Myers Confirmation Testimony
[Home] [Stand down] [Myers and Timeline 1] [Myers Confirmation Testimony]

   General Myers Confirmation Hearing
   Senate Armed Services Committee
   U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Holds Hearing On Nomination of General
   Richard Myers to be Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff
   Speaker: U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi), Chairman
   Washington, D.C.

   SEPTEMBER 13, 2001

   LEVIN: Today, in New York City and across the Potomac in Virginia, our
   fellow citizens continue to sift through the ruins two days after the most
   deadly and cowardly attack ever against the United States. The terrorists
   behind this horror sought to destroy more than structures, they sought to
   destroy the American spirit. But those who unleashed this horror now
   understand you have failed. Through our rage at these attacks on our
   people and on our free institutions shines a focused determination to
   recover our loved ones and friends who are still lost, and to assist their
   loved ones in coping with the devastating void into which they have been
   plunged. Our fury at those who attack innocence is matched by our
   determination to protect our citizens from more terror, and by our resolve
   to track down, to root out, and relentlessly pursue the terrorists and
   those who would shelter or harbor them.

   Two nights ago, Senator Warner and I joined Secretary Rumsfeld, General
   Shelton, and General Myers at the Pentagon, and witnessed first-hand that
   determination. Brave men and women were attending to the victims and
   fighting the fires -- all just a few feet away from loved ones and friends
   who were still missing or presumed killed. Many of them have been working
   non-stop ever since the attack. America salutes them as the genuine heroes
   and heroines that they are. And our prayers are with the victims and the
   families and friends who grieve for them.

   For every person who has perpetrated a barbaric act, thousands of
   Americans have engaged in acts of extraordinary courage. Those acts are
   still unfolding, and will unfold in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

   Debate is an inherent part of our democracy. And while our democratic
   institutions are stronger than any terrorist attack, in one regard we
   operate differently in times of national emergency. We set aside our
   differences and we ask decent people everywhere to join forces with us to
   seek out and defeat the common enemy of the civilized world.

   The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, assured
   the nation two nights ago that America's armed forces are ready. General
   Shelton has served in the demanding position of chairman of the Joint
   Chiefs of Staff for the past four years with great distinction. The nation
   and every man and woman who wears our country's uniform owe him a
   tremendous debt of gratitude.

   And now, General Richard Myers is ready to assume the duties that General
   Shelton so magnificently shouldered. The president has nominated General
   Myers to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General
   Shelton's term expires on September 30. This committee must act on General
   Myers nomination, and we will do so.

   The tragic events of the last two days vividly remind us again of the
   importance of this position. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is
   the highest ranking military officer in the United States armed forces,
   and is the principal military adviser to the president, the National
   Security Council, and the secretary of defense.

   General Myers is uniquely well-qualified to serve as the next chairman of
   the Joint Chiefs. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran who knows the dangers
   faced by our men and women in uniform. He has led U.S. forces in Japan and
   in the Pacific with a steady hand. He has served as assistant to the
   chairman and as commander-in-chief, U. S. Space Command. Since February,
   2000, he has served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the nation's
   second-highest ranking military officer, at times acting as chairman in
   General Shelton's absence. General Myers is, I believe, the first vice
   chairman to be nominated as chairman.

   At times when we are reminded almost daily of the dangers to our military
   personnel and the sacrifices of their families, we particularly want to
   welcome General Myers' wife, Mary Jo. Mrs. Myers, we welcome you. We thank
   you for your service to the nation. You, too, will be called upon for
   sacrifice, in addition to the extraordinary sacrifice which you and the
   family have already undertaken. This is no ordinary time. This will be no
   ordinary nomination hearing.

   As vice chairman, General Myers has been personally involved in the rescue
   efforts at the Pentagon and in guiding the United States armed forces
   during these difficult days. He is in a unique position to update the
   committee and the country on the situation, and we have asked him to do

   General Myers, we welcome your testimony on the status of the efforts at
   the Pentagon, the extent of the damage and loss of life, the role that the
   U.S. military forces are playing in support of rescue and relief efforts
   in New York City, and what steps this nation might take to strengthen our
   ongoing efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism.

   General Myers has responded to the committee's pre-hearing policy
   questions and our standard questionnaire. Without objection, these
   responses will be made part of the record. The committee has received the
   required paperwork on General Myers, and will be reviewing that paperwork
   to make sure that it is in accordance with the committee's requirements.

   I just want to make two very brief announcements before I call on Senator
   Warner, and then on our two colleagues who will be introducing General

   First, at the conclusion of our open session, Senator Warner and I have
   determined that we will go into a members-only, classified session in the
   Intelligence Committee Hearing Room, SH 219. General Myers will be there
   with other members from the uniformed staff. Also, Secretary Wolfowitz
   will be joining us at that time.

   Secondly, we are making arrangements for bus transportation -- I want to
   thank Senator Warner for his leadership in this -- for members of the
   committee who would like to go to the Pentagon at approximately 6:30 this
   evening. There are a number of members who have made their own
   arrangements to go over the last couple of days. Senator Warner and I
   fully concurred and thought it would be helpful to arrange for
   transportation for those who might wish to go to the Pentagon at
   approximately that time, 6:30 this evening. We will be back to you as soon
   as possible with details about the precise time and place. It will be
   after our executive session at a place to be determined.

   Senator Warner?

   WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   And I do hope as many members who can will take this opportunity. Just
   moments ago, I left the site and I have been on it twice now.

   WARNER: And General Myers, I want to thank you for taking the time to go
   up there today -- we met at the site together -- and particularly,
   General, that you took the time to recognize the hard- working people
   there, primarily from Virginia and Maryland, the District of Columbia;
   fire, rescue, Red Cross, engineers.

   It's a remarkable scene, I say to my colleagues, and I think no matter how
   many times we viewed this on television, those of you who can avail
   themselves of the opportunity to see not only the site, the work going on,
   but the precise manner in which that plane was directed at the building.

   So Mr. Chairman, I've just received a call from the White House. I am to
   meet with the president at 3:10, so I'm going to put my statement in for
   the record. I thank Mrs. Myers, as the chairman said, for your career
   opportunities, not only for yourself, but for your distinguished husband.
   Without doubt, it's a team effort. So often in the military, fortunately,
   it's a team effort.

   So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to depart. I hope to return in time for
   your executive committee hearing.

   LEVIN: Thank you very much, Senator Warner.

   General Myers has responded to the committee's pre-hearing policy
   questions, our standard questionnaire. Without objection, these responses
   will be made part of the record. The committee has also received, as I
   mentioned, the paperwork on General Myers, and as I indicated we will be
   reviewing that paperwork.

   There are several standard questions that we ask nominees who come before
   the committee, and I will ask General Myers these questions. First, do you
   agree, if confirmed for this position, to appear before this committee and
   other appropriate committees of the Congress and to give your personal
   views, even if those views differ from the administration in power?

   MYERS: Mr. Chairman, yes I do.

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

   MYERS: Yes, I have.

   LEVIN: Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would
   appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process?

   MYERS: No, I haven't.

   LEVIN: Will you ensure that the joint staff complies with deadlines
   established for requested communications, including prepared testimony and
   questions for the record in hearings?

   MYERS: Yes, sir, I will.

   LEVIN: Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response
   to congressional requests?

   MYERS: Yes, sir.

   LEVIN: And will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their

   MYERS: Absolutely.

   LEVIN: At this point, we have two colleagues who both claim General Myers
   as their own, and we understand why -- fully. It's nice to be fought over
   in this way, General. We will first call upon, with the agreement of both
   of our colleagues, Senator Carnahan for the first introduction, and then
   Senator Roberts for the second introduction.

   CARNAHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   America is enduring one of the gravest moments in our history. But as holy
   scripture reminds us, it always gives us hope, and we are minded from the
   book of Esther that there are those who are called to the forefront in
   just such times. Sitting next to me is a military leader for our time.

   He has been tried and proven time and time again. Our country is indeed
   fortunate in this hour of need to have General Richard B. Myers as the
   nominee for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He will inherit a
   post of paramount responsibility, charged with taking on new battles and
   with deploying new weaponry against the current and insidious threats to
   our nation. I believe General Myers is the right man to lead our military
   forces in this endeavor, and I enthusiastically endorse his nomination for
   the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

   It's a great honor to join Senator Roberts in introducing General Myers to
   this committee. Kansas and Missouri have long disputed claims to
   territory, as well as collegiate sports titles. Well, today we added to
   the historic rivalry between our states. We have a disputed claim over
   just which state should claim the nominee for the highest military post in
   the land.

   But I believe that we can agree on one thing. General Myers would make an
   excellent chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His extensive leadership
   in space-based defense, U.S.-Asia policy and defense acquisition make him
   an ideal candidate to oversee the military's transformation of the 21st

   He is a decorated command pilot, with more than 4,000 hours in the
   cockpit, including 600 as a fighter pilot in Vietnam. General Myers has
   been awarded the distinguished flying cross twice, and 19 air medals. He
   has served with distinction as commander-in-chief of U.S. Space Command
   and commander of the Pacific air forces. And for the last two years, he
   has served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the vice-chair, leading on the
   Joint Requirements Oversights Council and Defense Acquisition Board.

   But above all, General Myers has emerged as a powerful voice for America's
   service men and women. As the highest ranking officer in the United States
   military, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must promote the
   quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. I have no
   doubt that General Myers will be a strong advocate for men and women in
   uniform, both active and reserve components. As a distinguished warrior
   himself, he can relate to the rigors and sacrifices endured by our service
   men and women today.

   Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee to recognize the extraordinary
   credentials of this nominee with a favorable reporting to the United
   States Senate.

   LEVIN: Senator Carnahan, we thank you for that strong endorsement.

   Senator Roberts?

   ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner, my dear friends and colleagues,
   it is both an honor and a privilege for me to introduce to the Senate
   Committee on Armed Services General Richard B. Myers as the nominee to be
   the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

   But first, like our distinguished chairman, let me offer my prayers, my
   thoughts to the families of the Americans that lost their lives in regard
   to the attack on the United States -- an attack not only on them, our
   country, but American democracy and freedom. This will not stand.

   I wish to associate myself with the outstanding remarks from my colleague
   and friend from Missouri, Senator Carnahan. I would like to revise and
   extend just a portion, however.

   General Myers was born in St. Luke's Hospital. That's a fine hospital just
   across the Kansas border. However, just as soon as he was ambulatory, he
   was rescued...


   ... and taken back to Kansas to a community called Marion where he has
   lived ever since.

   ROBERTS: General Myers is not only a Kansan, but as President John
   Wiethald (ph) of Kansas State University will point out, just as important
   he is a graduate of Kansas State University, the home of the
   ever-optimistic and fighting Wildcats...


   ... now rated number 10 in the football polls.

   Along with his wife Mary Jo (ph), who is a K. State graduate and a
   resident of Manhattan, Kansas, America -- what we call the "Little Apple,"
   she is an English major, and I have been informed that Mary Jo has spent
   the last couple of days staffing the phones at the Army Family Service
   Center. Well done, Mary Jo, and thank you so very much.

   Please understand, as important as being a fighting Wildcat, that it is an
   honor for me to present a man I feel is exceptionally qualified to prepare
   and lead our military as we deal with emerging threats, so tragically
   portrayed on the 11th of September. We must understand the nature of the
   warrior class that makes up these state- sponsored or rogue groups that
   are capable of perpetrating the attack the United States suffered as of
   Tuesday. Make no mistake about it.

