ANSWERS TO ADVANCE QUESTIONS
SUBMITTED BY SENATOR STROM THURMOND FOR
NOMINEE TO BE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
More than a decade has passed since the enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms.
Do you support full implementation of these defense reforms?
Answer: Yes, I fully support the initiatives and reforms of the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 and related Special Operations reform initiatives.
What is your view of the extent to which these defense reforms have been implemented?
Answer: From what I have learned to date, the reforms called for and envisioned appear to have been implemented and to have achieved the desired results. That said, the Army must continue to assess and modify its operations and internal procedures to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
What do you consider to be the most important aspects of these defense reforms?
Answer: The most important aspects of these reforms were strengthening civilian control, streamlining the operational chain of command, improving efficiency in the use of defense resources, improving the military advice provided to the National Command Authorities, clarifying authority for combatant commanders, and enhancing effectiveness of military operations.
The goals of Congress in enacting these defense reforms, as reflected in section 3 of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act, can be summarized as strengthening civilian control; improving military advice; placing clear responsibility on the combatant commanders for the accomplishment of their missions; ensuring the authority of the combatant commanders is commensurate with their responsibility; increasing attention to the formulation of strategy and to contingency planning; providing for more efficient use of defense resources; and enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and improving the management and administration of the Department of Defense.
Do you agree with these goals?
Answer: Yes, I fully support the Congressional goals reflected in the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.
Recently, there have been articles which indicate an interest within the Department of Defense in modifying Goldwater-Nichols in light of the changing environment and possible revisions to the national strategy.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do you believe it might be appropriate to address in these proposals?
Answer: I am not aware of any such proposals at this time. Before supporting any legislative proposal to amend Goldwater-Nichols, I would carefully evaluate it to ensure it would further the Army’s contribution to national security.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the Secretary of Defense?
Answer: The Secretary of Defense, as head of the Department of Defense, possesses full authority, direction and control over all its elements. The Secretary of the Army is subject to that authority, direction and control. If confirmed, I will communicate openly and directly with the Secretary of Defense on all matters involving the Department of the Army. I will cooperate fully with the Secretary of Defense in fulfilling the administration’s national defense priorities and efficiently administering the Department of the Army in accordance with the policies established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the Deputy Secretary of Defense?
Answer: The Deputy Secretary of Defense performs such duties and exercises such powers as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe. His responsibilities require him, from time to time, to issue guidance and direction to the Military Departments. If confirmed, I will be directly responsible to the Secretary of Defense—and to his Deputy—for the operation of the Army in accordance with such directives. I will cooperate fully with the Deputy Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Army properly implements the policies established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I will communicate openly and directly with the Deputy Secretary of Defense in articulating the views of the Army.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the Under Secretaries of Defense?
Answer: Acting on behalf of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretaries perform responsibilities that require them, from time to time, to issue guidance—and in the case of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, direction—to the Military Departments. If confirmed, I will communicate openly and directly with the Under Secretaries in articulating the views of the Army. I will work closely with them to ensure that the Army is administered in accordance with the guidance and direction issued by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the Assistant Secretaries of Defense?
Answer: The Assistant Secretaries of Defense have functional responsibilities that, from time to time, require the issuance of guidance to the Military Departments. If confirmed, I will establish a close and professional relationship with the Assistant Secretaries of Defense and communicate openly and directly with them in articulating the views of the Army. I will cooperate fully with them to ensure that the Army is administered in accordance with guidance promulgated by Office of the Secretary of Defense.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President and the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman plans the strategic direction and contingency operations of the armed forces; advises the Secretary of Defense on requirements, programs, and budgets identified by the commanders of the combatant commands; develops doctrine for the joint employment of the armed forces; reports on assignment of functions (or roles and missions) to the armed forces; provides for representation of the United States on the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations; and performs such other duties as may be prescribed by law or by the President or Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I will cooperate fully with the Chairman in his performance of these responsibilities. I will establish and maintain a close and professional relationship with him, and will communicate directly and openly with him on policy matters involving the Army.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the combatant CINCS?
Answer: Subject to the direction of the President, the combatant commanders perform their duties under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, and are directly responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the preparedness of their commands to carry out missions assigned to them. As directed by the Secretary of Defense, the Service Secretaries assign all forces under their jurisdiction to the combatant commands or to the United States element of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, to perform missions assigned to those commands. In addition, subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense and the authority of combatant commanders under Title 10, United States Code, section 164(c), the Service Secretaries are responsible for administering and supporting the forces that are assigned to a combatant command. If confirmed, I will cooperate fully with the combatant commanders in performing these administrative and support responsibilities. I will establish close, professional relationships with the combatant commanders and communicate directly and openly with them on matters involving the Department of the Army.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the Secretaries of the other Military Departments?
Answer: If confirmed, I anticipate establishing partnerships with the other Service Secretaries to foster better interservice cooperation and continue to improve the capability of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines to operate in the joint environment. To accomplish this objective, I will forge close, professional relationships with the other Service Secretaries and will communicate directly and openly with them on all matters involving the Military Departments.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the Chief of Staff of the Army?
