisition commands
meet security implementation milestones during design, development, testing, and
implementation of new information dependent systems; security requirements are
included in "Requests for IVoposals"; and National Security Agency (NSA) approved
information assurance products are used.

A comprehensive vulnerability assessment program including network intrusion
detection and a certification and accreditation plan will be developed to better sup-
port acquisition managers and operational commanders. In addition to the above.
Navy intends to promulgate additional security policy requiring protective measures
for all information systems (voice, video, imagery, and data).

Question. How are the Navy's efforts being integrated with those of the other
services?

Answer. The long term answer for information assurance will be the design and
implementation of the Defense Information Infrastructure (DID. Navy is working
closely with the other services, the Defense Information Systems Agency and the
National Security Agency to achieve substantial protection and assurance of the DII.
Navy recognizes the importance of interoperable assurance solutions between the
Navy's information infrastructure, the DII and the Nil.

AVIATIO.N PRIORITIES

The Navy chose to move forward with the F/A-18E/F development, in lieu of sup-
porting a nearer term stealthy aircraft, the AFX aircraft. Although the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) program holds promise for providing the Navy with an attack aircraft
with much lower signatures, achieving any operational capability will be years into
the future. The Committee also notes that DOD has chosen to retire the EF-111
jamming aircraft fleet in favor of relying solely on the EA-6B fleet for airborne elec-
tronic warfare capability. Given these circumstances, the Navy's reluctance to pur-
sue reasonably priced upgrades to the EA-6B fleet is puzzling.

Question. Do you believe that the Navy has made the correct choices in deciding
the priorities for aviation modernization?

Answer. The F/A-ISP]/!"^ and the Joint Strike Fighter, due to their complementary
capabilities, are absolutely the right choices for Naval aviation. The F'/A-18E/F, op-
erating with other Navy battle group assets, will provide a decisive, first day of the
war strike fighter capability that will meet the threat well into the first part of the
21st Century. The F/A-18P]/F provides greater range; increased survivability; carries
more ordnance and has a margin for growth unavailable in the F/A-18C/D to enable
rapid integration of new systems to counter future threats. By following an evolu-
tionary approach for the F/A-18E/F, fully integrating the latest technologies and
building upon known systems without completely designing a new platform, the F/
A-18E/F provides the carrier air wing with new aircraft capability at one-third to
one-half the cost of a new aircraft development program.

Beginning in about 2010, the JSF will be a Key asset of strike aviation with an
inherent air-to-air capability. With low observable/high survivability features de-
signed in, JSF promises to be able to successfully fight and survive in future threat
environments. With the ability to rapidly deploy, built-in reliability and maintain-
ability and fast turnaround characteristics, JSF will be a sortie rate generator. Due
to the projected high commonality between the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps
variants, and potential for allied procurement of JSF in large numbers, JSF will
provide unprecedented interoperability between the services and our allies, allowing
the Joint Forces Commander greater flexibility in deployment offerees.

317

The Department of the Navy balanced needs against fiscal realities and concluded
the F/A-18E/F is exactly the right near term tactical aircraft, solution, followed by
the Joint Strike Fighter which will complement the F/A-18E/F'. Although there are
desirable features of an A/F-llTX type aircraft, it is not fiscally possible for the De-
partment to absorb the development costs associated with the A/F-117X. The devel-
opment and procurement of the A/F-117X would come at the expense of reasonable
procurement rates for the F/A-18E/F, thereby raising its unit cost, and at the ex-
pense of the JSF development.

The F/A-18E/1"^ is critical to the Navy maintaining a decisive first day, survivable
strike fighter that dominates the near term threat (2001-2015). The JSF ensures
our future first day capability and leverages the F/A-18E/F, 2015 and beyond. The
F/A-18E/F and JSF will clearly constitute Naval aviation's core capability from 2001
until beyond 2025.