   Although the possibility of the classic force-on-force military conflict
   must be part of our military's capability, we must also be prepared to
   realign our military strength to address the asymmetric in warfare
   demonstrated so graphically Tuesday. I am confident that General Myers
   understands these issues and is certainly ready for them.

   I believe that the General has shown that he has a grasp of the
   requirement for military transformation. I am confident that the events of
   the past few days will affect the direction of the amount of
   transformation our military must undergo under his leadership. Part of the
   equation for transformation is the supporting role the United States
   military must play in handling the consequences of an act of terrorism.

   Againk, the events of this week point out the value of the role played by
   our military, our active duty forces, our guard and our reserve. But the
   military must have this as a mission and be prepared and be trained to

   Now, I'm not going to reac the impressive military background of the
   General, but only add that he is clearly well qualified to lead our
   military in this new age that burst in vivid reality on our doorstep on
   the 11th, and I uge my colleagues to support General Myers for this most
   important post. It again is a privilege and honor to recommend him to you.

   I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

   To use the football analogy a little further in the competition here to
   introduce you, it's a tie between Missouri and Kansas.


   They both won. They both won, and they're both winners indeed.

   General Myers, do you have an opening statement for us?

   MYERS: Mr. Chairman, I do have a short opening statement.

   Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
   opportunity to appear before you today. I especially want to thank Senator
   Carnahan of Missouri, my birthplace, for your very kind words. And I
   sincerely appreciate your remarks, Senator Roberts, both because you're a
   fellow man of the plains and a K. Stater, but more appropriately today
   because of your recent chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Emerging
   Threats. You've been part of a great team at the leading edge of our
   efforts to address the challenge of asymmetric warfare, and for that we're
   all in you debt.

   Two days ago, our nation sufferred a sudden, horrific attack by
   terrorists. They attacked two symbols of our national power -- one
   economic and one military -- but not the heart of that power. The heart of
   America's strength is found not in its symbols, but in its people -- 270
   million determined citizens.

   And similarly, the heart of American military power is not a symbol called
   the Pentagon. The heart of that power resides in every soldier, sailor,
   airman, marine, coast guardsman sworn to defend our Constitution and the
   American way of life.

   These despicable acts have awakened a national resolve in the American
   people and its armed forces that rivals any scene since Pearl Harbor.
   Today, due in large measure to the outstanding support of the members
   sitting before me, America's military is trained, ready and extremely
   capable of responding to the president's clarion call.

   If confirmed, I pledge to keep our armed forces at that razor's edge,
   first and foremost by sustaining our quality force and taking care of the
   heart of our military, our people. They are our decisive edge. We've made
   great strides in recent years under the oustanding leadership of General
   Hugh Shelton, but we've got to continue the momentum to improve their
   quality of life. Hugh Shelton was key in getting us this far, and of
   course with your assistance, we can take it to the next level.

   MYERS: I will also work tirelessly with our service chiefs and CINCs to
   ensure that our troops continue to receive the training, equipment and
   support they need to carry out the wide range of missions that we've
   assigned to them. And finally, my third priority will be preparing our
   military for the security challenges of the future, modernizing and
   transforming the force with new, joint capabilities, even as we face the
   threats of today.

   Members of the committee, if confirmed, I look forward to your wise
   counsel in a bipartisan spirit, as we work together to address today's
   issues and tomorrow's challenges. I join you in honoring those of our
   citizens, military and civilian, who were injured or died in these recent
   attacks. Our hearts go out to all who have lost loved ones in this
   terrible tragedy. And we will never forget them.

   So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions in a minute.
   But first, with your permission, I'd like to talk two issues: the status
   of the Pentagon and the civil support measures that we've taken, by the
   armed forces, in providing support in New York and Washington, D.C.

   LEVIN: Please.

   MYERS: First of all, I think as some of you know that have been to the
   Pentagon, that the fire is out, that there are some areas that are
   water-damaged. And we're starting to clean those up and to move back into

   It will leave about a whole wedge of the Pentagon, maybe not quite a
   wedge, but almost a wedge of the Pentagon that will need to be rebuilt. So
   they're in the process right now of recovering the remains, of determining
   the stability of the structure where the airplane hit and already planning
   to rebuild that structure.

   I was with Senator Cleland when this happened and went back to the
   Pentagon. And they were evacuating, of course, the Pentagon at the time.
   And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's
   essentially my battle station when things are happening.

   And it proved to be as resilient as our people did and have throughout
   this crisis. And that's where we stayed.

   The air got a little acrid at times. The air filtration system shut down
   for moments. But we got it back up and were able to stay there throughout
   the whole effort.

   In terms of military support in New York and Washington, D.C., for the
   Pentagon, that support, some of you have seen it, but it's from the
   soldiers and sailors and airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen from this
   area and the local authorities. And there were many first responders.

   I can't catalogue all the names on all the sides of all the ambulances and
   fire trucks that responded, but they were from all over the District, from
   Virginia and from Maryland. And they all pitched in and did exactly what
   they had to do.

   In New York, the Department of Defense active duty and reserve component,
   the Guard and Reserve, have supported every request from FEMA. And to my
   knowledge, there may be some outstanding requests, but we are fulfilling
   those requests. We fulfilled all the ones that I know of, or in the
   process of, maybe a few that we haven't quite responded to yet because of
   just the time it takes to move the assets.

   They mainly fall in the logistics area and in the medical area and in
   transportation. And we're doing that.

   There has also been, as you are probably aware, quite a bit of activity by
   the North American Aerospace Defense Command in the skies over this great
   country. And of course, the Coast Guard has taken special measures
   regarding our ports and waterways and our coastline.

   With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to take your questions.

   LEVIN: Thank you very much, general.

   We will now proceed on the basis of the early bird rule, with a first
   round of six minutes each. I understand that approximately 20,000 people
   work at the Pentagon, perhaps a few more, that there were 132 killed at
   the Pentagon, 64 on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

   Can you tell us about what percent of the Pentagon's work space is out of
   commission? Do you have any estimate of that?

   MYERS: I don't know the exact square footage, sir.

   LEVIN: Approximately a percentage of the space -- would it be 20 percent?

   MYERS: I would say it's roughly 20 percent or less. And as I said, there
   are some areas that are water-damaged. The desk and the chairs are fine.
   And they'll be moving back into those. But it's going to be, like I said,
   about a wedge, so about roughly 20 percent of the square footage.

   LEVIN: General, in your personal view, are there capabilities or equipment
   that the armed forces need today to respond to the terrorist attacks that
   they do not currently have? Or are they able to respond today, should that
   decision be made, to those attacks?

   MYERS: Sir, I think we are able to respond today. Of course, there are
   always ways to enhance our capabilities. And I think you will see, in a
   supplemental that is either here or heading this way, what some of those
   capabilities will be.

   I'm happy to go into that if you want. Some of them will be in the
   intelligence area, of course. Some will be in command and control. And
   there will be some in the force protection arena.

   There will be others, of course. But let me just reiterate. We have what
   we need today to do what we need to do.

   LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any
   other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World
   Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

   MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for
   you, for the record.

   LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take -- or was the Defense
   Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft?

   MYERS: Sir, we were . . .

   LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there has been
   statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down.
   Those stories continue to exist.

   MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft.
   When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter
   aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish
   orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were
   hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

   LEVIN: Was that order that you just described given before or after the
   Pentagon was struck? Do you know?

   MYERS: That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was

   LEVIN: General Myers, you have agreed to give us your personal views, even
   when they might disagree with the administration in power. But the
   secretary was quoted in a July article as saying that his choice for
   chairman would have to possess candor and forthrightness, of course -- he
   said -- but he wanted this willingness to disagree to show up only in very
   direct, private counsel.

   Now, have you been told that your willingness to disagree should show up
   only in private counsel? Or are you committed to give us your personal
   views when asked, even if those views might differ with that of the

   MYERS: Sir, I've never been told to limit my views to private. And as I
   said earlier, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.

   LEVIN: Thank you. General, you indicated in response to one of the
   committee's pre- hearing policy questions, as to what your priorities
   would be if confirmed, that one of your priorities would be to better
   define the military's role in homeland security. I'm wondering if you
   could tell us what your concerns are in this area and what role you
   believe the military should play.

   MYERS: Mr. Chairman, that issue was debated in our quadrennial defense
   review. And it's still being debated. I think this current tragedy puts
   that issue center stage.

   As the commander-in-chief of North American Aerospace Defense Command, as
   well as U.S. Space Command, we had plans to deploy our fighters to defend
   from external threats. I never thought we'd see what we saw the last few
   days, where we had fighters over our cities, defending against a threat
   that originated inside the United States of America.

   So I think this whole issue of homeland defense or homeland security needs
   a lot more thought. There is a role, obviously, for the Department of
   Defense. What that role is, I'm not confident I know that answer today.
   But I just know that the debate needs to take place now.

   We've had other issues that we have worked in seminar games, if you will,
   or exercises, where we've looked at other incidents of weapons of mass
   destruction. And what we found in some of those is that local authorities
   are often quickly overcome by the situation. And there is going to be
   reliance, I believe, on some of the capabilities that we have inside the

   So we need to sort through those issues. To tell you exactly what our role
   ought to be, I don't know for sure. I just think we need to think through
   that, so the next time we have a terrible tragedy, that we are ready to
   act in a unified way and a focused way.

   That is not to say that we haven't done that in this crisis. I think we
   have come together very, very well. But it certainly raises those
   questions, Mr. Chairman.

   LEVIN: Thank you very much.

   Senator Inhofe?

   INHOFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   First of all, in spite of what my distinguished friends and senators from
   Missouri and Kansas, it's always been recognized that a military man's
   life begins at his first training, which was Vance Air Force Base. So I'll
   look forward to voting to confirm my fellow Oklahoman.


   MYERS: Thank you, senator.

   INHOFE: There is one question that I'm going to ask, just for the record,
   because I don't think there's an answer today, but it's one I'd like to
   have you giving some thought to, and that is the idea of depots. I think
   we recognize that we need a corps capability in public depots.

   We've gone through a BRAC round where we eliminated two of the five and
   transferred the workloads, which was the appropriate thing to do. However,
   we're using antiquated, World War II plants, buildings, maintenance
   operations. And for the record, at a later date, if you would submit
   something, like your ideas as to where they should fit in and how we can
   modernize them, I'd appreciate it.

   MYERS: Will do, senator.

   INHOFE: All right, sir.

   As having chaired the Readiness Committee for a number of years, I'm
   concerned there's a lot of problems that are readiness problems. One if
   encroachment, everything from the environmental constraints to training
   ranges, the urban sprawl -- of course, at Nellis, you experienced that and
   that's still a problem out there -- air space restrictions, loss of
   frequency spectrum. These are all very, very serious problems.

   Recently, we've been concerned with the Vieques range, which of course is
   Navy and Marine. However, if we, for the first time in our nation's
   history, were allowed to -- would allow some lawbreaking trespassers to
   close down a live range, it would have a domino effect throughout not just
   America, but throughout the world.

   So I'd like to have you kind of address, in general, the encroachment
   problems as you see them and what possible solutions are out there.

   MYERS: Senator Inhofe, an excellent question because it's at the heart of
   our readiness. Our training facilities and our training ranges are
   absolutely essential to staying ready to discharge the missions that this
   country wants us to perform. And encroachment is a problem.

   It's been a problem for a long, long time. What I would like to say is
   that the department has, in the last year, really focused on this issue
   and is trying to work it with, again, a unity of effort, led by the OSD
   staff and with the support of the individual services and the joint staff.