Answer: The Chief of Staff of the Army performs his duties under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the Army and is directly responsible to the Secretary. The Chief of Staff also performs the duties prescribed for him by law as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close, professional relationship with the Chief of Staff. I will communicate with him directly and openly as he performs his prescribed duties, and will ensure that the Army Secretariat and the Army Staff work together efficiently as one team to accomplish the missions entrusted to the Army.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with The Inspector General of the Army?
Answer: The Inspector General of the Army inquires into and reports upon the discipline, efficiency, and economy of the Army, as directed by the Secretary of the Army or the Chief of Staff. In addition, the Inspector General periodically proposes programs of inspection to the Secretary of the Army, and recommends additional inspections and investigations as appropriate. If confirmed, I will establish and maintain a close, professional relationship with The Inspector General. I will communicate with him directly and openly as he performs his prescribed duties. I will also ensure that The Inspector General cooperates fully with the Inspector General of the Department of Defense in connection with any matter regarding the Army.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with soldiers and their families?
Answer: The men and women who serve are our nation’s most important national security assets. Taking care of our soldiers and their families will be my top priority. I look forward to working closely with the Secretary of Defense, the other Service Secretaries and the Chief of Staff of the Army to find ways to continue to improve the quality of services and support provided to our armed forces and their families, and to ensure that they are fully prepared to defend our nation. I also believe it is important to lead and care for the dedicated civilian work force that supports the soldiers and without whom they could not perform their mission. All leaders of the Department of the Army, civilian and military, must work closely together as one team as we face the challenge of recruiting and retaining America’s best men and women.
Section 3013 of Title 10, United States Code, describes the duties of Secretary of the Army.
Assuming you are confirmed, do you expect that Secretary Cohen will prescribe additional duties for you?
Answer: The Secretary of Defense is head of the Department of Defense, with full authority, direction and control over all its elements. The Secretary of the Army is subject to that authority, direction and control, and is responsible for activities prescribed by law or by the President or Secretary of Defense. I anticipate that the Secretary of Defense will prescribe specific duties for me that will support his responsibility to ensure that the Department of Defense successfully accomplishes the many demanding and varied missions entrusted to it. If confirmed, I will carry out these additional duties to the best of my ability.
If so, what do you expect those additional duties will be?
Answer: I anticipate that the Secretary of Defense will continue to rely upon the Army to perform those functions that are most appropriately delegated to it, in view of the Army’s available resources and capabilities. If confirmed, I will communicate directly and openly with the Secretary of Defense regarding the Army’s capabilities to accomplish these additional duties.
What duties and responsibilities do you plan to assign to the Under Secretary of the Army?
Answer: The Under Secretary of the Army performs such duties and exercises such powers as the Secretary of the Army prescribes. The Under Secretary is the Secretary’s principal civilian assistant and advisor on key Army issues. If confirmed, I will review the current assignment of functions, responsibilities and duties within the Army Secretariat and determine the capacities in which the Under Secretary can most appropriately support my efforts to ensure that the Department of the Army is efficiently administered in accordance with the policies promulgated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
In carrying out your duties, how will you work with the Assistant Secretary of Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics and Environment; the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management; the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition; the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; and the General Counsel?
Answer: If confirmed, I will establish and maintain close, professional relationships with each of the Assistant Secretaries and the General Counsel. I will encourage direct and open communication among these officials, and will foster an environment of cooperative teamwork within the Secretariat and with the Army Staff as we deal together with the day-to-day management and long-range planning requirements facing the Army.
Major Challenges and Problems
In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the Secretary of the Army?
Answer: My fundamental challenge, as it has been for all my predecessors, is to provide the Nation a fully trained and ready Army capable of executing the National Military Strategy. The Army’s land power will always play a decisive role in attaining our national military objectives. To meet this fundamental challenge, I see our Army focusing on three major issues as we continue to execute the NMS: Readiness, Resources, and Recruiting/Retention.
·Readiness. Readiness remains our foremost priority. We must be ready today, and we must prepare now to be ready tomorrow. While I believe our Army is currently trained and ready to accomplish whatever mission the Nation calls upon us to accomplish, our challenge remains to sustain our units with sufficient quality people (military and civilian), maintain a high level of training, mitigate the effects of a historically high operational tempo, procure the right systems for the future, and build the force that will be ready to meet the Nation’s needs in the world we will face twenty to thirty years from now.
There can be no time outs for readiness. The world remains a dangerous and unpredictable place, as recent events in India and Pakistan graphically illustrate. Regional instabilities, transnational threats, and the proliferation of technology and weapons of mass destruction demand that we maintain a high state of preparedness even as we go about transforming the Army to ensure we can meet the Nation’s land power needs not only today, but well into the 21st century.
·Resources. As you know all too well, we are operating in a time of resource constraint. Continued declining buying power has required us to make difficult decisions as we prepare for the future. Key to this resource challenge is balancing near term readiness with modernization.
