at all of the data based upon the June test, and still have ample time to make a recommendation to the President.

Senator LEVIN. Is it fair to assume that the delay by almost 2 months of the rest will result in a corresponding delay in the readiness review?

Secretary DE LEON. I am not sure that there would be a one-forone correlation. I think the critical issue will be for the program personnel to readily assess all of the data that is acquired in the test, I think this is test number five, to absorb all that data, to understand it, and then to report it forward. So there is some feeling that this could be done in a 30-day time period.

Senator LEVIN. Is the readiness review going to be based on one criteria or all four that the President has laid out?

Secretary DE LEON. Well, actually, I think that there are five criteria. One is to review the threat; the second, to look at national security considerations, including arms control and discussions with our allies.

The third piece is a technology assessment. Do we have the right architecture? The fourth is a validation of that architecture through these tests, and then five is an examination of cost-benefit tradeoff.

Senator LEVIN. As Deputy Secretary, you will play a key role in resource allocation among military services in preparation for the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget. I have a question about the Army's transformation plan.

Is it realistic to think that the Army can pay for that plan within its current share of the Department of Defense's modernization budget?

Secretary DE LEON. Well, I have met and discussed this with General Shinseki. There is an R&D component to his transformation strategy. There is also an operational component, in terms of how quickly he moves to configure some of the brigades.

But I think that in the short-term, in terms of initiating this important program, General Shinseki, last night, thought that he had the resources to take the very critical first steps.

In terms of some of the out-year funding, those issues are still in question, but I would add that there are some R&D and Science and Technology issues associated with that.

So, I think his position, and one that Secretary Cohen shares, is that it is critical for the Army to take the right first steps this year. I believe there is about $1 billion in the fiscal 2001 budget for the start-up of the Army Transformation Program.

Senator LEVIN. Your predecessor, John Hamre, who is surely one extraordinary human being, has done a wonderful job in many ways. One of the things that he did is to play a vital role in the Department's efforts to streamline its management through a socalled "revolution in business affairs."

When you are confirmed as Deputy Secretary, will you be equally committed to improvements in the Department's business practices?

Secretary DE LEON. I think Dr. Hamre and the Defense Reform Initiative that that is a very significant legacy issue of Dr. Hamre's tenure. But I think it really does try to move us into the

21st century of how we do business, whether it is paperless contracting or the full utilization of information technologies.

So, I am very much committed to his agenda and to make sure that, on the business side, we are vigorously moving into the 21st century.

Senator LEVIN. Perhaps I could just ask one additional question of Mr. Dworkin, and I will be done, Mr. Chairman.

It has to do with Defense management. Each year our Defense Authorization Bill contains a number of provisions which are designed to improve the management of the Department. Some of these are reporting requirements, while others are more substantive. We have gotten used to the fact that the reports do not necessarily arrive on the dates required, but it is more troublesome when the Department does not comply with certain statutory requirements, such as the requirement to establish a system for identifying any unreasonable escalation of spare parts' prices or to create to single financial management system for the DOD labs.

I am wondering whether or not you will say "no," when appropriate, to military services when they come to you with a proposal that you believe is inconsistent with applicable legal requirements?

Mr. DWORKIN. Yes, Senator. I think it is one of the responsibilities of the General Counsel of the Department to scrutinize proposals very carefully and to make certain that they do comport with applicable laws. I would certainly intend to follow that rule and that role if I were confirmed.

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you, again. I am delighted with these two nominations and hope we can achieve a very speedy confirmation.

Chairman WARNER. I assure you, Senator Levin, that the work of the committee will be done. Of course, you are going to help me with this, because you are extraordinarily well qualified.

Mr. Thurmond, Senator Roberts was about the first man to arrive here this morning. Then, I will return to you. I know you went over to the Senate, otherwise you would, as always, be the first here.

Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the strong commitments we make to our men and women in the Armed Forces is we will never leave them behind if they are missing in action or if they become a POW.

Yesterday, during your courtesy visit, Mr. de Leon, I had pointed out to you that during the Gulf War, a Navy pilot, Lieutenant Commander Spiker was shot down, and early reports suggested he was killed. He is still listed in that capacity. However, later reports certainly question that assertion.

I am not confident that all the resources have been expended to insure that we have met our solemn commitment to Lieutenant Commander Spiker and all members of the military.

I have asked both the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Intelligence to continue to look at this issue. Will you, as well, look into the Spiker case?

Secretary DE LEON. If confirmed, Senator, I will certainly use all of my authorities to review this matter in full and to report back to you.

Senator ROBERTS. In addition, during your office call, we discussed the current problems of meeting the military recruiting objectives. Just this morning, I was meeting with the Reserve and Guard units from Topeka, Kansas, and Wichita, Kansas, and they reported to me serious retention problems.

Since you are currently serving in the office most concerned with recruiting, will you share your views on the outlook for the services meeting their recruiting goals in the coming years and retention, and what factors, specifically, give you encouragement?

We had a good visit, and the fact is you seemed to be more encouraged in the coming years. What are you most concerned about? Secretary DE LEON. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I indicated in my opening statement, I have found the position of Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to be a very challenging position.

We talked yesterday, in looking at the recruiting issue, I think one of the issues that the Armed Forces learned very early on is that if we simply turned on all of the apparatus that we had in the 1980s, the expectation was, this would work from a recruiting perspective. Quickly, we found that it would not.

There are three points that I would raise and bring into perspective on the recruiting efforts. First, as Mr. Greenspan has said, our economy right now is short young, capable workers. Never before has the all-volunteer force had to compete with the economy, in terms of trying to find capable young people high school grads, people that are responsible, that are drug-free.