   I think that's going to help mitigate the effects that we're having right
   now. I think this will be something that we're going to have to deal with
   for an awfully long time to come, as we develop new weapons systems, as
   they require more space or different support facilities.

   As we try to pursue that, we're going to have to find that right balance
   between our readiness and the environment and the people that we have an
   impact on. Technology could play a part in that. And I think we are taking
   steps to ensure that it does.

   I would just like to leave you with a thought that the department is very
   focused on this particular issue right now. And I think we'll be
   successful, just through . . .

   INHOFE: Yeah, I know that's right. And one of the dilemmas -- let's just
   take one of the southeastern ground bases like Camp Lejeune or Fort Bragg,
   where their training areas are interrupted by the suspected habitat of the
   red-cockaded woodpecker. And the better job they do, the more that
   expected habitat is expanded.

   So they're being punished for the job that they're doing. This is
   something that I think you need to look at because it's happening
   throughout the southeast part of the United States.

   MYERS: And we will, senator.

   INHOFE: All right. Good. And then the general readiness question is the
   deficiencies that were discussed by the CINCs in this very room when we
   had them in here. I think the cost, I don't remember the exact cost, but
   the spare parts, lack of ammunition, shortage of flying hours and all
   these, these are just general readiness issues.

   You know, it's one of these situations where it's all bleeding. It's all
   hemorrhaging. And I know it's -- you're putting yourself in a situation
   where you're going to have to try to make some priorities. But do you have
   any thoughts about what you can do on these general problems of readiness
   out there?

   MYERS: Yes, sir, Senator Inhofe.

   MYERS: We have, as you know well, having just marked up the president's
   '02 budget, the majority of the increase in that budget was for just those
   things: for flying hours, for driving time for the Army, for steaming time
   for the Navy, for the spare parts to keep the whole military machine
   healthy and to try to do so in a way that wouldn't require coming back to
   the Congress for a supplemental.

   And so I think the efforts over the last several years, some of which are,
   again, just starting to pay dividends because of lead time. And certainly
   with the '02 or the '01 supplemental and the '02 budget, I think we've
   taken steps to ameliorate some of those shortfalls.

   Go ahead, senator.

   INHOFE: And I was going to mention one other thing. I know my time is
   running out, but one last question having to do with modernization.

   I was pleased when General Jumper made a statement some time ago -- about
   a year ago now, I guess it was -- that gave us an opportunity to have some
   credibility when we talked about the fact that we have not -- we have
   slipped a lot in our modernization programs. Most Americans may disagree
   with the causes of wars or with some of the problems that we have, but
   they all have been laboring under, I think, this misconception that we
   have the very best of everything out there.

   And we don't have the very best anymore. Our best air-to-air vehicle, the
   F-15, air-to-ground vehicle, the F-16, in many ways, the SU series that's
   on the open market, manufactured by the Russians, are better than that
   what we have.

   So I'm sure that that's one of your top priorities. And if you have any
   comments to make about your ideas on modernization, maybe specifically the

   MYERS: Senator Inhofe, modernization is a huge issue. And when it comes to
   tactical air, the dilemma we're in -- and I think this is true for the Air
   Force for sure, for the Navy to a little lesser degree, for Marine Corps
   for sure. And I don't mean, it's just in degrees here.

   But these procurements go in cycles over time. And for most of this
   decade, we have not bought a lot of tactical air.

   So what our tactical air assets have done have just continued to age. And
   I would agree with your comments. We are not always flying the best
   fighters in the world anymore.

   In terms of the F-22, I think it's absolutely essential. The secretary of
   defense has authorized entry into low-rate production. And that decision
   should be made here through OMB very, very quickly. I can go into more
   detail if you want.

   INHOFE: That's fine, general.

   And my time has expired. But I'd also want you to look at other services;
   for example, our artillery capability, our rapid-fire, our ranges. The
   Paladin that we're using now is not as good as almost any country that
   could be a potential adversary.

   MYERS: Senator, I absolutely agree.

   And though I sit here in front of you in a blue uniform of the United
   States Air Force, my whole focus is going to be on what the contribution
   is of systems to the joint warfighting equation. And that's it.

   So that naturally takes me into every service's modernization programs
   and, for that matter, other concepts that they may have and doctrinal
   changes. That's all important to me.

   INHOFE: Thank you.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Inhofe.

   Senator Akaka.

   AKAKA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

   We've heard many good statements on General Myers. I would like to express
   my welcome and support for the nomination of General Richard E. Myers to
   serve as the chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I also want to
   welcome Mrs. Myers to this hearing as well.

   I had the pleasure of first meeting General Myers when he served as the
   commander of the Pacific Air Forces, PACAF, from 1997 to 1998 at Hickam in
   Hawaii. And while he was there, he made a big difference in the Pacific.

   I also want to thank General Myers for taking the time to visit with me
   last week to discuss a number of issues. And some of the questions I would
   have asked here, we did discuss it in your visit. And so I will ask you
   other questions.

   But I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, I have full confidence in General
   Myers' ability to serve in this critical position. And I look forward to
   working with you, General Myers.

   MYERS: Thank you, senator.

   AKAKA: Of course, I'm very interested about what will be happening to
   Hawaii and what changes may come. My question is about the Asian Theater

   How will U.S. forces be altered to focus on potential Asian Theater
   threats, as identified by Secretary Rumsfeld? And how might this affect
   force posture in Hawaii?

   MYERS: Senator Akaka, that is the subject of two things. One is the
   quadrennial defense review, which is ongoing and the defense planning
   guidance, which ask the services to look at several posture options around
   the world, to include the Pacific, the Asia-Pacific region.

   Some of those do-outs won't come back until next spring, when the services
   will come back with some of their ideas on perhaps a more efficient
   posture for their forces. And some of it will come out of the review, of
   course, as well. So it's a little bit premature because we have not
   finished those reviews.

   Again, it's going to be trying to balance our obligations around the globe
   and the missions that we're given. Clearly, the emphasis on Asia-Pacific
   is the one the secretary has set for us and one that we embrace. And we're
   looking at exactly those questions. I think it's just a little bit early
   to give you specifics on that, sir.

   AKAKA: General -- and this will be my final question, I want to be brief
   -- what are the first measures that need to be taken for military
   transformation, in your opinion?

   MYERS: Well, transformation, we could talk a long time about
   transformation. Let me just talk about one aspect of it, I think, that
   gets perhaps to your question. And it goes back to ensuring that, inside
   the Department of Defense, we have unity of effort for transforming --
   and, for that matter, modernizing -- our forces.

   Part of that includes guidance from the office of the secretary of defense
   and the staff. Part of that includes work that the services will do. Part
   of that includes development of joint operational concepts and
   architectures that must lead, development of material, items that might
   enhance our joint -- or our transformation.

   And of course, there is a major part that resides at Joint Forces Command
   down in Norfolk because they've got the role of experimentation, which you
   would think would led our transformation efforts. And it's trying to focus
   those efforts between all those pieces: the acquisition community, the
   requirements community and the programming and budgeting process.

   We've got to bring all that together to encourage and to help our
   transformation. The secretary of defense has -- very rightly, I think --
   focused in on our programming and budgeting system as being a product of
   the Cold War and is looking to make changes in it to make it more
   responsive to our transformation needs.

   So if I were to talk about it, I would talk about the process first and
   the products later.

   AKAKA: Thank you very much for your responses.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Akaka.

   Senator Smith.

   SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   Mr. Chairman, is your intention to go one round and then go into executive

   LEVIN: It's going to depend on how long the round takes, I think. But
   there also may be a delay on the executive session. Senator Warner and I
   need to go now to meet with the leadership at 4:30. And that could affect

   We may have to have an interim period of some time, which would hopefully
   last no more than 15 or 20 minutes. So there's a little bit of uncertainty
   now about when that will begin. I've just been informed. However, I would
   say we'd hope to do it in one round, but perhaps if there are some
   questions which we simply need to ask, we would have a very short second
   round, would be my hope.

   SMITH: Thank you.

   General Myers, congratulations on the honor of being selected as chairman.
   It is amazing, really, to think that what normally is just a perfunctory
   service, if you will, of the committee to bring the nominees in, whether
   it's the chairman or other positions on the joint chiefs, it's usually
   become just a few questions and answers and then move forward with your
   nomination, now takes on huge implications.

   And I just want you to know, speaking for myself and I know I speak for
   others, we have great confidence in your and the job that you're going to
   have to face. And just want to let you know we're with you and look
   forward to doing the nation's business.

   MYERS: Thank you, senator.

   SMITH: I just have -- it's hard to stay out of what happened, but I do
   have a couple of questions that I want to ask in classified session. But I
   want to ask you one that got some publicity, to see if you can answer it
   here. If you can't, then fine. Say so and we'll do it in executive,
   classified session.

   But there were some reports that there were some international flights
   headed here during this episode. That is not unreasonable, to think
   international flights might be coming here. But I mean that may have been
   turned around abruptly after things developed.

   Is there any truth to the accusation that there may have been some
   international flights involved with this activity? Do we have any
   information on that?

   MYERS: I do not have complete information because at the time it happened
   -- I can give you there was one flight inbound to the U.S. that had turned
   on its transponder and indicated a code that it was being hijacked. Before
   it got to Alaska, we had fighter aircraft on it. It eventually landed in a
   remote base in Canada.

   And the problem is, I do not know -- and they were safe. And I don't know
   the results of that, whether it was a mistaken switch setting or what it
   was. I can't tell you that.

   We can find that answer for you, senator.

   SMITH: The plane was not hijacked? It just landed.

   MYERS: Well, we don't know. I'd better say I don't know because we had
   other things to do at that time. And once it was safely on the ground and
   the passengers were safe, we went on to the next order of business.

   That was in the middle of all this. We had reports of other aircraft, one
   other aircraft that I'm aware of. And the reports were somewhat mixed and
   I don't think were true because it was turned around by the operating
   company and went back to Europe on its own and was fine.

   So the only one I know of that even comes close is the one I mentioned.
   And I don't know if that was a hijack attempt or some other kind of duress
   that the airplane was under.

   SMITH: Do we know the country of origin?

   MYERS: Not for sure.

   SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have some other . . .

   MYERS: I can tell you in closed session what I do know.

   SMITH: I'll wait for that.

   I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to submit those
   for the record because they don't relate to the current environment and
   I'll yield back the remainder of my time.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Smith, very much.

   Senator Carnahan?

   CARNAHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   General Myers, I understand that you've had extensive experience in
   planning for combating cyber attacks. I was wondering if you would
   describe your work in this emerging field and elaborate on your plans to
   build off of these experiences?

   MYERS: Well, where I first ran into the responsibility was when I was at
   U.S. Space Command. And about a month after I arrived, after I was
   confirmed by the committee and I arrived for duty, the president and the
   secretary of defense decided that the responsibility for defense of the
   DOD networks would fall to U.S. Space Command and then, a year later, that
   U.S. Space Command would have the responsibility for attack.

   By the way, I didn't get a vote in this. This was a responsibility that
   was issued.

   We had to learn very quickly on how to go about these responsibilities.
   Since then, we have come a very, very long way. And General Eberhart, who
   now serves at U.S. Space Command, has really taken this to the next level.

   Here in Washington, D.C., we have a joint task force for computer network
   operations. It does its job through coordination with all the services, of
   course, and other agencies. There is great cooperation with our civilian
   telecom folks. And there is also great cooperation with the FBI and other
   civil authorities who have a role in all this.