The EA-6B is an integral element of Naval Aviation and vital to the Department
of Defense's suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) program. Since the demise
of the EA-6B advanced capability (ADVCAP) program in the fiscal year 1995 budget
process, due to affordability ($7.5B), the Navy has crafted a modernization building
block strategy, based on available funding. The first incremental building block is
the Block 89A program which upgrades the EA-6B ficet to a single configuration.
The Navy has contributed approximately a billion dollars. The second building block
is a funded development effort to procure low band transmitters. The next two
building blocks procure recently developed high band transmitters and a commu-
nications countermeasures upgrade. The last building block is a receiver upgrade
which will bring a reactive jamming capability to the aircraft. We have requested
information from industry with the intention of beginning this vital upgrade pro-
gram in the near future. I fully support the upgrade strategy for the EA— 6E. I be-
lieve that previous upgrades have been correctly prioritized and budgeted and that
they are funded to available levels within the framework of the total Navy POM.

Question. If confirmed, do you intend to have the Navy implement congressional
guidance to upgrade the EA-6B fieet?

Answer. As with all guidance provided by the Congress, I would fully support
your initiatives not only by the letter of the law but also its intent. Concerning EA-
6B upgrades specifically. Navy has enthusiastically assumed the joint mission re-
sponsibility for airborne jamming. Working with our Marine Corps and Air Force
counterparts, we will continue to provide the best jammer fieet possible with avail-
able funding. I intend to support all fully funded initiatives Congress pursues.

ARSENAL SHIP PROGRAM

Admiral Boorda was a champion of the arsenal ship concept. The Navy is appar-
ently intending to implement a program that maintains a clear focus on keeping the
cost of developing and fielding under tight control by an exclusive use of ofT-the-shelf
components. However, the committee has raised concerns about the need for addi-
tional development in other areas so the Navy may fully realize the mission objec-
tives of delivering an arsenal ship as a complete weapons system. This Loncern
arises from several standpoints, not the least of which deal with whether the Navy
will have the necessary connectivity and appropriate weapons available to meet the
arsenal ship systems full potential.

Question. Please describe your view of the arsenal ship system concept, and
whether you intend to continue this promising development program.

Answer. I am fully supportive of the arsenal ship concept and view it as an afford-
able, relevant enhancement to our existing battle force of carriers, amphibious ships,
land attack -capable combatants, and submarines. Through concentration of massive
firepower, continuous availability and application of netted targeting and weapons
assignment, the arsenal ship will increase dramatically the scope and relevance of
surface strike and fire support. Arsenal ships will be stationed continuously forward
and, much like our Maritime Pre-positioning Force, they will remain on station for
indefinite periods without dependence on host nation support or permission.

If confirmed, I intend to continue this promising development program because it
will alTord Navy enhancements to our operational capabilities and because it gives
Navy the opportunity to demonstrate major cost and schedule savings for warship
development through acquisition reform.

Navy is developing technologies in connectivity and weaponry which will enhance
the effectiveness of the arsenal ship. Several of those technologies could be acceler-
ated, should funding become available, and thus could be available earlier for incor-
poration into the arsenal ship designs.

318

FORCE READINESS

Question. How would you ^.haracterize the current readiness of the Navy, of all
our military forces?

During hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year, senior
military officers including the Service Chiefs indicated that long-term readiness, or
modernization, was the principle area of concern and the bulk of any additional
funding which the Congress provided to the Department of Defense top-line should
be used for weapons procurement and R&D. Do you agree with these other officers
that Congress should emphasize procurement and R&D over O&M for any addi-
tional funds?

AnsAfer. We have made readiness our top priority, and the relevance of that deci-
sion is evident in the performance of our Navy forces worldwide. Daily, our men and
women, ships and squadrons, both active and reserve, answer the call in response
to dynamic world events. You have a first-rate Navy today, providing forward pres-
ence 365 days per year, a deterrent force to defuse tensions between potentially
warring parties, and a force able to fight and win when required.

It is difficult for me to comment on the readiness of other services, although based
upon my recent experience as Commander Second F'leet, I can tell you I was im-
pressed with the professionalism and readiness of the service components that par-
ticipated in our joint task force exercises and operations.

