be more complex and difficult than those of the INF treaty. Further, the effect of cheating in the START context could also be more militarily significant than in INF.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN

Senator BINGAMAN. As you noted in your testimony, the primary responsibility of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition is to establish policy. However, the legislative history emphasizes that the Under Secretary is not to be narrowly limited to a policy making role: "[S]ince it is the clear intent that the USD(A) will be held accountable for supervising the entire acquisition system, it is essential that he be empowered to enforce compliance with defensewide policies. Moreover, in the exceptional case where it may become necessary for the Under Secretary to issue a direction in an individual case, the law makes clear that he has that power. The Under Secretary will normally participate in, or make programmatic decisions at relatively major programmatic decision points. To the extent those decisions may differ with the wishes of a Service Secretary or Service acquisition executive, the bill makes clear that the decisions of the new Under Secretary will prevail in his areas of responsibility." (S. Rep. 99-331, 1986).

Do you have any reservations about supporting this committee's intent as to the Under Secretary's statutory charter?

Mr. CARLUCCI. No. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition will be my principal advisor on acquisition issues. As such, I expect to delegate to him the role of managing the defense acquisition system. This means he will be held accountable for supervising the defense acquisition system and enforcing compliance with defense-wide acquisition policies. He has the authority to direct the Service secretaries on acquisition matters. As Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Board and as the Defense Acquisition Executive, he will make recommendations to me regarding decisions on major programs at appropriate decision points. If there are differences between the Under Secretary's views and those of a Service secretary regarding an acquisition program or policy decisions, I expect the Under Secretary's views to prevail. However, since the Secretary of Defense is ultimately responsible for all decisions taken by DOD, there may be unusual cases where I will intervene. I expect the appeal of Service secretaries to me on acquisition matters to be the exception rather than the rule.

Senator BINGAMAN. If confirmed, what will you do: To ensure that the Under Secretary is empowered to enforce compliance with defense-wide policies?

Mr. CARLUCCI. I believe that the current law and implementing directive provide the Under Secretary for Acquisition the authority necessary to enforce compliance with defense-wide policies. Due to my own experience in these matters at DOD and as a member of the Packard Commission, I am sensitive to the need for authority and the requirement to take action when necessary. I will monitor these issues closely.

Senator BINGAMAN. If confirmed, what will you do: To facilitate the role of the Under Secretary when he finds it necessary to issue a direction in an individual acquisition decision?

Mr. CARLUCCI. First, by working closely and consulting with the Under Secretary for Acquisition, I hope we can avoid the need for frequent instances that require specific direction from the Under Secretary to the Service secretaries. However, if and when that does become necessary, he has the authority to do so by law and DOD directive.

Senator BINGAMAN. If confirmed, what will you do: To establish a vital role for the Under Secretary in making programmatic decisions about particular systems? Mr. CARLUCCI. The current DOD directives establish a vital role for the Under Secretary for Acquisition in participating in programmatic decisions. As Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Board he recommends acquisition decisions that have programmatic implications to me at appropriate decision points. Further, he is a major participant in the Defense Resources Board where programmatic and budget issues are reviewed under the directive of the Deputy Secretary.

Senator BINGAMAN. If confirmed, what will you do: To ensure that the decisions of the Under Secretary will prevail on acquisition issues?

Mr. CARLUCCI. The Under Secretary for Acquisition has the authority to establish acquisition policy and direct the Service secretaries to comply with them. I see no need for additional authority to be provided in order for him to prevail on such issues. Regarding weapon system acquisition decisions, the Under Secretary recommends decisions to the Secretary. In this regard, he does not decide on weapon ac

quisition issues. However, his recommendations carry great weight since he is the Secretary's principal acquisition advisor.

Senator BINGAMAN. In your testimony, you noted that the service Secretaries can appeal their disagreements with the Under Secretary to you. While the legislation does not preclude such appeals, isn't it likely that routine use of such appeals can undermine the ability of the Under Secretary to make authoritative acquisition decisions? What can you do as Secretary to ensure that such issues are resolved primarily at the Under Secretary's level so that appeals will be the rare exception rather than the rule?

Mr. CARLUCCI. As the Secretary of Defense, I will have the ultimate responsibility for acquisition decisions. The Under Secretary for Acquisition will be my primary advisor on acquisition matters, and as such is responsible for supervising the acquisition system and establishing policy. There will inevitably be differences of opinion between the Under Secretary and the service Secretaries regarding matters where reasonable men can disagree. If one of these matters bothers a service Secretary to the degree that he feels it necessary to appeal the Under Secretary's decision on what to recommend, I would feel obligated to listen to his point of view. However, I would expect such instances to be rare, and equally rare that I would reverse a recommendation made by the Under Secretary.

Senator BINGAMAN. The legislation establishing the Under Secretary's position also created the position of Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition. In our committee's report on that legislation, we said: "The magnitude and complexity of the duties of the Under Secretary ... make it clear that a deputy is necessary to assist the Under Secretary in carrying out his many and varied duties." A year has passed since the legislation was enacted, and we have yet to receive a nomination for this vital position. When do you expect the administration to fill this post?

Mr. CARLUCCI. I have discussed this issue with Under Secretary-designate Costello and I agree with his view that at this time it is premature to make a decision on whether or not to fill this position. As he settles into the job and gets a better feel for the magnitude and scope involved, we will be in a better position to make a decision. If we decide not to fill the position, we will certainly advise you of our rationale and submit a proposed legislative change if required.

Chairman NUNN. We thank you for being here and thank you for the service you have already rendered to the country, and we look forward to working with you.

Mr. CARLUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. [Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

TO ACT ON THE NOMINATION OF FRANK C. CARLUCCI TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1987

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:21 p.m., in room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam Nunn (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Nunn, Stennis, Exon, Levin, Kennedy, Bingaman, Dixon, Glenn, Wirth, Shelby, Warner, Thurmond, Gramm and Symms.

Chairman NUNN. The committee will come to order.

We are now in open session.

The question is whether we would recommend the Senate of the United States approve the nomination of the President of the United States of Frank Carlucci to be Secretary of Defense.

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee approve the nomination now pending before this committee. Chairman NUNN. Is there a second?

Senator EXON. I second.

Chairman NUNN. I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Stennis.

Senator STENNIS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Exon.
Senator EXON. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Levin.
Senator LEVIN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Kennedy.
Senator KENNEDY. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Bingaman.
Senator BINGAMAN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Dixon.
Senator DIXON. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Glenn.
Senator GLENN. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Gore.
[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Wirth.
Senator WIRTH. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Shelby.
Senator SHELBY. Aye.
The CLERK. Mr. Warner.

Chairman NUNN. I would ask unanimous consent that the record be left open for those who have not yet voted to be able to cast their vote no later than 6 o'clock this afternoon.

Is there objection?

[No response.]

Without objection, we will report this to the Senate, and it would be my hope that we would be able to complete this in the Senate next week, but that will be up to Senator Byrd and the minority leader to schedule it.

I am told that we need to report this sometime today, and that we would have all votes in by 4 o'clock-2 o'clock. We will have the votes in by 2 o'clock.

Any other business?

If not, have a good weekend.

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the committee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.]

[The nomination of Frank C. Carlucci III was reported to the Senate by Senator Sam Nunn on November 13, 1987, with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on November 20, 1987.]