   The thing I would like to leave you with is it's not unlike the earlier
   question about homeland defense or homeland security. Certainly, when
   you're under attack in a cyber way, fairly quickly you have to determine:
   is this an attack on the United States by another nation or another group
   that wants to do you harm? Is it a prankster?

   So it essentially comes down to: is this a civil matter? Or is this a
   national defense or a national security matter? And we have mechanisms for
   deciding that. But I think that's another area, along with the whole
   homeland defense issue, that needs a lot more thought.

   I would just end by saying that the mechanisms set up for cyber security
   for the Department of Defense have been very effective. And the recent
   viruses that have spread throughout the country have had essentially no
   impact on our operation.

   CARNAHAN: The Emerging Threats Subcommittee has been involved in examining
   the National Guard's role in managing the aftereffects of a nuclear or
   chemical or biological attack. For example, we are continuing to help
   develop the weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. And these
   teams, some of them are being trained in Army facilities around the
   country, including Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri.

   And they are being trained to work with some of the emergency first
   responders to decontaminate areas and to help with medical aid. I was
   wondering if you would describe what you feel the importance of these are
   and detail your commitment to honing our abilities to respond to such

   MYERS: Senator Carnahan, absolutely. I think they're just extremely

   This is an area where the National Guard, I think, can play a key role. I
   think they're ideally suited for this type of mission because it's one
   they can train for. And, God forbid, we'll never have to use them. But if
   we do, they'll be ready. They'll be trained.

   I think those missions are perhaps more natural for the National Guard
   than some of the current missions. So that's one of the things we have to
   look at, as we look at the overall issue of homeland defense, is the role
   of the reserve component, primarily the National Guard and how they would
   play in this.

   I think it's extremely important. I think the National Guard's role is
   only going to increase.

   CARNAHAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   LEVIN: Thank you very much, Senator Carnahan.

   Let me apologize to my colleagues. I had the wrong list in front of me, in
   terms of the order of calling on senators. And as a result, there were
   people called out of order on both sides already.

   And now I have the alleged correct order. And let me now read it because
   there has been some confusion on this. The next senator on the Democratic
   side would be the senator who I should have called on first.

   Senator Cleland. I apologize to you.

   And then, it would go to Senator Roberts, back to Senator Reed, back to
   Senator Allard. Senator Akaka, who I wasn't supposed to call on until way
   later, got called early. So I would then go back to Senator Nelson, then
   to Senator Collins and then to Senator Lieberman, who is no longer here.

   But Senator Carnahan, apparently you got called early, so you got -- I
   don't know how that can happen when you introduced our nominee. But
   nonetheless, if I haven't totally confused you by now, that's the new
   order of calling on senators. And I apologize.

   (UNKNOWN): What about the rest?

   LEVIN: Oh, the rest? Let me finish the list, in that case. After Senator
   Lieberman, on this side, will be Senator Bunning, then Senator Ben Nelson,
   Senator McCain, Senator Landrieu, Senator Hutchinson, Senator Dayton,
   Senator Sessions.

   (UNKNOWN): About midnight?

   LEVIN: No, we're going to try to do that by -- multiply six times about 15
   and you got it. So we just called -- Senator Carnahan was there.

   So now, it's Senator Roberts.

   ROBERTS: I thank the chairman.

   In August, general, General Shelton sent an action memo requesting
   permission for -- I'm quoting -- "transfer of antiterrorism force
   protection" -- the acronym, everything has to be an acronym, ATFP,
   "functions to the assistant secretary of defense for special operations
   and low-intensity conflicts." That's a long one, ASD SOLIC.

   And he stated, in that action memo, that ATFP is not a statutory function
   of the JCS and is more appropriately the shared responsibility of OSD, the
   CINCs and the services. Now, I was prepared to address this issue before
   the 11 September tragedy. But I must tell you I am not -- not --
   supportive of the JCS not being involved in antiterrorism force

   I do agree that OSD and the CINCs and the services must be involved as
   well. It's their responsibility, but so must the JCS. This is too big of
   an issue not to have the leadership, I think, that your office can bring.

   Would you give your views on General Shelton's request? And can you shed
   some light on this decision?

   MYERS: Senator Roberts, to my knowledge, that was a recommendation to the
   secretary of defense. And again, to my knowledge, I don't believe we have
   a decision on it yet.

   On General Shelton's thoughts behind this, was basically unity of effort.
   The services and the unified commanders are the ones that are responsible
   for force protection. The role that this office and the joint staff played
   and the role of the office of the secretary of defense are staff functions
   to disseminate policy, work the resources and so forth.

   The idea was, if you're looking for redundancy, maybe this is a place you
   could look and that, from a staff function, not from any other shirking of
   responsibility, but from a staff function, who should have that
   responsibility? And that was the chairman's thoughts at the time.

   It was to eliminate some redundancy, is what he was thinking.

   ROBERTS: We're going to have to talk about that later. I won't go into it
   right now.

   But I have another question. It may be somewhat redundant, in regards to a
   question that was asked previously.

   Last November, the GAO reported that the services were not integrating
   their chemical and biological defense into unit exercises and that the
   training, if done, was not always realistic, in terms of how units would
   operate in war. Similarly, the DOD reported last year that the Army's
   combat training centers continue to see units at all levels unable to
   perform all chemical and biological defense tasks to standard.

   The DOD report, like the recent GAO report, noted that less than
   satisfactory performance of the units is directly attributable to the lack
   of a chemical and biological training at the unit's home installations.
   What is your assessment of that?

   Let me say, however, that if you had asked me and Mary Landrieu, the
   distinguished chairman of emerging threats, what we would have expected on
   11 November, if in fact we knew there was going to be an attack, we would
   have probably said a biological weaponry of some kind, perhaps chemical,
   perhaps a cyber attack. I don't think any of us would have come up with a
   top 10 saying that terrorists would hijack four airplanes, kill the crew,
   endanger and kill the passengers and then attack American icon

   But having said that, there is a very realistic possibility in regards to
   chemical and biological defense. I am worried about it. What comments do
   you have?

   MYERS: Senator Roberts, I am worried about it as well. And I agree with
   your threat assessment. I think that we know that is a real threat to our
   forces deployed around the world and, perhaps from terrorism, in the
   United States.

   So we've got to be ready. Now, this is interesting because when I got to
   the Pacific in the early '90s, we decided this was not a big threat. And
   we started to tear down some of our infrastructure that supported it.

   I know this is true in the United States Air Force because I had an Air
   Force hat on at that time. And then we were told no, as we looked at the
   threat, this was the wrong direction. So we've tried to get that ship
   turned in a different direction.

   I think we're in that process. And we've got to be just as ready for that
   kind of threat as we are for the more conventional threat.

   So I agree with your comments. And it's one of the things that, if I'm
   confirmed, that I'll take a hard look at.

   ROBERTS: Are the deployed units falling short of standards for
   chemical-bio defense capabilities set by joint doctrine?

   MYERS: Sir, I'll have to get back to you on that. That's not one of the
   things that has come up in the readiness reporting that I review monthly.
   So I'll have to get back to you on that, sir.

   ROBERTS: I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

   Senator Cleland?

   CLELAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

   I just want to thank Senator Roberts and Senator Landrieu for, over the
   last couple of years, making this senator more and more painfully aware of
   the unconventional threats to our country, which manifested themselves on

   General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you
   and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us
   meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our
   visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at
   the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about
   that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

   MYERS: Yes, sir.

   CLELAND: So, it's good to see you.

   MYERS: Good to see you, senator.

   CLELAND: I'm glad to be here with you. In thinking of this moment in
   American history, I think no new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has
   ever taken over in such a perilous time, maybe with the exception of some
   officers who took over in December 1941, when we didn't have a joint
   chiefs of staff.

   But you take over at a perilous moment, a historic moment, but one filled
   with opportunity. Our wonderful chaplain, Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie (ph), says
   that sometimes life can be awfully simple or simply awful. Tuesday, it was
   simply awful, as we all know.

   One of the things that it seems to me, though, is that some things came
   out of that that are awfully simple and that is: number one, we need to
   boost our intelligence capability; two, we need to make sure that so much
   of our assets, more of our assets, are put forward toward
   counter-terrorism activity; and three, that the United States American
   military has to be an integral part of this and that cyber-terrorism is a
   part of this in the future. These are findings that have been brought
   before the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and before this committee in
   the last couple of years, that we needed to be more prepared in these

   And so, with Tuesday's events, for me it's awfully simple: that this is
   where we've got to beef up. It is amazing that we spend well over $300
   billion a year on defense and yet, Tuesday, we seemed very much

   So I just wondered what lessons, over the last 72 hours, you have quickly
   learned that are awfully simple to you that you can share with this

   MYERS: Well, I think you've hit on some of them. And as I mentioned
   earlier, one of the first things we need to do -- and this will take some
   thought because it's not without differing views on the issue -- and that
   is what is the department's role in this type of activity inside the
   United States?

   Overseas, it's a little easier to envision. Inside this great country,
   it's a little bit more difficult.

   So what is our role? What is our mission and so forth? And so that's the
   homeland defense issue. And we need to get about that business of coming
   to grips with that and how all the agencies of this government collaborate
   and cooperate to bring focus to the problem.

   I would also, on the intelligence side, say that obviously that's a lesson

   As you know, Senator Cleland, there is a major review of our intel
   apparatus going on right now. And I think it goes without saying that our
   intelligence operations are structured as they were during the Cold War.
   They're looking at that.

   And my guess is they'll have substantial changes to the way we're perhaps
   organized and, for sure, equipped to deal with the 21st century. And
   you'll see some of that in the supplemental that is coming this way.

   Another issue that came to my mind that maybe others haven't thought of is
   the absolute essential nature of our communications. And they worked fine
   in this crisis. But you could envision other scenarios, other asymmetric
   attacks on the United States, where maybe our communications wouldn't work
   so well.

   And we spend a lot of money for secure, survivable communications. And we
   have a program to do that over time. It's got some funding problems right

   But if it drove something home to me, is the need to fund that properly
   and to make sure -- and I'm not saying this incident would trigger
   something like that, but you could have incidents you could think where
   you might not have the comms (ph) you need to have with the country's
   leadership to make the kind of decisions you need to make. And so I would
   add that one to your list.

   CLELAND: One of the other things that seems awfully simple to me is that
   Senator Roberts and I took the floor to a relatively empty Senate last
   year and five or six different times talked about the role of America in
   the wake of the Cold War being over and that, in many ways, we were
   hyperextended. We were overextended. Our forces were spread thing.

   And I personally, like you and others in this body here, have been to see
   where we have spent $300 million in defending, with Camp Bonnestille (ph),
   Kosovo; where throughout the continent of Europe; where last August I was
   up on the DNZ; where we've got 37,000 troops in Korea. For this
   hyperextension of American power, all around the globe, it does seem
   ironic to me that we can't defend New York and Washington.

   I mean, so some things were simply awful on Tuesday. But I think out of
   that come some things that, to me, are awfully simple. And that these are
   the priorities we ought to focus on.

   Thank you very much for your service and God bless you.

   MYERS: Thank you.

   CLELAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Cleland.

   Senator Allard.

   ALLARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   I'd like to join my colleagues in congratulating you, General Myers, on a
   very successful career, part of which was in the state of Colorado, as
   commander of U.S. Space Command. And I felt like we had a great working
   relationship there. And I want to ask you some questions on missile
   defense and then maybe a question or two on the Space Commission report,
   if I have time.