- Readiness and Sustainability. We must adequately fund our Total Army OPTEMPO and pay accounts, which includes improving funding for the Reserve Components.
- Modernization. We must achieve every fiscal efficiency we can and pursue initiatives that will allow us to devote more resources to modernization. While the Army has refined its modernization strategy, overall funding for modernization has been reduced to ensure sufficient funding in other areas, particularly military pay and near term readiness.
- Force Structure. We must continue to reconcile force structure and end strength.
- Infrastructure. To stay within the budget the Army has reduced funding levels for base operations and real property maintenance, taking significant risk in these accounts. We must address these reductions which often result in the migration of funds from O & M accounts, which could erode our readiness base. The reduction of the civilian workforce must be managed carefully, so as not to endanger readiness and to ensure reductions are accomplished with care and concern for individuals.
In sum, we are resourced to the minimum level necessary to fulfill the National Military Strategy, but our resources are finely balanced. We must be absolutely committed to finding and achieving every efficiency we can while maintaining necessary capability.
Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these challenges?
Answer: The section above discusses what the Army must do to meet the challenges of Readiness, Resources, and Recruiting/Retention. I will forthrightly address these issues to ensure we are doing what we must. I will candidly assess our Readiness and modernization efforts to ensure we are not bearing unacceptable levels of risk in Readiness from a lack of Resources or otherwise. I will manage the Department so as to realize the Resources we need to obtain from efficiencies and other Defense reform efforts. And I will address the issues facing soldiers and their families that impact Recruiting and Retention.
What do you consider to be the most serious problems in the Army?
Answer: The Army is people. Our values call us to respect and honor the contribution all soldiers have to make. It’s no secret, however, that the Army has had some problems over the last two years in two areas: sexual misconduct/harassment and AC/RC relations.
If confirmed, what management action and timetables would you establish to address these problems?
Answer: By deed and word I will set a tone that speaks to living up to our bedrock values in building good relations, trust and respect among all soldiers. From my first day on the job I will take actions that communicate the value I place on Total Army, including paying attention to the resourcing, promotion, and service opportunities of Reserve Components within the larger context of ensuring the Total Army is prepared to fulfill its role in meeting the national security needs of our Nation.
Quadrennial Defense Review
Two years ago, the Congress required the Department of Defense to conduct the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to include a comprehensive examination of the defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies with a view toward preparing the armed forces for the security environment of the 21st Century. There has been some concern expressed regarding the report that was received. Some believe that it was simply a new version of the Bottom-Up Review in that it tries to fit a strategy and force structure within an artificially constrained budget.
Would you outline your views on the QDR's assessment of the most pressing matters facing the Army?
Answer: I think the QDR provides the right direction for our national military policy. The underlying tenets of our National Military Strategy – shape, respond, and prepare now – make sense for the Nation as we transform to meet the new and diverse requirements of a rapidly changing and uncertain international security environment.
In the decade since the end of the Cold War, Army soldiers have been called with much greater frequency than during the 45 previous years to protect American citizens and interests, and to shape the international environment consistent with American interests and values. More often than not, the American soldier is the preferred instrument to achieve our national military objectives in support of national security and foreign policy objectives. The American soldier has always been the ultimate symbol of our Nation's commitment and resolve. The future security environment – both at home and abroad – will continue to place a premium on the skills and capabilities of men and women who selflessly serve in the active and reserve components of America's Army.
From what I have learned to date, the force structure and personnel end strength levels identified in the QDR appear adequate to implement the National Military Strategy. It will be important however to continue to increase the utility and readiness of our reserve forces. Today's active force is very busy, with no hint that the pace of peacetime operations will soon diminish. When the workload exceeds active force capabilities or when military operations present an opportunity to increase the utilization of our reserve forces, our reserve forces must be ready. That requires adequate federal funding to train and equip our reserves, and adherence by our reserve forces to established standards, especially in the areas of recruiting, retention, and training.
The QDR validated the Army's transformation efforts and modernization program, but emphasized that current and projected funding levels are inadequate to implement modernization plans on schedule. Personnel reductions identified in the QDR are insufficient to close the gap between validated requirements and available resources. Part of the solution lies in "right sizing" our infrastructure to the strategy and force structure, but additional sources of funding are critical to successfully transforming the Army to meet the challenges of the future.
Do you believe that the QDR recommendations will adequately posture the Army for the requirements of the 21st Century?
Answer: Implementing the recommendations of the QDR is an appropriate start to meeting the requirements of the 21st century. While the QDR applauds the Army's transformation strategy and programs, it also recognizes that the Army's planned modernization program is inadequately resourced. Planned personnel reductions alone will not be sufficient to make funds available to execute our planned modernization program on schedule. Additional resources are required, some of which can be achieved through additional reductions in Army infrastructure.
Do you believe that the personnel reductions advocated by the QDR can be accomplished without hindering the capability of the Combatant CINCs to accomplish the missions of the U.S. military?