Question. What is your assessment of joint readiness of the Navy, of our military
forces?

Answer. I am very upbeat about Navy's role in jointness. The Navy today rou-
tinely integrates with the other services for training and operations. Navy and Ma-
rine Corps exercise programs focus on participation of naval forces within the larger
JTF Command and Control Structure. Exercising and operating daily in an inte-
grated fashion, the Navy and Marine Corps provide the theater commanders forces
uniquely suited as the enabling linchpins for joint operations. Prior to each deploy-
ment, naval units participate in joint task force (JTF) exercise scenarios with Army,
Air Force, Coast Guard, and allied units, to hone their readiness to function in a
joint operational environment.

Based on my experiences, especially as a Commander of forces supporting OPER-
ATION SUPPORT DEMOCRACY in Haiti, the military has made significant strides
in integrating the warfighting capabilities each service possesses and more effec-
tively supporting the Joint Force Commander's intent and focus of effort. I will con-
tinue to focus on standardization and improving our interoperability with the other
Services.

Question. Do you have any recommendations for improving the joint readiness of
our military forces?

Answer. I am confident we are moving down the right path. In 1995 alone, naval
forces participated in 123 joint exercises. Through the CINC exercise program, num-
bered Fleet and MEF headquarters staffs are aggressively tailoring manning and
training requirements to support the operation of a Joint Task Force headquarters.
Navy and Marine Corps unit exercise programs focus on the participation of naval
forces within the larger JTF Command and Control Structure. New developments
in naval command and control links continue to enhance joint interoperability. Per-
sonnel training and education programs also emphasize understanding the capabili-
ties and employment of joint forces. Building on procurement of joint weapon sys-
tems and munitions offers additional opportunities for efficiencies.

QUALITY OK LIKE

Question. The Heet, as well as the other military services, is operating at a very
high operational and personnel tempo. This high tempo causes a negative effect on
readiness, maintenance, morale, retention and family stability. Do you believe the
current ofxirational and personnel tempo poses a serious problem?

Answer. No, but both bear watching closely and we will do that. It is worth re-
viewing the distinction between the concepts of Personnel Tempo of operations, or
PERSTEMPO, and Operational Tempo, or OPTEMPO. The PERSTEMPO I»rogram
was initiated in 1985 to balance support of national objectives with reasonable oper-
ating conditions for our people, while maintaining the professionalism associated
with going to sea with a reasonable home life. Navy's PERSTEMPO Program is
built around three specific goals:

a. Maximum deployment length of 6 months, portal to portal.

b. Minimum of 2.0:1 Turn Around Ratio between deployments.

c. Minimum of 50 percent time in homeport for a unit over a 5-year cycle.

319

When looking at these criteria, and keeping in mind that Navy has gone from
nearly 600 ships to 362 today, one might ask, "How can we keep these goals?" The
answer is, you deploy fewer ships — and we are. Battle groups are smaller, and car-
riers take fewer escorts with them than we did 5 years ago. The same is true for
amphibious ships and amphibious ready groups. We tailored our deployment sched-
ules to meet a lower numtx^r of ships. Navy will be able to meet deployment length
and PERSTEMPO guidelines so long as the Navy stays about the size we've antici-

gated, and our requirements don't go up drastically. Despite our commitments in
osnia, Somalia and the saber-rattling in North Korea, we ve been able to keep our
word to our people, and to make 6-month deployments in peacetime the rule.

OPTEMPO, by contrast, is defined as the average number of ship underway days

Rer quarter spent training for and executing the assigned mission. Since 1984,
favys global OPTEMI'O requirements have been consistently stated as 50.5 days
perquarter deployed, and 29 days per quarter for non-deployed units. Deployed
OPTEMPO supports the Global Naval Force Presence Policy, which stipulates loca-
tion and number of Naval Forces required to support the combatant CINCs. Non-
deployed OPTEMPO supports the inter-deployment training cycle which produces
fully trained, combat-ready Naval Forces for deployment.

