[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E8-E10]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               STATEMENT BY UNDER SECRETARY JOE R. REEDER

                                 ______


                         HON. RONALD V. DELLUMS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 3, 1996

  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to your attention and to 
the attention of my colleagues, an exceptional statement delivered by 
Joe R. Reeder, Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. Reeder's analysis is one 
that merits our attention. I herewith submit his statement to be 
included in today's Congressional Record.

           Worldwide Continuing Legal Workshop, Oct. 3, 1995

       It is a pleasure to be back in Charlottesville. The first 
     time I came to this city was in the fall of 1976 for the JAG 
     basic course. I was glad it was only for two months because 
     the cavaliers were suffering through some of the worst 
     football in their history.
       I also came back and taught a course as a reservist in 
     1981. The head of their school was Bill Suter, who later 
     became TJAG--and as you know--is now with the Supreme Court.
       I look fondly back upon my time in the JAG Corps and have 
     acquired friends and experiences in the corps which will 
     always be special to me.
       That is why I was very pleased when Gen. Mike Nardotti 
     asked me to share some thoughts about our Army--where we are 
     now--where we are going--and your role in the challenges we 
     face.
       Let me start with the bottom line on America's Army.
       Today's soldiers are the most highly motivated, best led, 
     best trained, and best equipped fighting force in the world. 
     No one disputes that--even those who would like to.
       Day in, day out, we have soldiers operating in 60 to 100 
     countries around the world--an average of over 20,000 
     American soldiers are on operational deployments. That's in 
     addition to the 120K men and women permanently stationed 
     overseas.
       If you think back to the changes made over the last 5 
     years--you see an active army that has gone from 780 thousand 
     to 515 thousand seen its budget nose-dive from $90 billion to 
     just under $60 billion--and at the same time see its missions 
     skyrocket 300 percent.
       Those cuts would have severely wounded, if not crippled any 
     other army, or large corporation. But not the U.S. Army.
       Thanks to the Army's leadership including many of you in 
     this Room. The Army is as ready as it has ever been--and 
     certainly more ready than we were 5 years in Desert Storm.
       In many respects this Army just keeps getting better. One 
     concrete example is ``vigilant warrior'' in Kuwait last 
     October.
       During operation Desert Shield it took almost 30 days for 
     our Armored Forces to arrive in Saudi Arabia. This time, the 
     lead elements of our heavy forces--not 82d Paratroopers or 
     10th Mountain Division Light Fighters--but tankers from the 
     24th ID were on the ground in under 72 hrs.
       In 2 weeks, 2 brigades of the 24th were in Kuwait and Saudi 
     Arabia, linked up with their prepositioned warfighting 
     equipment. Within 3 weeks, over 30 thousand servicemen were 
     in theater--equipped for war.
       Now let me touch on what lies ahead for our army.
       I see several major challenges facing their army 
     leadership.
       First and foremost, we have to be tougher as our resources 
     shrink. And I do not expect their resource picture to 
     brighten anytime soon.
       I read a poll in the Army Times a few weeks ago which 
     proclaimed that two-thirds of the American people believe the 
     defense budget should be reduced further.
       There's just not enough money to cover all our needs. Tough 
     choices have to be made.
       Secretary Perry's top 3 are clear and unequivocal.
       Our first priority is near term readiness. We cannot afford 
     to let this slip. After the Superbowl, the 49ers get an 
     offseason. They can eat, drink and get fat for a few months. 
     That is a luxury your Army does not have.
       Our next priority is quality of life--which surprises some 
     people--but I see it as a steel chain link to readiness.
       Quality of life directly relates to our ability to attract 
     and retain quality people.
       We face the critical challenge of finding and keeping 
     quality people. The soldiers we have in uniform today are the 
     best ever--hands down.
       Easily the most important change in the Army in the past 25 
     years is the quality of our soldiers.
       Last year, I had the opportunity to dine with Gen. and Mrs. 
     George Blanchard. As some of you know, Gen. Blanchard was the 
     Army CINC in Europe in the late 70s. He was also my Div Cdr 
     in the 82d ABN Div.
       About half way thru the meal, he turned to me said, ``Joe, 
     it hurts me to admit this, but I have got to tell you the 
     soldiers today are better than when I served.''
       I agreed, but asked why he said that. He said for two 
     reasons:
       First, the all-volunteer Army and second, the way we treat 
     soldiers today--among other things, their quality of life.
       I told him he should not feel bad--because the quality of 
     today's Army is his legacy.
       I also told him I had a different perspective, in one 
     respect maybe a better perspective than his. Rather than 
     having lived through that change, I left the Army in the late 
     70s and was gone 14 years.
       Coming back in 1993, I had the benefit of not having 
     watched that process of change in a slow, gradual way, . . . 
     I can tell you the difference was like night and day.
       We must continue recruiting and retaining high quality 
     people.
       Our third priority is modernization. Modernization dollars 
     have shrunk dramatically. We have been hit harder here than 
     anywhere else.
       Your Army, best in the world, but only eight in size cannot 
     afford to lose any more modernization dollars.
       We are accepting some risk in this area for two reasons.
       One, our superior technology completely outmatches the 
     entire world. We expect that no country will come close to 
     competing with our existing systems for the next 10 years.
       And two, we expect to achieve cost savings from BRAC and 
     acquisition streamlining that will allow us to reinvest these 
     savings into our modernization program.
       We must always maintain technological superiority. This is 
     one of my greatest concerns.
       Anyone who thinks it was decency or goodness that caused 
     Saddam Hussein or General Cedras to back off when faced by 
     American soldiers, lives in a dream world.
       In Haiti and Kuwait, lives were saved from the ravages of 
     war--not out of goodness--but out of a knowledge of what our 
     soldiers could and would do if forced to fight.
       Technology overmatch--by deterring--saves lives. It saves 
     not only lives--it saves money--by allowing us to maintain a 
     smaller and more effective Army, and avoiding the 
     prohibitive, gut-wrenching costs of war.
     