Answer: Yes. The personnel reductions recommended in the QDR – active, reserve, and civilian – are reasonable and appropriate in light of our National Military Strategy, our post-Cold War experience, projected resource levels, and Army modernization requirements. The transfer of some later-deploying active force functions to the Army Reserve and Army National Guard marginally increases the risk associated with being able to rapidly respond to threats to our national interests. However, this increased risk can be adequately offset by our efforts to shape the international security environment consistent with American interests. This might include increased usage of reserve forces in our day-to-day peacetime engagement initiatives. The Office of the Secretary of Defense estimates that the modest personnel reductions identified in the QDR report will result in annual savings of about $1.5 billion by Fiscal Year 2003. These funds are critical to the Army's modernization program as we transform the force and prepare for the future.
Do you believe the force levels recommended by the Quadrennial Defense Review are sufficient to support the strategy upon which the review was based?
Answer: Yes. The QDR established the requirement for 4 active corps, 10 active divisions, 2 active armored cavalry regiments, and 15 enhanced Separate Brigades in the Army National Guard. Beyond this required and minimal force level, the Army maintains 8 divisions (comprising 24 combat brigades) and 3 separate brigades in the Army National Guard. Some of this force structure is being converted to combat support and combat service support capabilities over the next decade to address critical shortages in our support capabilities.
National Defense Panel
The National Defense Panel’s view of the future battlefield sees a requirement for conventional forces which emphasize characteristics of mobility, stealth, speed, increased operational and strike ranges, and small logistics footprint, and all with common information systems architectures and with information systems protection. Consequently, it questioned the logic of several of the services’ procurement programs. With respect to the Army, specifically, the NDP urged a quicker transformation to the Army After Next, and questioned the continuing upgrade of the Abrams tank, as well as the projected numbers of Crusader and Comanche.
How do you assess the balance in the Army’s modernization programs between maintaining the capability to meet current and near term threats and transforming the Army to meet the emerging threats of 2025 and beyond?
Answer: I am concerned that current funding levels may not be adequate to meet near and mid term required operational capabilities as well as provide for the research and development needed for a smooth transition to the Army After Next. The Army has weighed near term readiness requirements against long term modernization requirements and attempted to meet the needs of both. Its modernization strategy attempts to mitigate the risk between those requirement tradeoffs.
Do you agree with the NDP that the Army should limit the deployment of Abrams, Crusader, and Comanche to III Corps and forward-based forces to mitigate risk while transitioning the balance of the Army to the Army After Next concept?
Answer: I agree with the NDP's underlying premise that we should limit the fielding of systems that we do not envision being central to the Army After Next or that are likely to have decreasing utility in the decades ahead. Each of the systems named – the Abrams tank, the Crusader fire support system, and the Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter – are center pieces of Force XXI efforts, and are expected to have significant utility throughout the first quarter of the 21st Century and beyond.
Army leaders state that Force XXI initiatives will result in Army XXI around 2010. Army XXI is an interim step on the path to the Army After Next. It is important to remember that the leap-ahead capabilities envisioned in the Army After Next require significant technological breakthroughs, some of which are characterized as high risk in the near- and mid-terms. As such, the Army does not envision being able to achieve the capabilities resident in our Army After Next until the end of the first quarter of the 21st Century.
In the intervening decades, the Army must continue to provide the Nation with a robust set of capabilities that are applicable across the full spectrum of military operations. We do not have the luxury of ignoring near- and mid-term challenges to our national interests or near- and mid-term opportunities to shape the international security environment consistent with our national interests and values. Both of these strategic goals require an Army that is ready each and every day as it simultaneously transforms itself for the future.
If you agree, do you foresee a problem in maintaining essential industrial base capabilities until Army After Next technologies mature?
Answer: The Army’s planned program is designed to provide the Nation with a robust set of capabilities that are applicable across the full spectrum of military operations. The Army anticipates that, if executed as planned, the program will maintain the essential industrial capabilities required to support Army XXI as the interim step to Army After Next.
If so, how will you address the problem?
Answer: It is critical to maintain essential industrial capabilities. The Army anticipates that it will be able to maintain the required capabilities by executing the planned program. I will monitor this situation carefully.
If you do not agree with the NDP, do you believe that the Army can afford to continue the upgrade and production of Army XXI systems and move toward the Army After Next?
Answer: Army XXI is an interim step on the path to the Army After Next. The Force XXI process, which will result in Army XXI, is focused on developing the agility that is fundamental to the capabilities contained in the Army After Next. Army XXI represents the "knowledge" component of the "knowledge and speed" concepts that are critical to the Army After Next.
If so, how?
Answer: The modest Army personnel reductions identified in the QDR – active, reserve, and civilian -- are a step in the right direction. The Office of the Secretary of Defense estimates that these personnel reductions will result in annual savings of about $1.5 billion by Fiscal Year 2003. Right sizing our infrastructure to our National Military Strategy and supporting force structure offers another source of funding to close the gap between validated requirements and available resources.