   On missile defense, in your advance questions to the committee, you
   thought that it would be reasonable to deploy a ballistic missile defense
   if it met four criteria relating to deployment and threat, cost
   effectiveness and operational capability. You also stated in your answers
   that you believe that deploying a ballistic missile defense to defend the
   United States from a limited attack was in the national security interest.

   And so I have four questions related to that. Have you concluded that the
   ballistic missile threat warrants such a deployment?

   MYERS: Sir, my conclusion is that it has. And if I can expand just a

   ALLARD: Yes.

   MYERS: We've had, for quite some time now, the threat of the shorter-range
   missiles against our troops. And we saw that starkly in Desert Storm when
   the so-called Scud missile went into Dhahran and killed over 20 of our
   U.S. personnel.

   Since that time, the proliferation of missile technology, of course, has
   spread to many other countries. So from the shorter-range missiles to the
   longer-range missiles, I think we can now say that we absolutely, there is
   a -- at least there is the capability out there. And this could be a
   threat to the United States.

   ALLARD: Have you concluded that affordable, cost-effective ballistic
   missile defenses can be developed and deployed?

   MYERS: I think that part remains to be determined. I think we're well on
   the way to that. But I think there is -- I think for the shorter-range
   missiles, the answer is absolutely yes.

   In fact, this month is the month the first unit equipped for the new
   Patriot III system, which is the -- that is a response. And it's taken us
   10 years, but we have a response now for the shorter-range missiles that
   is much more effective than the missile defenses we had during Desert
   Storm. And as I said, the first unit will be equipped this month and then
   follow-on units, of course.

   So I think, for the shorter-range missiles, the answer is yes. For the
   threats against the United States, I think the honest answer to that is
   we've got to wait and see. My gut tells me that yes, we'll be able to
   develop this in a way that is affordable and effective.

   I think that's what General Kadish has testified before this committee.
   But we need to watch that.

   ALLARD: Have you concluded that such systems will be operationally

   MYERS: Again, I think we have to -- I have not concluded that yet. Again,
   on the shorter-range systems, I think we can say Patriot III has been
   through extensive testing. I think we can say it's effective.

   We're going to have to look at the rest of them as they come on board:
   so-called THAAD, the potential Navy systems, airborne laser. Many of those
   are in developmental stages. And I think it's too early to say that
   they're, at this moment, effective.

   But I think the vector for all of them is actually positive. And we're
   just going to have to evaluate those, as we do all systems, as they come
   on-line, through appropriate testing.

   ALLARD: Have you concluded that such systems will increase U.S. security?

   MYERS: If they meet those criteria that we talked about earlier, Senator
   Allard, I would say they do. In the terms, I'll go back to Patriot III
   again, I think it does increase our security. And we'll just have to see,
   as the other systems come on board.

   If they develop as the requirements call for them to develop, then I think
   we'll be able to say yes to that. But for some of those systems, it's
   probably too early.

   ALLARD: I'd like to turn to the Space Commission report.

   MYERS: Yes, sir.

   ALLARD: The commission recommended that the United States -- and I quote
   -- "develop, deploy and maintain the means to deter attack and to defend
   vulnerable space capabilities, including defense in space." And then they
   go on -- quote -- "power projection in and from and through space."

   What new investment should the Defense Department make to develop, deploy
   and maintain the capabilities described in the Space Commission report?

   MYERS: Some of those we can probably talk about here in open session and
   some of those we're probably going to have to talk about in the closed
   session or separately. The one that immediately comes to mind that I think
   we can talk about and is fundamental to the term we use as space control,
   which is guaranteeing access to space for our use and denying it when
   appropriate to adversaries, and that is space surveillance, our ability to
   know what is going on in space.

   We have a system today that is made up of many different elements, some of
   which are quite old. It needs to be refurbished. The goals have been set
   in the defense planning guidance to do exactly that. So that's one I think
   we can talk about.

   We can talk about the absolute fundamental nature of space control to
   everything else we want to do in space. And it all starts with knowing
   what's going on up there. So space surveillance is the one I'd highlight.

   ALLARD: I'd like to now go to, since I still have some time left, to go to
   space-based radar.

   MYERS: Yes, sir.

   ALLARD: This has been a controversial program between the House and the
   Senate and that came out in the conference. Last year and in previous
   years, we've had quite a bit of discussion on it.

   What is your feeling about space-based radar. And can you relate to this
   committee whether the Air Force and OSD have decided to deploy space-based

   MYERS: The whole issue about space-based radar, if we take it up to the
   next level, is what we're talking about here is persistence. We're talking
   about the difference between reconnaissance, which looks at things in
   elements of time, to something that surveils, that looks at something all
   the time.

   We're pretty much in the reconnaissance mode today. My personal view is,
   in intelligence, we need to go to the surveillance mode for this kind of

   And so, when the technology is ready and affordable, my vote would be that
   we need to pursue this initiative. This is something that's also captured,
   I think, in our defense planning guidance, as I recall. There is emphasis

   This will not be -- my time at Space Command taught me, since I delved
   into this at length, this will not something that will be quickly able to
   put on orbit. There is a lot of technological work yet to do. Having said
   that, my own view is that this is achievable over time and that, when we
   have an affordable system, one we can put up, that we ought to pursue

   ALLARD: Thank you. My time is expired.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Allard.

   Senator Reed?

   REED: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

   And welcome, General Myers.

   And let me thank you and Mrs. Myers for a lifetime of selfless service to
   the Air Force and to the United States. And knowing that you're a graduate
   of the Army War College, I know you're prepared for the duties that you
   will soon assume.

   Let me also take up the issue of national missile defense. Given the
   answers to your previous questions and with respect to a national missile
   defense against long-range, intercontinental missiles, would you recommend
   deployment of such a system in this fiscal year that's coming up?

   MYERS: A deployment of the system in this fiscal year? My understanding is
   that we're not ready for deployment in the fiscal year '03?

   REED: Would you recommend acquiring additional missiles, some of which
   have not been tested, for a contingency deployment in the upcoming fiscal

   MYERS: I think whatever system we deploy has to be -- we have to have high
   confidence in its ability to do the job that we require it to do. So . . .

   REED: Could you estimate, given your knowledge today, when you would have
   that high confidence? Next fiscal year? The following fiscal year?

   MYERS: Senator Reed, I can't give you the details on that. I would rely on
   General Kadish and his folks to provide that assessment.

   REED: Thank you. And in terms of the security of the United States with
   deployment of such a system, what criteria would you look to?

   MYERS: The ones that Senator Allard talked about before and that we have
   to know that we have a technical capability that meets the operational
   requirement and that it's affordable.

   REED: Not specifically, for example. There is a discussion recently in the
   press that China is proposing to increase its long- range missile fleet.
   And there is some suggestion that the administration has not actively
   discouraged them because such a fleet could clearly overwhelm any national
   missile defense we would deploy and therefore, the Chinese would take
   confidence that we would deploy a system that's not a threat to them.

   But that increase of missiles, would that be a more stable world, in your
   view, or a more complicated world?

   MYERS: Let me attack it from the other side, and that is attack your
   question from the other side. I think one of the fundamental things we
   have to do is be able to protect our troops overseas and our U.S.
   citizens. We've talked about the threat. And I think there's a threat on
   both sides.

   We know we have a short-range threat. We've had that for some time now.
   There is a longer-range threat that has been acknowledged.

   So I would say that whatever steps we can take to handle that threat, to
   defeat that threat, are appropriate. And our troops and our allies and, I
   think, our U.S. citizens would want us to do that.

   REED: Well, let me just say that I think there is a strong sense of
   support, obviously, for increased research in all of these areas; also for
   deployment because it seems to be capable -- as you mentioned, the PAC-3
   is ready for deployment -- of theater missile defense systems. And with
   that, I think we're all in agreement.

   Let me ask another question. This is one that touches upon the whole issue
   of strategic posture of the United States.

   If a foreign power launched a missile against the United States, even if
   that missile were intercepted, would you recommend to the president we
   retaliate against that act of war?

   MYERS: That's a hypothetical situation. But I can put my old hat on back
   at North American Aerospace Defense Command because that was exactly the
   responsibility that fell. And the situation you have posed, if there was a
   missile launched and we intercepted it, would I advocate a response?

   In that scenario, in that narrow scenario, absolutely not. In fact, as we
   sat there in Cheyenne Mountain and showing, taking people through the
   mountain, we played a simulation of what an attack on the United States
   might look like. And the frustrating part was, you know, we do a pretty
   good job of telling folks we're under attack with very high assurance, but
   there's nothing you could do about it.

   It would be wonderful if we had that capability. And it would give the
   national command authorities time then to refine a response. And it might
   not be to retaliate, which might help stabilize the situation.

   REED: General, again, I think your experience and your service is
   extraordinary. And it gives us, at least it gives me, confidence because
   you're going to be confronting these very difficult issues, some of which
   are, at this point, mercifully hypothetical. But your judgment and your
   experience is extremely valuable.

   If I have additional time, I'd like to turn to a more, I think, procedural
   issue; that is, with the damage to the Pentagon, when do you estimate that
   the QDR might be publicly released?

   MYERS: Excellent question, sir. And I can tell you, we've been meeting for
   the last, whatever, 48 hours or so and our sole focus has been on the
   issue at hand. The QDR word has not come up once.

   And I regret that I don't have a good answer for you. I think that since
   that is the secretary's product, I know he has been totally consumed by
   the current situation. We can get an answer for the record for you.

   I'm sure he is thinking about that, probably about now as well. But I
   don't have an answer for you, sir.

   REED: And just, if I have additional time, a final question, which goes
   back to the events of last Tuesday. And this was a national tragedy of
   historic proportions.

   But it seems to me, in a very narrow point of force protection, that in
   terms of the Pentagon, a major military facility, you had absolutely no
   advance warning that such an attack was being contemplated, prepared,
   planned or executed. Is that correct?

   MYERS: There was no strategic warning that this was contemplated or
   planned, to the best of my knowledge.

   REED: And I presume, based on your discussion with Senator Cleland, that
   this has been a source of almost immediate examination and review by the
   Department of Defense, as to what can be done in the future to avoid this

   MYERS: Absolutely. And it's not just the Department of Defense, but all
   the civil agencies as well that have intel apparatus, given that this, you
   know, that they may have knowledge as well.

   REED: Thank you very much.

   MYERS: Absolutely.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Reed.

   Senator Collins?

   COLLINS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

   General Myers, let me join my colleagues in congratulating you on your
   appointment. But also, I want to express my sorrow and sympathy to you. I
   realize that all of you who work in the Pentagon have friends and
   co-workers and associates that are missing.

   And it must be a very difficult time for all of you. And I just want to
   extend my sympathy and condolences to you.

   MYERS: Thank you, senator.

   COLLINS: In the priorities that you submitted to the committee in response
   to an advance question, you said that we should better define the
   military's role in homeland security. And obviously, given the events of
   this week, we're very happy to see that you have included that as a

   Under the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols law, most of the world has been divided
   up into geographic areas, each assigned to a specific regional
   commander-in-chief, the CINCs, who in time of crisis serve as the
   military's top crisis manager or warfighter in that area. It's my
   understanding, however, that the United States territory itself is not
   thought of in those same terms.

   If we're going to increase our focus on homeland defense, does that mean
   that we should consider the possibility of treating our own country as, to
   some extent, a military operational command, the way we have divided the
   rest of the world?