These are precisely what the Armed Forces is looking for. This is precisely what our economy is looking for. So, one, we have a competition with the economy.

Second, the Montgomery G.I. Bill, G.I. Bill benefits, in general, the opportunity to join the Armed Forces and to secure a college education, opened doors for millions of Americans in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Interestingly, in the year 2000, the great majority of our states have some kind of guaranteed follow-on college for all high school grads. So, we need to rethink how we make our college benefits programs attractive.

But the third piece was that I met with representatives at the Census Bureau, and we looked at the demographics, because demographics are a clear part of recruiting today.

In 1997, there were 5 million fewer 18 to 23 year-olds than there were in 1985; a significant drop. Now, by the year 2007, we have essentially returned to where we were in 1985. So, the demographics are starting to work with us. The pool of eligible kids, 18 to 23 year-olds, is starting to increase.

At the same time, our military recruiters, the recruiting commands, have very much engaged in how we communicate with young people today; how we get our message out to them. But I think if we look at the demographics, we will see that the pool of 18 to 23 year-olds is starting to grow, and by mid-decade, they will be at much more significant levels than they are right now.

Finally, the companion to recruiting is retention. Here, the committee has given us additional tools that will allow us to better re

tain the very capable and professional all-volunteer force that we have today.

Retention in the Army today is very strong; particularly among Army enlisted. Retention in the Navy, on the enlisted side, is very definitely moving in the right direction. The Marine Corps stays very effective in terms of recruiting and retention. I think the Air Force is going through sort of a mind change right now, but I know General Ryan and Secretary Peters are very much committed.

The Air Force was in the situation where they were the service of choice for several decades. Now, they are finding that they have to work as hard as the other services to recruit and retain, and in fact, are looking at some of the very innovative techniques that the Army uses to work on retention.

But I think using the tools that the Congress has given us, understanding the demographics and understanding how we compete in the marketplace, are making recruiting stronger.

We have great challenges in front of us, but we are growing stronger and more effective in this area, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you for that very comprehensive answer. Part of the credit certainly goes to Chairman Warner and Senator Levin and, for that matter, to all members of the committee who work very hard for the pay raise last year and for the retirement fix. We are also working very hard on the quality of life. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Could I be permitted one last

Chairman WARNER. Go right ahead, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS.-quick question?

Chairman WARNER. Just do not rush it.

Senator ROBERTS. All right. Admiral Gayman and the Joint Forces Command-I cannot imagine any commitment that will be involved in the future that would not be joint.

The work that that command is doing in what we call joint experimentation, and you and I had a discussion to try to convince people that when we commit funds to experimentation, that it is meaningful, it is not just a group of people sitting around discussing things that should be done.

So, I suggested, maybe, we ought to call it joint demonstrations or exercises, whichever happens to offend the fewest staffers up here on Capitol Hill, and more especially the appropriators.

I think it is vital to insure what we call interoperability and our ability to address the future threats, the very threats that the Chairman brought up, the emerging threats that come under the Emerging Threats Subcommittee that I am privileged to chair.

I already know your view of the responsibility of the Joint Forces Command and the transformation of the Armed Services. I call it an honest broker for a clearinghouse, if you will.

You indicated to me that the service chiefs are much more supportive of the work that the admiral is doing. My question is: What, in your view, will happen when Joint Forces Command, through one of their demonstrations or exercises or experiments or whatever, makes a recommendation that runs contrary to the service desires?

The second part of that is: How will the decision be made? Who will make the final decision, if the Joint Forces Command dis

agrees with a premise or restructuring or a weapons system that is supported by the service?

Secretary DE LEON. A very important question for today, as well as the future. Interoperability is one of the issues that is now on the Secretary of Defense's desk. It is a critical lesson learned from Kosovo.

I think interoperability gets at the heart of the joint experimentation effort that Admiral Gehman has set forth in his responsibilities and in the training exercises.

If we cannot be integrated in terms of communications, the sharing of information, we are going to be less effective in the field in the future.

I think Admiral Gehman is appropriately asking each of the service chiefs, but particularly the JROC, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, one of the key Goldwater-Nichols reforms, which brings the requirements period before each of the Vice Chiefs under the chairmanship of the vice chair of the Joint Chiefs. Interoperability is going to be one of the key issues that either allows the synergism of our force to be felt in the field, or it will hinder us. I think, here, Admiral Gehman's work has really changed, I think, how the Joint Chiefs look at it, from being, I will not say resistant, but raising a number of questions 18 months ago to understanding the criticality of interoperability as an essential military component of the future.

Senator ROBERTS. Well, when push comes to shove, who does the shoving?

Secretary DE LEON. At the end of the day, I think the buck will stop with the Secretary of Defense. If he is otherwise occupied, it will stop with me. But I think interoperability is one of those key issues. It is as critical as the Goldwater-Nichols reforms were in 1986 and 1987.

Senator ROBERTS. As a committee, Admiral Gayman indicates that we should be doing a little pushing and shoving, or at least having some meaningful dialog, and as one of the service chiefs, and you are going to be right there with us.

Secretary DE LEON. We will do that.

Senator ROBERTS. All right.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WARNER. Thank you, Senator Roberts.

Now, present pro tem of the United States Senate and past chairman of this committee.

STATEMENT SENATOR STROM THURMOND

Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I join you and the members of the committee in welcoming Secretary de Leon and Mr. Dworkin. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, who will be leaving the Department of Defense at the end of this month, for his able service as the Deputy Secretary during the past 3 years. Those of us who knew John when he was a staff member of this committee, are not surprised by the professional and dedicated manner in which he served the Nation; first, as the OSD Comptroller, and then as the Deputy Secretary. We, as well as the soldiers,