Since DESERT STORM, Navy has experienced relatively constant percentages of
fleet units out of homeport and deployed on any given day. OPTEMPO has re-
mained comparable for naval forces due to our planned, cyclical deployment sched-
ule. For the foreseeable future, the current level of operational tempo should be con-
sidered the planning standard; there is nothing to indicate commitments. The chal-
lenges of the post-Cold War era have highlighted the need for forward deployed
naval forces, ready to rapidly respond to regional contingencies and to provide power
projection throughout the world. We oelieve that the current OI^TEMPO/
PERSTEMPO of tne force as a whole is both sustainable and healthy.

Question. Are you committed to maintaining the limits on operational and person-
nel tempo established by Admiral Boorda?

Answer. I am committed to living within our established OPTEMPO and
PERSTEMPO limits. On any given day, approximately 30 percent of the Navy is
forward-deployed, and 50 percent of our ships are out of homeport. Our Sailors rec-
ognize that time spent away from home is a fact of life, and that the nature of our
business is to be either forward-deployed, or in training or upkeep for required peri-
ods. We monitor closely the time a unit is away from home; this has been our prac-
tice since Navy established it's PERSTEMPO program in 1985. We will continue to
limit time away from home whenever possible, and in fact some units have been
getting home a little bit early. As a former F'leet commander, I know that means
a great deal to Sailors and their families. While I can't promise everyone that they'll
get home early, I can promise I'll always try to get them home on time. And we
will!

Question. In your opinion, can the Navy maintain the current operational and per-
sonnel tempo given projected reductions in the Navy's budget and endstrength?

Answer. I believe Navy will continue to be able to operate within our established
OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO guidelines provided our force structure stays about
the size we've anticipated, and that our requirements don't go up drastically. The
challenges of the post Cold War era have highlighted the need for forward deployed
naval forces, ready to rapidly respond to regional contingencies and to provide power
projection throughout the world.

As I said in the previous question. Navy is absolutely committed to meeting our
OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO guidelines. We look at every requirement to make
sure we don't try to do too much. To date. Navy has met the challenges imposed
by budget and end strength reductions by developing and using innovative solutions
to meet all commitments while systematically continuing to shape our force and re-
duce PERSTEMPO and OI'TEMPO. These methods include:

• Utilization of Naval Reserve Forces to fulfill requirements.

• Augmentation with naval forces from other countries.

• Reorganization of carrier battle groups and cruiser-destroyer squadrons
and readjustment of training/maintenance schedules.

• Practical application of Navy assets to reduce the number of ships re-
quired to complete taskings.

The Chairman, Service Chiefs, and theater CINCs have developed a detailed
Global Naval Force IVesence Policy (GNFT'P), allocating assets to all theaters on a
fair share basis. This schedule provides a basis for long-range planning of major
maintenance, training, and deployment cycles, ensuring our forces are ready when
required. The current and projected naval force structure will necessitate flexibility
in planning and deploying force packages to satisfy theater CINC requirements for

320

forward presence. GNFPP represents a balanced distribution of naval assets while
preserving PERSTEMPO objectives.

Question. Some in the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy
are suggesting the possibility of merging the Navy Exchange System with the other
exchange systems in order to reduce overhead and realize efficiencies potentially re-
sulting in increased dividends for the services' Morale, Welfare, and Recreation pro-
grams. What is your opinion of such a proposal?

Answer. I think we should take a look at ourselves to see if there might be a bet-
ter way to serve the needs of our Sailors and their families. Consolidation of ex-
changes may offer an increased efficiencies. However, before we reach a conclusion
as to the viability of a consolidated exchange to ensure that a sound business case
can be made for such a move and that it will live up to expectations. For this rea-
son, if confirmed I would intend to work closely with the Assistant Secretary of De-
fense, Force Management Policy on his recently announced exchange consolidation
study. Once the data has been gathered, I would coordinate with OSD and Congress
on a course of action that will ensure the best service for our sailors and a healthy
profit stream to MWR.