While the quarterly readiness reports from the Department of Defense do not indicate any reduction in Army readiness, over the past 10 years there have been numerous anecdotal reports that the readiness of the Army is deteriorating. Furthermore, there have been a couple of articles written that detail some of the problems faced by the Army, including diminished readiness of units reporting to the National Training Center compared to readiness of units that reported to the Center 5 years ago. Finally, we have learned that the Army is being forced to reprogram $200 million from its modernization accounts into its readiness accounts in order to fund essential operations.
Does the Army have sufficient resources to maintain its current level of readiness and modernize for the 21st century while performing the same high level of operations that it has been called upon to execute over the past few years?
Answer: I share the concerns implied by this question and intend to study the situation in detail if I am confirmed. Recent budget and program submissions have been in consonance with National and Defense Department guidance and have sought to maintain readiness and improve modernization in the Army. Funding must be adequate, sustained, predictable and synchronized to meet the readiness, force structure and endstrength, quality of life, and modernization requirements of today and an uncertain future. With a trend of steady declines in Army budgets, the Army must assume risk in certain areas and make tough choices to balance requirements with acceptable levels of risk.
What has led to the unfunded requirements that are forcing the Army to migrate funding from its modernization accounts into its readiness accounts?
Answer: In recent years the Army has relied on modernization accounts as the primary bill payer for shortfalls in readiness accounts. The FY99 budget request proposes the first real increase in Army procurement since 1985, excluding Desert Storm, and the Army continues to face readiness and modernization challenges. If confirmed, I intend to address near term and future readiness as a top priority. We are going to work with OSD and Congress to find ways to mitigate the risks to both near term and future readiness.
Quality of Life
In response to a continuing shortfall in funding for family housing construction and repair, the Department of Defense proposed the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. Although the Congress enacted this authority in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, the Army has had limited success in carrying out the Military Housing Privatization Initiative in part because of a lack of support by the Army Leadership.
What are your views on military family housing?
Answer: The Army Leadership fully supports the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) because it provides the best vehicle available to fix family housing and improve the quality of life for our soldiers and families. Appropriated support for operations, maintenance and construction of family housing has traditionally been too little to maintain and improve family housing. Therefore, I intend to use the MHPI authorities to the maximum extent possible. Unfortunately, the first few projects are taking longer than anticipated. After we award the first few, follow-on projects will progress more smoothly. The Army is already using the lessons learned from the Fort Carson project to develop more projects.
Should the military departments continue to be burdened with managing and maintaining family housing or would it be more cost effective to turn housing over to the private sector?
Answer: The bottom line is we do not have the appropriated funds necessary to fix Army family housing or bring it up to current standards. At current rates of funding, we cannot revitalize existing housing in less than 130 years. However, our analyses show that we can fix virtually all Army family housing assets in the United States by 2010 using the 1996 MHPI authorities to leverage our assets and scarce dollars to obtain private-sector interest, management and capital to operate and fix Army's family housing.
The Army, Air Force, and Navy are committed to the so called "One plus One" barracks standard. Although the services have justified the substantial cost of this initiative as a retention tool, there are individuals in the services and the Congress who believe the new barracks style will negatively impact unit cohesion and, potentially, discipline.
After having served five years at the troop unit level, what are your views on the "One plus One" barracks standard?
Answer: "One plus One" is a permanent party standard that improves quality of life for our soldiers without degrading the unit cohesion that is achieved through training. Basic and AIT trainees still live in open bays. "One plus One" barracks provide two soldiers a module consisting of two bedrooms, one bath and a shared common area. Commanders who have occupied "One plus One" support the new barracks and the associated soldier complex of unit operations and soldier centers. To date, I have neither seen nor heard anything that would contradict the support Commanders have for "One plus One."
Would you consider following the Marine Corps example of upgrading all barracks to an interim standard before fully committing to the "One plus One" Standard? If not, why not?
Answer: I would carefully consider this if requested. However, it appears inefficient to invest funds in an interim standard, only to be followed by additional work to go to the full standard. The best course of action is to continue to build to the standard that our commanders, command sergeants major, and first sergeants believe is best for the soldier and the unit.
The Army already has a few years experience with an interim standard utilized in fiscal years 1994 and 1995, before the approval of the "One plus One" standard. Soldiers appreciated the improvements, but they fell short of the principal features desired by soldiers: private rooms and more space for personal possessions. We know how important this is to soldiers, because across the Army they have created their own makeshift privacy by using wall lockers and curtains to screen off personal space.
Excess Installation Capacity
The Secretary of Defense, supported by the Service Chiefs, is calling for additional base closure rounds to eliminate excess capacity at military facilities. Although the Congress has, to this point, declined to authorize additional rounds, there is acknowledgment that there is excess capacity. The question is, how do we eliminate the excess capacity, maintain military readiness, and allow for future surge capacity?
If the Congress does not authorize additional base closures, would you consider using the authorities under section 2667 of Title 10, United States Code, to lease excess capacity to the private sector and, if so, to what extent?