[[Page E9]]

       In these days of reduced resources, and tough program cuts 
     we must squeeze more out of dollars. We must become more 
     efficient. The dollars we save in efficiencies can and must 
     be plowed back into modernization.
       General Reimer, your new chief, believes--and I quote: ``We 
     must find new and innovative ways to help ourselves. We must 
     find smarter ways to do business, streamline our management 
     processes, reduce overhead, leverage outside resources and 
     use what we have more efficiently.''
       I can think of no better group to ``help us help 
     ourselves'' than the leadership of the JAG Corps. Because, in 
     the end, your real clients are your soldiers and ultimately, 
     the American taxpayer.
       Let me spend a few minutes talking to you, as a lawyer who 
     has been functioning as a client for the past 2 years. I'd 
     like to tell you what lawyers do for me, and what lawyers do 
     for the Army as a whole.
       But before I do that, let me tell you that being a client 
     is a real eye-opener. I have learned a great deal in this 
     capacity about what makes clients happy and, sometimes, what 
     frustrates them.
       Maybe the best story I've seen on reversal of roles was the 
     movie ``The Doctor,'' starring William Hurt. Hurt played the 
     role of a great surgeon who was very flippant, played acid 
     rock in the operating room, and was not very sensitive to the 
     needs of his patients.
       His perspective radically changes when he learned he has 
     cancer of the eye. The balance of the movie--following this 
     discovery--covers his frustration under the cold-blooded 
     treatment of another ``Hot Shot'' doctor.
       The last scenes of the movie are ones I will never forget. 
     William Hurt, after recovery, is placed in charge of 10 
     interns. He orders them to live, for 48 hours, as patients as 
     part of their training. The interns are forced to experience 
     the discomforts of patients including enemas, staff rudeness, 
     and a shocking lack of privacy.
       I can assure you my client experiences have been a little 
     more pleasant.
       As Mike Nardotti and Bill Coleman can vouch, I use lawyers 
     extensively--every day. They have traveled with me; they have 
     provide traditional legal counsel, advice and representation; 
     and they have assisted in crafting argument on matters of 
     policy having very little to do with the law.
       Based on my experiences, I think lawyers could be used more 
     extensively.
       The art of good advocacy is something that can be applied 
     anywhere.
       Just about everything we write--everything I have seen of 
     any import--is expository. Everything is either asking 
     someone to do or approve something.
       Everytime I see an Army document that is asking for 
     something important from OSD, from Congress, or from another 
     agency, I instinctively ask to have counsel review and edit 
     it. I do not believe I have ever failed to get back a product 
     that was measurably better than what I had provided.
       Recently I worked in a non-legal capacity, and sometimes, 
     extensively on the rocky mountain arsenal settlement 
     negotiations. My role was restricted to interfacing with the 
     policy-makers of the State of Colorado--Gov. Roy Romer, Lt. 
     Gov. Gail Schoettler, and other policy people.
       Both Bill Coleman and Mike Nardotti built a great 
     negotiation team. From the General Counsel's office, Earl 
     Stockdale and Tammy Paragino oversaw the development of the 
     negotiation strategy,. While JAG officers Col. Cal Lederer, 
     Maj. Sharon Riley, Maj. Jonathan Potter, and Capt. Tom Cook 
     played key roles on the negotiating team.
       In addition to everything else he did, the quarterback of 
     our rock mountain negotiating team, Col. John Benson, was 
     absolutely superb in knowing when--and he was very sparing--
     to call me out and dust me off for action.
       John's team tackled several complex and controversial 
     issues and masterfully dealt with a wide range of groups that 
     included the State of Colorado, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service, the EPA, shell Oil, and several local groups.
       The efforts of Benson's team led to a cost-savings to the 
     Army of between $1 to 2 billion and brought over 12 years of 
     negotiations to a successful juncture.
       A couple of weeks ago we awarded John Benson the legion of 
     merit, and recognized with awards four other attorneys who 
     were instrumental in that landmark litigation and settlement.
       In the months to come, Col. Cal Lederer will lead the team 
     in completing final negotiations.
       If you forget everything else that I say to you today, the 
     one thought I would hope you would take away--my one 
     request--is that you set your top priority knowing intimately 
     the business of your customers. What are their priorities 
     today?
       When I say ``the business of your customers,'' I am not 
     talking only about the legal implications of your client's 
     actions. I am talking about what your client does on a day-
     in/day-out basis--readiness challenges, maintenance 
     challenges, personnel progression, training, finding 
     efficiencies, and whatever else happens to be the priorities 
     at your particular installation.
       I say this because I have had very fine lawyers--lawyers 
     who obviously were capable analytically--who turned out to be 
     of marginal use because they simply did not understand--they 
     did not undertake to develop a rudimentary understanding of--