CONGRKSSIONAL OVKRSIGllT

In order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities, it is important
that this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress are able to
receive testimony, briefings and otner communications of information.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee and other
appropriate committees of the Congress?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, even if those
views differ from the administration in power?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee, or des-
ignated members of the committee, and provide information subject to the appro-
priate national security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as the Cnief
of. Naval Operations, including your responsibilities as a member of the Joint Chiefs
of Stan?

Answer. Yes.

Question. Do vou agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communica-
tions are provided to this committee and other appropriate committees of the Con-
gress?

Answer. Yes.

[The nomination reference of Adm. Jay L. Johnson, USN, fol-
lows:]

Nomination Rkference

As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,

June 5, 1996.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee on Armed
Services:

The following named officer for reappointment to the grade of Admiral in the
United States Navy while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility
under title 10 U.S.C., sections 601 and 5033:

Chief of Naval Operations

To be Admiral
Adm. Jay L. Johnson, 3854.

[The biographical sketch of Adm. Jay L. Johnson, USN, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]

Resu.me ok Naval Service ok Aom. Jay L Johnson

Bom in Great Falls, Montana, 5 JUN 1946.
Midshipman, U.S. Naval Academy, 30 JUN 1964.

321

Ensign, 5 JUN 1968.

Lieutenant (junior grade), 5 JUN 1969.

Lieutenant, 1 JUL 1971.

Lieutenant Commander, 1 JUL 1975.

Commander, 1 JUL 1981.

Captain, 1 SEP 1987.

Designated Rear Admiral (lyower HalO, while serving in billets commensurate
with that grade, 29 OCT 1990.

Rear Admiral (Lower HalO, 1 JAN 1992.

Designated Rear Admiral while serving in billets commensurate with that grade,
15 MAE 1994.

Designated Vice Admiral while serving in billets commensurate with that grade,
13 JUL 1994.

Rear Admiral, 1 NOV 1994.

Vice Admiral, 20 JUL 1994.

Designated Admiral while serving in billets commensurate with that grade, 2
MAR 1996.

Admiral, Service continuous to date, 1 AJ-'R 1996.

Assignments and duties

NABTC, NAS, Pensacola, FL (DUINS)

Training Squadron 23 (DUINS)

Fighter Squadron 124

Fighter Squadron 191

Chief of Naval Personnel (Junior Off Detailer)

Armed Forces Staff College (DUINS)

Fighter Squadron 124 (Replacement Pilot)

Fighter Squadron 142 (Admin. Off/Maintenance Off.)

Fighter Squadron 101 (XO)

Fighter Squadron 84 (XO)

CO, Fighter Squadron 84

Commander, Naval Military Personnel Command (Head, Aviation Junior Off As-
signment Branch).

COMNAVAIRLANT (DUINS)

Commander, Carrier Air Wing ONE

Commander, SIXTH Fleet (Asst. C/S for Operations)

COMNAVAIRLANT (DUINS)

Commander, Carrier Air Wing ONE

Naval War College (SSG Fellow)

Bureau of Naval Personnel (ACNP for Distribution) (PERS-4)

Commander, Carrier Group EIGHT

COMNAVAIRLANT (TEMDU)

Commander SECOND Fleet/Commander Striking Fleet Atlantic

Vice Chief of Naval Operations

JUN 1968

MAY 1969

OCT 1969

OCT 1959

FEB 1971

JUN 1973

JAN 1976

JUN 1976

MAY 1977

AUG 1979

JUL 1980

OCT 1981

JAN 1983

OCT 1984

MAR 1985

JUL 1986

JUN 1987

FEB 1988

JUL 1989

JUN 1990

SEP 1992

OCT 1992

MAY 1994

JUN 1994

JUL 1994

MAR 1996

TO DATE

Medals and awards:

Defense Distinguished Service Medal.

Defense Superior Service Medal.