Answer: Section 2667 of Title 10 United States Code grants authority to the Service Secretaries to lease property under their control when such property is, for the time, not needed for public use. This excess capacity may then be made available for leasing. The Secretaries may do this when the lease will promote national defense or be in the public interest. The Army is using this authority now when it makes sense for the individual installation. If the Army has no future needs for the property, then it is DA policy to proceed with disposal through the GSA in accordance with federal property management regulations. However, much of the excess capacity is in portions of buildings scattered around the installation or in buildings where there are environmental issues. For such cases the building and underlying ground is not excess and could, perhaps, be leased as a local management tool to deal with individual facilities and isolated excess capacity. This, however, does not solve the broader issue of excess infrastructure capacity which can only be addressed through restructuring under BRAC.
What operational impediments would the dual use of military facilities have on the Army?
Answer: Dual use should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Currently, we leave the determination that the Army’s facilities are available for dual use to the installation commander.
What legislative initiatives would you suggest the Congress enact to encourage the use of excess capacity on a military installation by the private sector?
Answer: I know that there is a lot of work being done in this area within the existing authorities. I need to assess these various initiatives and review the authorities. I am not prepared at this point to suggest specific initiatives to you.
Army National Guard and Army Reserve Funding
This year the Congress was presented with a budget that addresses the modernization priorities across the Army, with many National Guard and Reserve modernization requirements funded or identified as high priority items on the Army unfunded requirements list.
How will you ensure that the Army reserve components receive the modernization support they require commensurate with their assigned missions?
Answer: The Army will modernize units in the first-to-fight and first-to-support sequence. I will ensure the reserve components receive equipment commensurate with their assigned missions.
Relationships among the Active Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve
Over the past several years a very counter-productive rift has developed among the three components of the Army. While force structure levels seem to be at the heart of the issue, there are many areas of disagreement. Initially, the rift appeared to be between the Army and the Army National Guard; however, the Army Reserve has become involved in several of the public quarrels. While the rift between the active Army and the National Guard may be declining, there is still work to be done.
What role will you play in resolving issues between the active and reserve components?
Answer: I recognize that responsibility for the Total Army is in my hands and that resolving these issues will take energetic leadership and clear, effective communication. The Chief of Staff of the Army and I will expand the current efforts to improve communications between components. I will challenge forums such as the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee and the Reserve Components Coordination Council to deal forthrightly with the issues that have been raised. I will ensure that the Department of the Army is embracing and working towards the four principles of integration that Secretary Cohen outlined in September of 1997. Solutions to some of the core issues involve both DoD and the Congress. As we work towards Total Army solutions, I will keep all the parties informed and invite their views and take the actions necessary to put issues that detract from the Total Army behind us.
How do you intend to address the very public, counter-productive debate among the three components?
Answer: By tackling this issue head on. This debate should not be personal, it should be about how we best meet the national security needs our Nation calls on the Army to meet. Period.
Army Resourcing Levels
This year, several uniformed Army leaders made the case that the Army does not receive a fair share of resources from the Department of Defense when measured against the current and projected missions assigned to the Army.
Do you believe the Army is adequately resourced when compared to the other services?
Answer: As the Secretary of the Army my focus will be to ensure the Army is adequately resourced to meet the needs of the nation. I am concerned that current funding levels are inadequate to meet the Army’s near and mid term required operational capabilities as well as to provide for the research and development needed for a smooth transition to the Army After Next. I do not feel I am in an appropriate position to address the adequacy or fairness of resources received by the other services at this time.
If not, what do you intend to do to address resourcing deficiencies?
Answer: I will very strongly address resourcing issues that are impacting readiness or modernization (future readiness). Internally, I will do my best to ensure a proper balance within available resources. Externally, I will address forthrightly any concerns I may have to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress.
What are your greatest concerns for the Army as you look at the realm of modernization funding for the Service over the next several years?
Answer: Striking the right balance between near term and long term readiness, and making the right choices within the readiness and modernization programs.
Every year Service Program Managers try to put together a plan that will support an effective and efficient acquisition program to support the warfighters and every year they have to react to funding fluctuations and DOD withhold policies.
What can the Army do to support acquisition reform efforts and more importantly, provide for program stability?
Answer: The Army can support acquisition reform by focusing on the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology’s five stated priorities for achieving a "Revolution in Business Affairs." They are: aggressively pursue and fully implement acquisition reform initiatives; work to bring about greater civilian/military integration by creating, through research and development, technically advanced products and systems with common applications that allow production of defense-unique items on the same lines with high-volume commercial items; shift resources from support and infrastructure to modernization and combat; re-engineer the logistics system; and focus on training and educating our acquisition workforce to meet the demands of this massive re-engineering effort. Further, we can provide for program stability by ensuring we protect Multi-Year Procurement contracts from funding decrements and providing incentives for Program Managers (PMs) to make full use of acquisition reform initiatives such as Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV), Horizontal Technology Insertion (HTI), Performance Based Specifications and Total Ownership Cost (TOC). One incentive would be to return the savings, or a portion of the savings, to the PM to pay for unfunded requirements. Another would be to include acquisition reform objectives in the PM’s evaluation report. Other program stability measures would include identifying the highest priority Army programs and fully funding and protecting the dollars in the budget, planning and budgeting for potential contingency operations in the POM, and continuing to seek reprogramming threshold increases in RDA appropriations. This would provide flexibility to programs that have shortfalls without a need to decrement other program’s accounts. Stability is also enhanced by supporting the Army’s "Cradle to Grave" concept of developing a life cycle acquisition strategy for partnering with a contractor for new start systems. The concept provides viable life cycle management alternatives as the Army continues to downsize.