   MYERS: Senator Collins, I think the best way to answer that is that, in a
   sense, we have already done that. We have the Joint Forces Command, which
   is located in Norfolk. And the forces in the United States, for the most
   part -- there's some exception with Naval forces and Marine forces on the
   West Coast -- but for the most part, the forces in the United States, the
   components of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, report to Joint
   Forces Command.

   In addition, we have, within the last year-and-a-half, stood up a joint
   task force for civil support at Joint Forces Command, which has the
   responsibility to handle incidents of weapons of mass destruction in these
   United States. On top of that, we've got the North American Aerospace
   Defense Command, which worries about the air sovereignty over Canada, over
   the North American continent, over Canada and the United States.

   I think what we need to do beyond that is what I think you're suggesting:
   is there a larger role for the Defense Department in handling potential
   incidents in the future and exactly what that role will be. And that's one
   that, as I've indicated, I think will take a lot of debate.

   If you remember, the first time this was brought up, to my knowledge, and
   the debate was made public, there was a lot of concern about the
   Department of Defense getting into areas that were traditionally those
   areas of civil responsibility. And this is a huge question. You know, what
   do you want your United States military to do for this country?

   And so, we've been tiptoeing around that issue for quite some time. My
   view is that this tragedy is going to help crystallize our thoughts. And
   we'll have some thoughtful debate and find a way forward.

   COLLINS: It is a difficult issue about the military's appropriate role in
   our society. And I'm struck by the fact that the attacks that we
   experienced this week are being treated more as a matter of law
   enforcement, that the Department of Justice, for example, is the lead
   agency, rather than as an act of war, where the Department of Defense
   would be, I would assume, the lead agency.

   Do you have any comments on how we better define the role of the
   Department of Defense?

   MYERS: Well, as I indicated earlier, it was on the question on cyber
   warfare as well, it's the same issue. Is this a civil law enforcement
   issue? Or is it one of national security? Because, however you decide that
   question, then will decide who has got primary responsibility.

   This is the same issue. I think the debate needs to occur. And we need to
   define our roles and responsibilities, probably in ways that we haven't
   yet today.

   I will tell you though, that the cooperation among all the departments and
   agencies of this government has been absolutely superb. And yes, this was
   a terrorist act and the FBI and the Department of Justice are working the
   evidentiary piece of this. And that's appropriate.

   There are pieces being worked, of course, by the Department of Defense and
   the United States military. And that's appropriate as well. And the
   cooperation between all of these agencies and departments is very, very

   COLLINS: General, I recall that after the terrorist attack on the USS
   Cole, there was discussion that the military's force protection planning,
   while quite comprehensive and effective, had neglected part of the
   picture, that we had been prepared for asymmetric threats from ashore,
   when a vessel was in a foreign port, but that we had not been properly
   prepared for an attack from small harbor vessels. And in some ways, this
   came to mind when I thought about the attack on the Pentagon.

   It strikes me that a great deal of our force protection efforts have
   focused upon ensuring the security of facilities and military personnel
   overseas. Does what occurred this week at the Pentagon suggest that the
   department needs to refocus its planning on force protection issues here
   in the United States itself?

   MYERS: Well, I think the answer to that is yes. And I think some of that
   has already begun. I think the force protection here in the United States
   has always been front and center.

   I know when I was at Peterson Field, Colorado, that was an issue for us.
   We conducted exercises throughout all the bases that were under our
   purview on just that very issue. And I know the other services are doing
   the same.

   I think the United States Army has just recently taken steps to start
   closing bases that were formerly open to the public and closing them in
   the sense that you have to go through an entrance procedure at a gate to
   meter the flow in and to check the flow out. So I think there are steps
   being taken.

   Two other comments. What the Cole showed us, as you correctly described,
   senator, was that there were some scenes that we hadn't thought about. But
   it goes to the larger issue of how we deal with this in the first place.

   And I would just tell you that what will keep me awake at night in this
   job is: are those things that we haven't thought about? I mean, we've been
   surprised before. We were certainly surprised on Tuesday.

   There are probably more surprises out there. And my job and the job of the
   armed forces and everybody that supports us is to try to be as creative in
   our thinking as we can, to try to plug these seams and these gaps.

   Having said that, we're deployed worldwide to do this nation's bidding.
   And we know that we'll never be 100 percent effective. But what we ought
   to answer to is: have we thought about everything we can think about?

   Are we doing all we can possibly do? Have we asked for the resources to do
   that? And if I can't say yes to that, then I'm not doing my job.

   COLLINS: Thank you, general.

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Collins.

   Before I call on Senator Bill Nelson, let me just make an announcement.
   For the information of members of the committee, there will be a bus at
   the corner of First and C Streets at 6: 30 this evening, to take members
   over to the Pentagon and to bring them back. And please let the committee
   chief clerk know if you want to go.

   Senator Bill Nelson.

   BILL NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   General Myers, Mrs. Myers, last week, I moved into an apartment
   overlooking the Pentagon. Tuesday morning, I was here in the Capitol in a
   meeting with Senator Daschle. But my wife was at our apartment. And she
   witnessed the whole thing.

   And each evening, as I have been home since then, I have witnessed the
   very heroic efforts of a lot of people out there, as I get up periodically
   through the night, fitfully sleeping, and my congratulations to you. Now,
   that leads to my question to follow up Senator Collins' line of

   The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon
   was hit approximately 40 minutes later. That's approximately. You would
   know specifically what the timeline was.

   The crash that occurred in Pennsylvania after the Newark westbound flight
   was turned around 180 degrees and started heading back to Washington was
   approximately an hour after the World Trade Center second explosion. You
   said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military
   aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be:

   MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to
   go back and review the exact timelines.

   BILL NELSON: Perhaps we want to do this in our session, in executive
   session. But my question is an obvious one for not only this committee,
   but for the executive branch and the military establishment.

   If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we
   did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit
   by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from
   Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense
   establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from
   Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking
   off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question.

   I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like
   an answer.

   MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the
   commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the
   decision was at that point to start launching aircraft.

   One of the things you have to understand, senator, is that in our posture
   right now, that we have many fewer aircraft on alert than we did during
   the height of the Cold War. And so, we've got just a few bases around the
   perimeter of the United States.

   So it's not just a question of launching aircraft, it's launching to do
   what? You have to have a specific threat. We're pretty good if the
   threat's coming from outside. We're not so good if the threat's coming
   from inside.

   In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you
   for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that
   eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close
   to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out.

   I do not recall if that was the case for the one that had taken off from
   Dulles. But part of it is just where we are positioned around this country
   to do that kind of work because that was never -- it goes back to Senator
   Collins' issue. Is this one of the things that we'll worry about. You
   know, what's next?

   But our posture today is not one of the many sites and the many tens of
   aircraft on alert. We just have a handful today.

   BILL NELSON: Well, that one is one that we need to talk about together as
   we get prepared for the future.

   MYERS: Yes, sir.

   BILL NELSON: Because we know of a new kind of threat now, unfortunately.

   My second question -- and this will be my last question, Mr. Chairman,
   because I know you want to move on and get into the executive session. You
   were talking about, particularly from your experience, which I greatly
   value, having been in Space Command, of our surveillance assets and the
   necessity of having those assets there and working and being able to get
   those assets to orbit.

   We have a risk factor of catastrophe on such launch vehicles like the
   Titan down to about one in 20. In the old days, when we first started
   launching, it was one in five. But it is one in 20.

   And that may necessitate the only other access to space that we have,
   which is the manned vehicle. I bring this up to you because just last
   week, I was invited to have, as a member of the Science, Space and
   Technology Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, a hearing on space
   shuttle safety.

   The essence of the hearing and the unanimity of the five witnesses was
   that the NASA budget has been starved sufficiently, over the years and
   presently, such that space shuttle safety will be severely compromised in
   the future. Not today, but in the future.

   And so, I wanted you to know the conclusion of that hearing because, in
   your new capacity as chairman, it is clearly in your interest that you
   have the access -- reliable access -- to space when you need it. And
   although your payloads are configured for expendable booster rockets,
   should that access to space ever go down, you would need that backup, even
   though there would some considerable time delay because of reconfiguration
   of the payloads.

   And so, I would certainly commend you to have your folks start checking
   into this. I think, because of the actions of the tragedy of this week,
   that we're going to be able now to turn around that budget and start
   getting the shuttle upgrades, over the course of the next five years, in
   place in order to give the United States that reliable access to space
   that we have in the space transportation system.

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Nelson.

   General Myers, just a very brief request. When I asked you what time it
   was that the FAA or the FBI notified the Defense Department after the
   first World Trade -- the two crashes into the World Trade Center and you
   indicated you didn't know the time. Could you ask someone on your staff to
   try to get us that time, so that we will have that either before this
   session here or for executive session?

   MYERS: Mr. Chairman, I just did that.

   LEVIN: Thank you.

   BILL NELSON: Mr. Chairman, may I, just for the record? Commenting from CNN
   on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight
   crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time
   that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m.
   is the time that United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Somerset County,

   So that was 40 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon
   crash. And it is an hour and seven minutes until the crash occurred in

   LEVIN: The time that we don't have is when the Pentagon was notified, if
   they were, by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency, relative to any
   potential threat or any planes having changed direction or anything like
   that. And that's the same which you will give us because that's . . .

   MYERS: I can answer that. At the time of the first impact on the World
   Trade Center, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done

   So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The
   time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't
   know that time.

   LEVIN: Or the time that I asked you for, which was whether the FAA or FBI
   notified you that other planes had turned direction from their path, their
   scheduled path, and were returning or aiming towards Washington, whether
   there was any notice from any of them, because that's such an obvious
   shortfall if there wasn't.

   MYERS: Right.

   LEVIN: And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that

   MYERS: It probably happened. As you remember, I was not in the Pentagon at
   that time, so that part of it is a little hazy. After that, we started
   getting regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD, on other
   flights that we were worried about.

   And we knew about the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I do
   not know, again, whether we had fighters scrambled on it. I have to . . .

   LEVIN: If you could get us those times then. We know you don' t know them.

   MYERS: But we'll get them.

   LEVIN: Now, Senator Bunning is next.

   BUNNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   I join with my colleagues in thanking you and your wife for your service
   to our country. Tuesday's tragic events have again reminded us of the
   importance of a continuous vigilance in the defense of this nation.

   You will have a very large job ahead of you to protect this great nation
   from this and other threats. I look forward to working with you and your
   colleagues to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to protect our

   I want to get on to some other things that haven't been discussed. Many
   air power advocates believe air power alone can accomplish our defense
   goals. They believe that ground and sea power should be minimalized at
   best. General Billy Mitchell subscribed to this kind of thinking, yet in
   every bombing campaign we have engaged in, our initial bombing assessments
   were more optimistic than what was actually accomplished.

   No one here denies we should be the supreme commanders of the air.
   However, air power is just one component of the combat power.

   To be able to respond to all threats, we must have a balanced and combined
   armed forces. We must assert sea and land power, as well as air power. The
   administration has heavily pushed air and space power. This is fine
   because we need to continue in proving our capabilities.

   But I am a bit concerned. There are some who believe we can simply fight
   battles and wars with cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs.

   General Myers, how do you view the role of air power and all the other
   components that make up our armed services?

   MYERS: Senator, the United States needs the capability that all our
   services bring to our armed forces. And I would just simply say that. I
   mean, we can't do without . . .

   BUNNING: Do you subscribe to the fact that we can bring people to
   submission just with air power?