Legion of Merit with three Gold Stars in lieu of subsequent awards.

Defense Meritorious Service Medal.

Meritorious Service Medal.

Air Medal with Numeral "8".

Navy Commendation Medal.

Navy Unit Commendation.

Meritorious Unit Commendation with two Bronze Stars.

Navy "E" Ribbon.

Navy Expeditionary Medal.

National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Star.

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with one Bronze Star.

Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Stars.

Southwest Asia Service Medal with one Bronze Star.

Armed Forces Service Medal.

Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with one Silver Star and one Bronze Star.

Kuwait Liberation Medal.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Medal.

Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with one Bronze Star.

Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal F'irst Class.

322

Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.
Expert Rifleman Medal.
Special qualiftcations:

BS (Naval Science) U.S. Naval Academy, 1968.
Designated Naval Aviator: (HTA) 10 October 1969.
Language Qualifications: None of Record.

Personal data:

Wife: Garland Hawthorne of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Children: Cullen Johnson (Daughter), Born: 9 December 1970.

SUMMARY OF JOINT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS

Assi(iiinent

DatK

Rank

Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations, COMSIXTHFLT"

Commander SECOND Fleet/Commander Striking Fleet Atlantic

JUL 86-JUN 87
JUL 94-MAR 96

CAPT
VADM

'Joint Duty Equivalent - SECDEf approved 12/18/89

[The Committee on Armed Services requires certain senior mili-
tary officers nominated by the President to positions requiring the
advice and consent of the Senate to complete a form that details
the biographical, financial and other information of the nominee.
The form executed by Adm. Jay L. Johnson, USN, in connection
with his nomination follows:]

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Room SR-228

Washington, DC 20510-6050

(202) 224-3871

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM

BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUESTED OF
NOMINEES FOR CERTAIN SENIOR MILITARY POSITIONS

Instructions to the Nominee: 1. Comolete all requested information. If more
space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the ques-
tion number (i.e. A-9, B— 4) to which the continuation of your answer applies.

"I hereby incorporate by reference the information and commitments con-
tained in the Senate Armed Services Committee form 'Biographical and Finan-
cial Information Requested of Nominees for Certain Senior Military Positions,'
submitted to the committee on [insert date or your prior form]. I agree that all
such commitments apply to the position to which I have been nominated and
that all such information is current exccot as follows: ..." [If any information
on your prior form needs to be updatea, please cite the part of the form and
the question number and set forth the updated information in your letter to the
Chairman.]

Part A— Biographical Information

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)

Jay Lynn Johnson.

323

2. Position to which nominated:

Chief of Naval Operations.

3. Date of nomination:

June 1996.

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

[Nonninee responded and tnc information is contained in the comnruttee's executive
files.]

5. Date and place of birth:
June 1946; Great Kails, MT.

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

7. Names and aees of children:
Cullen Johnson Nicoll (daughter, age 25).

None.

10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

American Legion.

Association of Naval Aviation.

Ducks Unlimited.

Military Order of the Carabao.

USNA Alumni Association.

U.S. Naval Institute.

The Retired Officers Association.

None.

12. Commitment to testify before Senate com^mittees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Senate?

Yes.

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the administration in power?

Yes.

SiG.NATURE AND DaTE

Jay Lynn Johnson,
Admiral, U.S. Navy.
This sixth day of June 1996.

[The nomination of Adm. Jay L. Johnson, USN, was reported to
the Senate by Senator Strom Thurmond on July 31, 1996, with the

324

recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 1996.) nomination

APPENDIX

Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire on Biographical
AND Financial Information Requested of Civill\n Nominees

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 Nominke: Complete all requested information. If more
space is needed use an additional sheet and cite the part of the form and the ques-
tion 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 hearing and will also be published in any hearing record as well as made
available to the public.

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)

2. Position to which nominated:

3. Date of nomination:

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)

5. Date and place of birth:

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

7. Names and ages of children:

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

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.

(325)

326

11. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an oflicer, direc-
tor, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corpora-
tion, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, educational or other
institution.