     the context of the legal problem.
       It is not that they did not want to; they simply did not 
     understand it. It is like a doctor--and there are many fine 
     doctors who behave like this--who is technically superb, but 
     who treats each person to be operated on as a speciment.
       I am reminded of the time when my daughter was 10 months 
     old when I was serving in the 82d airborne division. One 
     night, we had to rush her to Womack Army Hospital with a 106 
     degree temperature, for what turned out to be spinal 
     meningitis. Apart from misdiagnosing her, the doctor who 
     treated her that night, kept referring to her as my ``son.''
       Our legal community faces similar challenges in serving our 
     clients. All of us know lawyers in private practice who might 
     prepare a lease that costs $10,000 in legal expenses for a 
     condo that is only $20,000 itself.
       What's the problem?--Complete disregard, or lack of 
     understanding, of the context.
       I am reminded of a young aggressive Navy attorney.--The 
     prosecutor in famous murder trial a few years ago.
       During the trial, a sailor took the stand.
       ``Would you please tell the court if you recognize either 
     the defendant or the plaintiff?'' asked the prosecuting 
     attorney ``beg your pardon, sir'' said the sailor, ``but 
     would you explain to me what those words mean?''
       The prosecutor's eyes narrowed. ``Shame on you! How can you 
     take the stand as a witness in a murder trial and not know 
     those basic terms?''
       ``Sorry sir''
       The prosecutor said, ``Let me rephrase the question. Tell 
     the court where you were when the accused is said to have 
     struck the victim.''
       ``Well sir, I was abaft the binnacle''
       And would you please explain what those words mean''
       ``Shame on you sir!'' said the sailor. ``How can you work 
     on a case about murder on a ship and not know those basic 
     terms?''
       Now, to keep our counsel as lawyers relevant, in addition 
     to keeping track of the context, it also helps to think of 
     our decisions in terms of business consequences. Doctors and 
     lawyers are considered notoriously bad businessmen. And we 
     must change that.
       Sid Lanoue, our Surgeon General, is an exception. He has 
     put every hospital on a budget that rewards preventive 
     medicine, and lets hospitals keep savings.
       I understand the JAG Corps is moving in the same direction. 
     SJA claims officers are more aggressively recovering money 
     from carriers for damaged household goods--and their office 
     budgets are rewarded with a portion of the recovered money.
       One aspect of lawyering that makes good business sense is 
     how a private attorney charges for his time.
       One way is the contingency fee--if the client does not win, 
     the lawyer does not get paid.
       The other way is billing rates.
       I always tried as an attorney, not only to consider the 
     dollar and cent consequences of decisions, and the time value 
     of money--but also the money value of my time.
       Ask yourself these questions: ``Would I pay for what I am 
     doing?'' ``Am I giving the taxpayer what they are paying 
     for?''
       Everyone has a ``billing rate.''
       Governmental bureaucracies are a real challenge to change, 
     especially if attorneys are part of the foot dragging.
       No one is better than attorneys at putting up roadblocks or 
     taking them down--telling people they can not do things that 
     otherwise make good business sense. We as attorneys must 
     think about the practical business consequences of our 
     advice.
       Last year, the AMC legal community has also begun a program 
     that makes good business sense. They now routinely conduct 
     post-award contract negotiations with unsuccessful bidders.
       When people think they have been treated unfairly--they 
     litigate. These debriefings help make contractors understand 
     why they have been treated fairly--and save millions in 
     litigation costs.
       Let me just make a couple other observations about being an 
     Army lawyer.
       Army attorneys in one respect have a tougher job than their 
     civilian counterparts, who are constrained only by the code 
     of professional responsibility.
       Army lawyers, on the other hand, under EC 7-14--must also 
     be fair--must not employ the awesome power of Government to 
     effect an unjust end.
       Looking back, I am not proud of everything I did as a 
     Government attorney. I am sure there were times that I was 
     over-zealous. I abided by code but did not always focus on 
     what was just or fair.
       Some of those who have never served in private practice may 
     not appreciate the power the Government was available to 
     effect unjust ends.
       If I had to do it over again, I would be more oriented to 
     pursue my work because it was just and fair--not solely 
     because I had a legal argument.
       Why? Because it's just good lawyering. People who believe 
     they have been wronged usually will not give up easily.
       When it comes to fairness, people demand more from their 
     Government than they do from others.
       Another aspect of context involves change--especially those 
     changes over which we do not exercise control--shrinking 
     resources, new technology, new missions.
       Last May, Judge Frank Posner of the 7th circuit was the 
     keynote speaker at the American Law Institute in Chicago. His 
     speech was critical of the ACI. He chastised the entire body 
     for failing to adapt or to 