DOD Top 20 Investment Program
When the Committee reviews the DOD Top 20 Investment Program comparing modernization initiatives by Service for the period 1996 through 2013, we note that approximately 38% of DOD investments are proposed for Navy programs; 36% for Air Force programs; 8% for Marine Corps programs; and only 7.2% for the Army with the remaining 11% for DOD and SOCOM.
Do you believe the Army is receiving adequate consideration in the DOD modernization budget process?
Answer: At this point I don’t know. The extensive budget review process conducted by Department of Defense provides an in-depth analysis of all Services’ programs within available funding. Let me assure you that I will work to ensure that the Army receives appropriate consideration.
"Modernization Bow Wave"
Much has been discussed about a "modernization bow wave" that may result from overly ambitious service modernization programs. The concern is that a "bow wave" won’t be realized until the services move to fund production of new programs shortly after the turn of the century. For the Army, some have expressed concern about the affordability of Crusader, Comanche, and the Future Scout and Cavalry Vehicle, to name a few.
What are your thoughts on the likelihood of a "bow-wave" shortfall?
Answer: I understand that the Army has worked hard to ensure that it modernizes the force within prudent fiscal projections. This strategy is important because it provides program stability and predictable costs. I will ensure that we work hard to minimize turbulence and provide quality modern equipment at reasonable costs.
If confirmed, will you be willing to make the tough calls that may be necessary to ensure the Army is able to meet all of its modernization requirements?
What is your position on the expenditure of unauthorized appropriations?
Answer: The Army has historically sought to respect the intentions of both the authorizing and appropriating committees in its expenditure of appropriated funds. Whenever there has been a disparity between the authorization and appropriation Acts, the Army has followed the guidance of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) on how to proceed, based upon DOD-wide procedures that are established with the committees involved.
If confirmed, would you agree to obtain authorization committee support for any expenditure of unauthorized appropriations?
Answer: If confirmed, I will work with Congress to ensure that the Army fully and openly communicates with its oversight committees, and clearly understands Congressional intent with respect to expenditure of Army appropriations. I will endeavor to ensure that all such expenditures are in strict accordance with Congress’ direction, the Secretary of Defense’s guidance, and applicable fiscal law.
Information and Intelligence
Future Army systems are clearly focusing on leap-ahead technologies that will greatly enhance our ability to see the battlefield and disseminate information quickly to the forces that need this information. Early experiments and exercises have shown that these systems may allow our forces to operate quickly and decisively in a tactical environment. Many observers of this evolution have expressed concerns about a growing operational dependence on this technology and the corresponding vulnerability that this reliance may have on our forces if countermeasures are developed to defeat or impair these future systems.
What should the Army do to ensure a balance between system development, system protection, and Service component training to deal with the increasingly complex nature of the battlefield?
Answer: This question contains several elements and each of these corresponds to Army initiatives: balancing system development with system protection and training requirements in light of complex technologies and possible over dependence on digital technologies that may be countered. Overall balance is worked by placing system prototypes in the hands of commanders and their soldiers to try out, train on, and then employ in simulated battles. As you are aware, the Army has called the major simulated tryouts Army Warfighting Experiments (AWEs), and recognizes that concept and system development have to be iterative over trials – so called Spiral Development. To enhance the protection for the communications and computer systems, the "C2 Protect and Attack for Information Operations" Advanced Technology Demonstration Program was begun this year. Two years ago, the Army’s Manpower and Personnel Integration Program (MANPRINT) began a study to determine the manual, back-up systems and training the Army should keep for combined arms operations, assuming digital technologies may be vulnerable: "Issues and Recommendations: Training the Digital Force." For example, basic map reading and the use of magnetic compasses should be trained as a navigation back up procedure in place of the Global Positioning System. And tank gunners will retain a capability for manual aiming and firing. The Army’s MANPRINT Program works with Program Managers to ensure that systems are designed so soldiers can operate and maintain them without extensive training. The Program Executive Officer for Command, Control and Communications Systems, applying the MANPRINT philosophy, has successfully engineered a great simplification for the multiple computers that had evolved into the Army Battlefield Command and Control System (ABCS). Ten to fifteen different computers and product lines are being replaced with two variations of one computer, using the same operating system and applications software. These computers will use the Windows 95/NT architecture or UNIX with the "look and feel" of Windows, and this common look and feel will also be provided in most of the other Army computers that link to the ABCS. This system design simplification, with common look and feel for all Army users, will reduce the need for extensive training of technicians to set up, operate, and maintain Army field computer systems.