   MYERS: I think it takes, it's going to take a balance of all our
   capabilities. And one particular scenario may lend itself more to ground
   power than to air power. One scenario might be more air power- dominant
   than ground power or naval power. That doesn't mean that you don't need
   all those elements, so the president can have the flexibility to do what
   the objectives of the mission call for.

   So I don't subscribe to just one element of our service power as adequate.

   LEVIN: Senator Bunning, would you hold just for one moment?

   My estimate of when our executive session will start is now 5:00 because
   there's four, five, six people -- six senators here who have at least a
   first round. So that's my best estimate as to when we'll initiate that
   executive session.

   And Senator Ben Nelson, I would ask if he will now chair so that -- excuse
   the interruption, Senator Bunning.

   BUNNING: Thank you. Tuesday's tragic events highlighted to us the threat
   posed by terrorism. For some time, there has been a debate in academic
   circles and among the counter-terrorism community as to whether the proper
   response to act of terrorism should be a legal one or threatening them as
   crimes or military, treating them as act of wars. Which do you believe is
   the proper way to respond to acts of terrorism, whether abroad or here in
   our country?

   MYERS: Senator, this is an issue a little bit outside the military's lane,
   in the sense that it's a policy and a political decision.

   BUNNING: You mean the military are not political? General, Is that what
   you're telling me?

   MYERS: I hope we're not political.

   BUNNING: Goodness.

   MYERS: Senator, I hope we're not political. What we need to do is provide
   the president the best military advice that we can.

   BUNNING: What I'm getting as is we don't want the end result of a
   terrorist attack on the United States to be handled in court because we
   believe it's an act of war. Now, if it's an act of war, the military
   should be involved in determining how the punishment should be dealt out,
   through the administration's use of the military.

   We surely don't want any terrorist you can think of to use a court system,
   rather than a military solution, to an act of terrorism, whether it be
   against the USS Cole or whether it be against the Pentagon.

   MYERS: And I think the president has said it exactly right, and that is we
   will essentially use all elements of national power to thwart this
   aggression. And that includes use of the United States military.

   BUNNING: Would you call this an act of war then or not?

   MYERS: Again, I don't want to get into the semantics of whether it's an
   act of war. I think there's -- I mean, we can get wrapped around a legal .
   . .

   BUNNING: That's what I'm afraid of.

   MYERS: Well, I'm not for doing that. I'm for responding exactly as our
   national command authorities want us to respond. And if they make the
   decision that it's appropriate to use U.S. military force, I absolutely
   support that.

   BUNNING: The horrific acts against us on Tuesday will obviously require a
   reassessment of our defense priorities. If confirmed, what action would
   you take to ensure the security of our nation, of our armed forces, from
   terrorist attacks?

   MYERS: Senator, some of the ones we've already talked about. But I think
   we need to look really closely at our intelligence capabilities, our
   ability to analyze the information we get. We get a lot of information.
   It's the ability to analyze it, I think, and disseminate it in a timely
   manner that make the difference.

   I think we need to look at our communications as well. And again, I go
   back to the other issue, and that is the issue of homeland security,
   homeland defense. There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area
   that we've just got to wrestle to the ground. And we can't keep putting
   these off or we'll not be prepared in the future.

   BUNNING: Thank you. My time is expired.

   BEN NELSON: According to the chairman, who has departed, I am next in
   line, so it may serve a useful purpose to call upon myself.


   General Myers and Mrs. Myers, I certainly appreciate very much your public
   service and your commitment to the United States and to our country and to
   our citizens. And I welcome you in advance of your confirmation to this
   very important position that you'll occupy.

   I was looking very carefully at your biography to determine whether or not
   you had been stationed at Offit to claim you as a Nebraskan. But somewhere
   along the line, you may have escaped Offit, but I'm sure you visited there
   on occasion, and that's close enough.

   MYERS: Absolutely, senator, many times.

   BEN NELSON: The acts of this week, Tuesday, have probably, in the most
   indelible way, framed the issue for us for the future and that is that
   national security requires that we be prepared, both internationally and
   internally. There are those who would suggest that, as Senator Collins and
   Senator Bunning and others, that we make certain that we not treat the
   acts of this week as some sort of a legal or criminal matter alone; that
   they must, in fact, be dealt with as a military matter, with a military
   response to the situation.

   I am one of those. I believe that we need to -- I think it's important
   that we do the forensic work, in order to establish the particulars of
   what have happened here. And I commend those who are doing that.

   As a matter of fact, it leads me into the area of cooperation internally
   that I think may set, if you will, the protocol, if not the framework for
   internal national security. Before I do that, I do note with some irony
   that it's important to document all of the timeframes by using our most
   able informant, CNN, about the timeframe and other particulars.

   But as we look at how we can bring together the intelligence community, as
   well as the military establishment and our law enforcement agencies -- the
   FBI, the Justice Department -- it's important to point out that the FBI
   has recognized and has stated four separate situations where the military
   is most likely to be called upon to assist in a domestic law enforcement
   situation, which involves either a threat or an act of terrorism,
   including weapons of mass destruction terrorism.

   One, to provide technical support and assistance to law enforcement and
   other crisis response personnel -- obviously, I think that is being
   undertaken; interdicting an event and apprehending those responsible;
   restoring law and order following an incident; and finally, abating the
   consequences of a terrorist act.

   I hope that I'm learning from you today not only your reaction to the
   events of this week, but not only your determination and commitment, but
   perhaps some idea of what you would take, what you would bring to the
   table to bring about the kind of protection that we're looking for today
   to preserve our security for internal national defense, as well as for
   international national defense. Is there anything that you haven't said
   about that that you might say to help us come to terms with the importance
   of it and perhaps some general thoughts about what can be done?

   MYERS: Well, obviously, the importance of it is very high. And I think
   I'll just go back to defining the department's role inside the United
   States. And that is, I mean, that's one that legitimately requires very,
   very serious debate.

   I think the one thing that we must do is to continue to enhance our
   intelligence capabilities and not just inside the military but in the
   civil agencies as well.

   BEN NELSON: If it isn't predictable, it's not protectable.

   MYERS: In some cases, that's true. In some cases and probably in many
   cases, that's true.

   And so that's where I would, again, that's where I'd focus our efforts. I
   think this review we have ongoing on the whole intelligence community is
   appropriate. And I think they'll pick up on this and probably come out
   with some really good recommendations on how we can do a better job of
   coordinating and cooperating.

   The human side of our intelligence collection has been bolstered in recent
   years, but could probably be bolstered some more. We've just got to look
   at this whole spectrum of how we, when we gather all this information, how
   we can quickly analyze it and get it to people that need to know it.

   And my personal view is, we're not as good as we need to be, not just
   because of this recent incident, but previous things that I've seen
   indicate that we need to really work on that issue as well. So that would
   primarily be where I'd focus my efforts.

   BEN NELSON: I have confidence in your ability to do this and particularly
   in the military setting because, whether it's true or not, I think the
   general public perception is that the military knows how to cooperate
   without stepping all over itself. At least you have given us that
   impression. I hope that the reality is the same, even in spite of some

   But it would seem that if there is any hope for it to occur, that you will
   be able to bring it about.

   MYERS: Senator Nelson, I think we can do that.

   BEN NELSON: I thank you.

   MYERS: Thank you.

   BEN NELSON: Senator Hutchinson is the next, call upon you.

   HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Senator Nelson, Mr. Chairman.

   General Myers, congratulations. I am very pleased to support your
   nomination. I think listening to Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado,
   Oklahoma all try to claim you. If Arkansas could, we would.


   I haven't found a way we can, but I'm very pleased to support your
   nomination. I know you'll do a wonderful job. And thank you for your
   service to our nation.

   I know some of my colleagues are going out to the Pentagon later today. I
   went out earlier today. And I join those who have been out there and those
   who have seen the work that's going on in commending those brave
   responders and those who are risking their lives in still an unstable

   I do not have reservations about FBI being lead on this and Department of
   Justice because I, like Senator Nelson, believe that evidence has to be
   and we have to have the forensics. We have to have the evidentiary base in
   order for the military to take an action or for the commander-in-chief to
   order actions. And I am convinced that when we have that, that indeed
   there will be a military response to the attack upon our nation.

   I want to present a little scenario to you. What happened at the twin
   towers, while unprecedented in magnitude, is not unprecedented, the type
   of attack. As a nation, we have had Oklahoma City. We have had attacks
   upon towers. We have had experience in plane crashes.

   And so, while this is a national tragedy of unprecedented proportions, it
   is not unprecedented the type of situation that we're dealing with,
   excavating and trying to uncover bodies. With the understanding that there
   is an ongoing debate as to the proper role of the military in protecting
   in a domestic terrorist attack, if this attack had been, instead of
   airliners, flying bombs, piercing the Pentagon and piercing these towers,
   if the attack had been -- and I think the estimate is that there could be
   up to 50 people who were co- conspirators or participants in this -- if it
   had been 50 people going into 50 U.S. cities carrying briefcases with
   biological pathogens, biological weapons, what would have been the

   And how vulnerable are we? And how prepared are we, in your considered

   MYERS: Again, I mean, this is hypothetical. But in the scenario that you
   painted, I think we're vulnerable. And I think the consequences could be

   HUTCHINSON: Indeed, I agree. We're talking tens of thousands, which is an
   absolutely unimaginable tragedy for our nation. Our vulnerability to a
   biological or a chemical attack could result in millions of victims.

   Or, to put it in military terms, had it been a private jet, a private or a
   general aviation aircraft loaded with biological weapons, flying into that
   Pentagon, are we prepared? Would we have had protection in that situation?

   MYERS: Limited protection. But obviously, there are a lot of folks around
   the Pentagon.

   HUTCHINSON: Right. I was very pleased, in the advance questions, with your
   response to the issue of vaccine production. You said, "I support
   establishing a long-term, reliable national vaccine production capability.
   The Department of Defense has a long-term need for reliable sources of
   FDA-approved vaccines for any biological health threat that may impact our
   soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines now and in the future."

   I appreciate that. I think that commitment is absolutely essential.

   You say earlier in your comments, you speak to anthrax, but you also
   expand that to recognizing that there are a lot of biological threats to
   force protection that confront us. What concerns me is that, while we have
   a terrible shortage in vaccines now, we are not able to protect our men
   and women in uniform, that the estimates, if we go with a GOCO, if the
   determination is that that's the best way for us to address this, we're
   still talking years.

   I think we've got to do better. I think we have to place a high priority
   on that. We've got to protect against this threat.

   And the added benefit of that kind of production capability will be to, I
   think, also provide protection to the American people who are equally
   vulnerable. So I think you for your commitment to that. I want to urge
   that that be given a priority under your leadership and that we expedite,
   to the extent possible.

   We spend hours, and we did during defense authorization, on missile
   defense. I don't object to that. We need to debate that. That's a serious
   issue that there's a lot of pros and cons.

   We spent relatively little time talking about what we ought to be doing in
   the national commitment on vaccine production. And the cost, compared to
   missile defense, is miniscule.

   Any response or comment?

   MYERS: Senator Hutchinson, the only response is that this particular issue
   has been highlighted again in the defense planning guidance and in the
   quadrennial defense review. I think it's a recognized shortfall, speaking
   largely now about the ability to combat weapons of mass destruction to
   include chemical and biological and that it will get attention and
   increased resources. That is the intention at this point.

   HUTCHINSON: Thank you, general.

   MYERS: Thank you.

   BEN NELSON: Senator Dayton?

   DAYTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   General Myers, I share the admiration of my colleagues for your many years
   of very, very distinguished service to our nation. And I also want to
   express my admiration for your candor and directness in your replies here

   In the eight months I've been a senator, in all the meetings I've sat
   through, your candor and directness stands out, first among them all and
   in marked contrast to some of the difficulties getting candid and direct
   answers from others in the last 48 or 60 hours, I would say, particularly.
   So thank you very much.

   MYERS: Thank you, senator.

   DAYTON: I think that bodes very well for the working relationship that
   you'll have with the members of this body and the other.

   MYERS: Thank you, sir.

   DAYTON: In response to one of Senator Carnahan's questions, you brought up
   the role of the National Guard, which Minnesota has both components. And
   also we have reserves as well who, among other things, certainly stand
   ready and willing to serve their country and have done so admirably, but
   who have expressed to me some concerns about their future assignments,
   which now are extending to as much as five months or so.

   Could you just outline? I realize we're at limited time to cover that
   whole terrain, but the appropriate roles, as you alluded to, of those
   respective components?

   MYERS: I think we can state today that for us to carry out, for the Armed
   Forces of the United States to carry out their missions around the world,
   that we cannot do that without the Reserve component, both the Reserve
   forces and the National Guard forces. I mean, we just can't do it.

   I would also say that I think each service has worked very hard to
   mitigate the impact on the lives of our Reserve component individuals so
   they can contribute, but it doesn't destroy their job and their life that
   they were leading. We probably haven't done that perfectly. And that will
   continually need to be evaluated. But they are absolutely essential to our
   conduct of missions today.

   DAYTON: Thank you. I was intrigued by your answer on page 20 of your
   response about you believe it's in the national security interest of the
   United States that all land-based ICBMs be de-MIRVed. And you said there
   are no significant military advantages to the elimination of MIRVed,
   land-based ICBMs, which has particular relevance, given President Putin's
   comments that that might be a Soviet response to our pulling out of the
   ABM Treaty.

   Could you elaborate on that, please, sir?

   MYERS: As I recall that question, I think I was talking about the
   significance of U.S. missiles. We have, as you know, de-MIRVed some under
   previous agreements. And we still have some that are MIRVed.

   DAYTON: Maybe I'm misinterpreting because the question that preceded that
   referred to the Russians, that they may not de-MIRV. And you pointed out
   correctly that START II Treaty is not in force.

   MYERS: Right.

   DAYTON: So that they're not being required to do so. So maybe I
   misunderstood. Let me just rephrase it then and say would that be of
   strategic and security concern to the United States if Russia took the
   position that it would not de-MIRV its nuclear warheads in response to
   something such as withdrawing from the ABM Treaty?

   MYERS: I don't think the issue of whether they're MIRVed or de- MIRVed is
   really the issue. The issue to me would be, first of all, what is our
   strategic relationship with Russia? And today, I think it's quite
   different than it was, obviously, during the Cold War.

   The second point would be that it would be the overall levels of warheads
   that would be of concern. The missile defense system is conceived as one
   of limited defense, so whether they're MIRVed or de- MIRVed, that's really
   not an issue about overwhelming defenses because it will probably never be
   the case that we'll have a defense against a large attack. I would be more
   concerned with the total number of warheads that are on delivery vehicles
   and, in accordance with presidential guidance, trying to take that to the
   lowest level possible, consistent with our national security needs.

   DAYTON: Thank you. Finally, I was very impressed with your statement about
   the lessons you learned in your previous positions. You said, "First the
   armed forces aren't made up of people; rather, that the people are the
   armed forces." Sometimes we lose that focus. I thought that was very well
   stated and very appropriately so.

   This committee, in my brief time here, has focused itself on meeting some
   of the needs that haven't been sufficiently addressed in support of the
   men and women who make up our armed forces. And I know that the
   authorization bill we're going to be acting on next week will take a
   further step forward.

   What else can we do or must we do to provide the kind of support they

   MYERS: I think we need, senator, I absolutely agree with you. And we made
   great strides. And this committee has led the charge. And, in fact, the
   Congress has led the charge in making sure we have appropriate pay.

   We've worked some housing issues. We've worked medical benefits. These are
   issues, though, that if you don't keep working them, you're going

   And so pay comparability is an issue we need to continue to work. And you
   saw in the '02, the bill you've just all worked very hard on, that was a
   big issue. There is the housing issues, not only the adequacy of the
   housing that we provide, but the housing pay to our folks to make sure
   there is not exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses for their housing needs.

   And then I would say access to medical care continues to be an issue, as
   we try to find that right balance between what we do in- service and what
   we do with managed care. And I'm sure your constituents have probably told
   you, there are issues there with access that we need to continue to work.

   DAYTON: Thank you very much, general. I'm assured that you will help us
   not only make sure we don't go backward, but also that we can move
   forward. We're going to ask you also to apply that consideration to the
   reserves as well, the National Guard, the men and women who make those up.

   MYERS: Any time I talked about armed forces, sir, I'm talking about the
   total team, which includes, by the way, those civilians, those Department
   of Defense civilians, some of whom were tragically killed in the recent
   attack on the Pentagon. We are one team.

   DAYTON: Well stated. Thank you.

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   BEN NELSON: Senator Sessions?

   SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   Congratulations, General Myers. It's a great honor to be given this high
   post. And I know that you will give your very best to it. I congratulate
   your wife and for your great career together.

   Everybody wants to claim a piece of your background. And I certainly will.
   I note that you attended Maxwell Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama
   and got your master's degree from that great -- one of America's great
   universities, Auburn University.

   MYERS: Yes, sir.

   SESSIONS: So we're delighted to see you achieve this great and high honor.
   You know, I was at the Pentagon yesterday. And in the course of that, had
   the opportunity to talk to a lieutenant colonel who was in his office when
   the plane hit, on that very side.

   He said he was blown across the room, up against the wall. He got outside
   and realized just how bad it was.

   And he and a sergeant broke out a window and went back in; described one
   person coming out all in flames, that they had to put him down and put the
   fire out. And that gentleman was saying over and over again, "There are
   others in there. Please go back and help those who are in there." And they
   went back repeatedly until the fire marshal told them not to go back in.

   It's the kind of courage and commitment and dedication to unity and to one
   another, I think, that is characteristic of our armed forces. And I do
   believe we have the greatest armed forces in the world. And I know that
   you are terribly honored to be able to lead that.

   MYERS: Definitely, senator.

   SESSIONS: I thought I would just ask you a few questions that are real
   fundamental and will go to your challenges in your job, not unlike what
   you and I discussed when you came by for a visit, and that is basically
   about our budget. President Bush this year is proposing -- and will
   achieve, I believe -- a $38 billion increase, over $30 billion increase in
   our defense budget from $290-something (billion) last year to nearly $330
   (billion) this year and with a supplemental in between.

   So it's a major increase. But we've committed to do more for our men and
   women in uniform and their pay and benefits. And much needs to be done.

   It's distressing to me -- and I'll ask you if you will agree -- that even
   with this largest increase we've had in over a decade, that we still are
   not able to do as much as we need to be doing to recapitalize our
   aircraft, our ships and our Army and Marine equipment.

   MYERS: Senator Sessions, that's absolutely the case. The account -- the
   modernization account, if you will -- has been, for a lot of this past
   decade, been used to ensure current readiness and current operations. So
   we borrowed from that account to make sure we're ready to do what we have
   to do today.

   We're reaching the point now where our shipbuilding accounts, our aircraft
   modernization accounts, Army transformation accounts are short. And the
   average age of our aircraft continues to go up. Things are just getting

   The consequences of that are that it costs more to maintain them and that
   they're not always as ready as we want them to be when we have to call
   upon them. That is a major challenge, is how to balance our modernization
   and transformation needs with our current readiness needs and our
   personnel needs, the three major elements of our budget.

   So I agree with you. That's the challenge. That's one of the things that I
   feel that I have to focus on and have to provide advice to the secretary,
   as required to do so.

   SESSIONS: As chairman of the joint chiefs, that will be, perhaps I would
   suggest, long-term service to the Department of Defense, that will be your
   greatest challenge, would you agree? How to handle our transformation and

   MYERS: Yes, senator. It's got to be right up there. I would mention one
   other, and that is to make sure that the national military strategy, the
   national security strategy, national military strategy and our defense
   strategy are in balance with the force structure we have to do the job.

   And that, I mean, it kind of goes hand in hand with what you're talking
   about. But those are probably the biggest challenges.

   SESSIONS: Well, I think that's well said. So let's look at this. I've
   heard several talking heads in the last several days say that this
   terrorist attack was what we're going to see in the future. It's the 21st
   century war.

   I believe Secretary Rumsfeld has said something like that. We know that
   doesn't mean there won't be any other kind of wars. We have to be prepared
   for others. But it certainly, I think, has an element of truth to it, that
   we are in an asymmetric threat situation that presents new and unique
   challenges, different from the time when we faced the Russians on the
   plains of Europe.

   Question: do you think the leaders of these services fully understand that
   we do need to make transformation? Do they also understand that there will
   not be as much money as we'd like to have to hold on to everything that we
   may like to do? And is there enough commitment within the uniformed
   services to make the transformations that will be painful at times to get
   us ready to handle the threats we will be seeing in the future?

   MYERS: Senator Sessions, as you know as well as I do, the service chiefs,
   members of the joint chiefs that I've been with here for the last
   year-and-a-half are the best this country has to offer. They are very
   smart men and they understand very well the challenges of the future.

   They understand the need to modernize. They understand the need to
   transform their capabilities, to be responsive to the asymmetric threats
   that we have faced and that we will face. And I think they are absolutely
   the right ones to do that.

   The question is always this is a tough balance between today's problem and
   tomorrow's challenge. And it's one, I mean, we wrestle this every day. But
   they are absolutely the right people to do it. And they are committed to
   doing it.

   SESSIONS: Well, I think you're going to have to lead that. And at times,
   some are going to have to give up with cherished dreams for their service.
   Some of us in Congress may have to find some more money than we actually
   have been able to find so far. Even with this large increase, it's still
   not enough.

   So I think it's going to take a combination of change, refitting for the
   future. I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is doing the right thing. I think
   he's got to challenge old established thinking. I hope you'll help him in

   MYERS: Sir, I will. And I am committed to that as well.

   SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   BEN NELSON: Thank you, Senator Sessions.

   I believe Senator Allard is the -- you've already asked -- have you asked
   questions? Okay, it's 5:00. And we are going to move to Hart 219, which is
   out that door. And we will ask those senators who are within my sound of
   my voice to come there.

   Secretary Wolfowitz, I believe, is within earshot and we'll notify him.

   One other announcement, which is important, which is going to affect the
   length of this executive session. There's going to be a 5:20 roll-call
   vote on the Harkin Amendment on Commerce, State, Justice, which means that
   we're going to have perhaps a half an hour probably for our executive
   session. So we are going to begin immediately. Room 219, just for
   senators, General Myers, Secretary Wolfowitz.

   Again, general, thank you. And we look forward to a very speedy

   MYERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all.

   ???? - Indicates Speaker Unknown
   -- - Indicates could not make out what was being said. off mike -
   Indicates could not make out what was being said.
   (c) 2001 Federal Document Clearing House Posted For Fair Use Only


[Home] [Hijackers] [Foreknowledge] [Stand down] [WTC (demolition)] [WTC (other)] [WTC7 and Silverstein] [Pentagon] [Flight 93] [bin Ladin] [Obstructing Justice] [Afghanistan] [Others] [Investigations, more] [What's New?]