[[Page E10]]
     even acknowledge revolutionary changes taking place in society.
       While I did not agree with everything he said, he was right 
     that attorneys cannot function as elite professionals in a 
     vacuum.
       Obviously today's world is much more complicated than just 
     a few years ago. It was much easier to give advice. As often 
     as not, SJA advice was more confined to military criminal law 
     and a few community matters.
       The end of the Cold War has contributed to changing this.
       Commanders now find themselves anywhere in the world--
     assigned any number of unusual missions.--Reducing street 
     crime on the streets of Port 'A Prince, or guarding refugees 
     in Panama--the different scenarios are endless.
       In the past the SJA was always considered part of the 
     special staff. A specialist who could keep to himself. No 
     more the SJA has become a member of the commander's battle 
     staff. He plays a role--like that of the G2--assessing the 
     battlfield--identifying potential legal, and ethical 
     landmines.
       In Panama, Haiti, Somalia, and Rwanda our SJAs are one of 
     the most important staff members, helping their commanders 
     avoid these landmines.--Stepping forward and guiding them 
     through these minefields.
       It is in this regard I would ask you to do ever more. In 
     this period of resource constraints, we need our attorneys 
     more than ever--to keep stepping forward.
       Help us streamline our processes.--Not something lawyers 
     are well-known for doing, but vitally important. Help make 
     the rules and procedures more understandable--more 
     accessible--and more relevant to the needs of your commander.
       The law, ethically applied and sensibly interepreted--
     invariably is fair and makes sense. And your role in 
     interpreting and applying the law, if anything, is more 
     important today than ever before.
       Let me close by thanking each of you for what you've done 
     up to now, what you're doing this week, what you must keep 
     doing in order to keep our Army the finest in the world.

                          ____________________