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

13. Political afifUiations 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.

(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political
parties or election committees during the last 5 years.

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, po-
litical party, political action committee, or similar entity of $100 or more for the past
5 years.

14. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, military medals and any other special recognitions for outstanding
service or achievements.

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

16. Speeches: IVovide 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. Commitnient to testify before Senate committees: Do you agree, if con-
firmed, to appear and testify upon request before any duly constituted committee
of the Senate/

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM

FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

I.N'STRUCTIONS TO THE NOMINEE: Information furnished in Parts B through F will
be retained in the committee's executive files and will not be made available to the
public unless sf>ecifically directed by the committee.

Name:

Part B— Future Employment Relationships

1. Will you sever all business connections with your present employers, business
firms, business associations or business organizations if you are confirmed by the
Senate?

2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue outside employ-
ment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government? If
so, explain.

3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after completing govern-
ment service to resume employment, affiliation or practice with your previous em-
ployer, business firm, association or organization?

4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any capacity after
you leave government service?

5. Is your spouse employed and, if so, where?

6. If confirmed, do you exfxjct to serve out your full term or until the next Presi-
dential election, whichever is applicable?

327

Part C — Potential Confucts of Interest

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and
other continuing dealings with business associates, clients or customers.

2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which
could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.

3. Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial transaction which you
have had during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or
acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict
of interest in the position to which you have been nominated.

4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for
the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public pol-
icy.

5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any
that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Please provide a copy
of any trust or other agreements.)

6. Do you agree to provide to the committee any written opinions provided by the
General Counsel of the agency to which you are nominated and by the Attorney
General's office concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments
to your serving in this position?

Part D — Legal Matters

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional
conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency,
professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so,
provide details.

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by any Federal,
State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of any Federal, State, county
or municipal law, regulation or ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so,
provide details.

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been in-
volved as a party in interest in any administrative agency proceeding or civil litiga-
tion? If so, provide details.

4. Have you ever been convicted (including a plea of guilty or nolo contendere)
of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense?

5. Please advise the committee of any additional information, favorable or unfa-
vorable, which you feel should be considered in connection with your nomination.

Part E — Foreign Affiliations

1. Have you or your spouse ever represented in any capacity (e.g., employee, attor-
ney, business, or political adviser or consultant), with or without compensation, a
foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please
fully describe such relationship.

2. If you or your spouse has ever been formally associated with a law, accounting,
public relations firm or other service organization, have any of your or your spouse's
associates represented, in any capacity, with or without compensation, a foreign gov-
ernment or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please fully describe
such relationship.

328

3. During the past 10 years have you or your spouse received any compensation
from, or been involved in any financial or business transactions with, a foreign gov-
ernment or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please furnish de-
tails.

4. Have you or your spouse ever registered under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act? If so, please furnish details.

Part F— Financial Data

All information requested under this heading must be provided for yourself, your
spouse, and your dependents.

1. Describe the terms of any beneficial trust or blind trust of which you, your
spouse, or your dependents may be a beneficiary. In the case of a blind trust, pro-
vide the name of the trustee(s) and a copy of the trust agreement.

2. Provide a description of any fiduciary responsibility or power of attorney which
you hold for or on behalf of any other person.

3. List sources, amounts and dates of all anticipated receipts from deferred income
arrangements, stock options, executory contracts and other future benefits which
you expect to derive from current or previous business relationships, professional
services and firm memberships, employers, clients and customers.

4. Have you filed a Federal income tax return for each of the past 10 years? If
not, please explain.

5. Have your taxes always been paid on time?

6. Were all your taxes. Federal, State, and local, current (filed and paid) as of the
date of your nomination?

7. Has the Internal Revenue Service ever audited your F'ederal tax return? If so,
what resulted from the audit?

8. Have any tax liens, either Federal, State, or local, been filed against you or
against any real property or personal property which you own either individually,
jointly, or in partnership?