Panama Canal and Latin America and Caribbean
The Secretary of the Army is the Secretary of Defense’s designee on the Supervisory Board of the Panama Canal Commission pursuant to section 3612 of Title 22, United States Code. The operations and management of the Panama Canal is scheduled to be transferred to Panama on December 31, 1999. Traditionally, the Secretary of the Army is the DOD designee and serves as the Chairman of the Supervisory Board.
If confirmed and designated as the DoD representative, what do you see as your responsibilities as Chairman?
Answer: The Department of the Army is the executive agent for the Panama Canal. It is imperative for the good of our Nation and U.S. relations with Latin America that the transfer of the Canal, the repositioning of U.S. forces, and the completion of other treaty requirements and all other incidental matters be executed as smoothly as possible. If confirmed as Secretary of the Army, I would welcome the opportunity to be designated as the DoD representative, as my predecessor had been. As the DoD representative, I will ensure the Canal transfer is conducted flawlessly and with honor and dignity.
In your opinion, what are the major challenges with respect to the transition from U. S. control?
Answer: The U.S. Government has acted commendably in its conduct of Panama Canal policy by focusing on the efficient operation of the Canal since 1914. The United States faces two major challenges as we prepare to transition stewardship of the Canal on December 31, 1999. The first is to reassure the international shipping community that the Canal will continue to operate in the 21st century as an efficient public utility. The Panama Canal Commission (PCC) has been reviewing every aspect of Canal operations and governance to see how it can be improved, and in some instances streamlined, to ensure seamless transition and continued smooth operation. Second, it is in the U. S. interest to provide the Panamanian Government the advice and assistance it needs to establish policies which will insulate Canal operations from undue political influence. On May 14, 1997, the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Panama passed a bill to create the Panama Canal Authority (PCA), the successor agency to the Panama Canal Commission (PCC). The Organic Law creates the basic legal framework under which the PCA will operate the Canal after it is returned to Panama on December 31, 1999. The law envisions the adoption of a comprehensive set of regulations to cover operational and administrative matters and would permit the PCA to operate much like a business, with a Board of Directors serving in staggered terms – this will encourage both essential continuity of operation as well as provide a measure of independent operation.
Do you have any recommendations with respect to the presence of U. S. service personnel in Panama after 1999?
Answer: As I am sure you are aware, President Clinton and President Balladeres of Panama, agreed to enter into talks to see if there was mutual interest for a post-1999 presence. Talks are ongoing to establish a Multinational Counterdrug Center (MCC). The MCC as envisioned would be a multi-mission organization which would allow U.S. forces access to accomplish a myriad of responsibilities ranging from search and rescue, disaster relief to counterdrug operations. I recognize that the idea of an MCC is a sensitive and important matter that warrants further negotiation among Panama, Congress, and the Administration.
U.S. Army South, the smallest Major Army Command, is scheduled to move to Puerto Rico after it departs Panama pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977. The move has been delayed pending a review by the Joint Staff. The Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Southern Command believes an Army presence in his Area of Responsibility, which encompasses Latin America and the Caribbean, is important to the success of his mission and the U.S. strategy of engagement in the region.
In reference to the US Army South: What is your opinion of the importance of maintaining an Army "forward presence" in the region?
Answer: Over the past few months, the Department of Defense has re-examined the relocation alternatives of U.S. Army South to ensure all appropriate options have been fully considered. The Army’s response to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was that it could accomplish its Title X force provider responsibilities to USSOUTHCOM from either CONUS or Puerto Rico. Based on strategic theater requirements, OSD decided that the relocation of Headquarters, United States Army South to Puerto Rico would best support our military strategy in the region. The Army will support HQ US Army South with forces deployed temporarily into the region from CONUS. The Army supports the decision of OSD.
If confirmed, you will be entering this important position at a time of concern about the adequacy of the budget, force levels and readiness of our forces.
What background and experience do you have that you believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer: In the twenty years since I graduated from West Point I have served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army and in the U.S. Army Reserve, I have served as a lawyer representing clients in complex financial transactions and have represented Los Angeles County as a litigator in state and federal courts. I have also served as a California state legislator tackling some of my state’s most pressing issues, and I have run a federal entity (the Corporation for National Service) operating in 50 states. I have also earned a law degree from Harvard Law School and a masters in business administration from Harvard Business School. I believe I am qualified on the basis of my education, training and experience as reflected by a record of proven performance in highly demanding positions as an Army officer, lawyer, policy maker and manager. My most important qualification, however, is my absolute commitment to serving our Nation by serving the Army, our soldiers and their families to the best of my abilities, with honor and integrity.
Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Secretary of the Army?
Answer: I will continue to learn everything I can about the Army and the great Nation it serves to be a better Secretary. I believe, like other challenging jobs, there is a steep on-the-job learning curve that no amount of preparation can totally help you master. Having said that, if confirmed, I plan to roll up my sleeves and get to work. I will also look forward to continued feedback from the Congress on ways to better contribute to our national security.
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.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before this Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress?
Do you agree, when asked, to give your personal views, even if those views differ from the Administration in power?
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee, or designated members of this Committee, and provide information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of the Army?
Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and other communications of information are provided to this Committee and its staff and other appropriate Committees?