(The committee may require that copies of your Federal income tax returns be
provided to the committee. These documents will be made available only to Senators
and the staff designated by the Chairman. They will not be available for public in-
spection.)

Signature and Date

This day of , 19-

329

Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire on Biographical
AND Financial Information Requested of Certain Senior
Military Nominees

united states senate
committee on armed services

Room SR-228

Washington, DC 20510-6050

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM

biographical and financial information REQUESTED OF

nominees for certain senior military positions

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.

If you have completed this form in connection with a prior military nomination,

you may use the following procedure in lieu of submitting a new form. In your letter

to the Chairman, add the following paragraph to the end:

"I hereby incorporate by reference the information and commitments contained
in the Senate Armed Services Committee form 'Biographical and Financial In-
formation Requested of Nominees for Certain Senior Military Positions,' submit-
ted to the Committee on [insert date of your prior form]. I agree that all such
commitments apply to the position to which I have been nominated and that
all such information is current except as follows: . . . ." [If any information on
your prior form needs to be updated, please cite the part of the form and the

2uestion number and set forth the updated information in your letter to the
Ihairman.]

Part A— Biographical Information

1. Name: (Include any former names used.)

2. Position to which nominated:

3. Date of nomination:

4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses. Also include
your office telephone number.)

5. Date and place of birth:

6. Marital Status: (Include name of husband or wife, including wife's maiden
name.)

7. Names and ages of children:

330

9. Business relationships: List all positions currently held as an officer, direc-
tor, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any corpora-
tion, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, educational or other institution.

10. Memberships: List all memberships and offices held in professional, frater-
nal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and other organizations.

11. Honors and Awards: List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary society
memberships, and any other special recognitions for outstanding service or achieve-
ments other than those listed on the service record extract provided to the Commit-
tee by the Executive Branch.

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

13. Personal views: Do you agree, when asked before any duly constituted com-
mittee of the Congress, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from
the Administration in power?

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FORM

FINANCIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED OF NOMINEES

Instructions to the Nominee: Information furnished in Parts B through E will
be retained in the committee's executive files and will not be made available to the
public unless specifically directed by the committee.

Name:

Part B— Future Emplx)yment Relationships

1. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue outside employ-
ment, with or without compensation, during your military service. If so, explain.

2. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any capacity after
you leave military service?

Part C— Potential Conflicts of Interest

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and
other continuing dealings with business associates, clients or customers.

2. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which
could involve potential confiicts of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.

4. Explain how you will resolve any potential confiict of interest, including any
that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Please provide a copy
of any trust or other agreements.)

5. Do you agree to provide to the committee any written opinions provided by the
General Counsel of the agency to which you are nominated and by the Office of Gov-
ernment Ethics concerning potential confiicts of interest or any legal impediments
to your serving in this position?

6. Is your spouse employed and, if so, where?

331

Part D— Legal Matters

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by any Federal,
State, or otner law enforcement authority for violation of Federal, State, county or
municipal law, regulation or ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so, pro-
vide details.

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been in-
volved as a party in interest in any administrative agency proceeding or litigation?
If so, provide details.

4. Have you ever been convicted (including a plea of guilty or nolo contendere)
of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense?

5. Please advise the committee of any additional information, favorable or unfa-
vorable, which you feel should be considered in connection with your nomination.

Part E— Foreign Affiliations

2. If you or your spouse has ever been formally associated with a law, accounting,
public relations firm or other service organization, have any of your or your spouse s
associates represented, in any capacity, with or without convpensation, a foreign gov-
ernment or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If^so, please fully describe
such relationship.

3. During the past 10 years have you or your spouse received any comp)ensation
from, or been involved in any financial or business transactions with, a foreign gov-
ernment or an entity controlled by a foreign government? If so, please furnish de-
tails.

4. Have you or your spouse ever registered under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act? If so, please furnish details.

Signature and Date

This day of , 19-

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05577 281 6

ISBN 0-16-054957-4

9 780160"549571

90000

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

See other formats