[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S7299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MARINE CORPS GENERAL OFFICER REQUIREMENT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on Wednesday, my colleague from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley, posed a legitimate question regarding the Marine 
Corps general officer requirement. As I said at the time, that question 
deserves a legitimate answer. His question basically was, Why does this 
year's Defense authorization bill provide an extra 12 general officers 
for the Marines at a time when the Marines are very much in a 
downsizing mode? The Marine Corps recognized the need for additional 
general officers several years ago. They developed a plan which was 
then validated by an independent civilian study and received scrutiny 
and approval at the Secretary of the Navy level. The Assistant 
Secretary of Defense received the study and found the rationale to be 
legitimate and supportable.
  First, let me address Senator Grassley's concern for the growth of 
service headquarters. The Marine Corps' request for additional general 
officers is not an attempt to increase the size of their service 
headquarters. For the record, half of those general officers authorized 
will fill warfighting billets which are currently vacant. Another four 
will be available for assignment to our warfighting CINCS and two will 
be used to fill the positions of commanding general at the two Marine 
Corps recruit depots. As Senator Grassley quoted General Sheehan, 
``Service Headquarters should not be growing as the force shrinks.'' I 
agree, and General Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps agrees; 
Marine Headquarters will not be growing with the addition of these 
general officers.
  Second, let me talk for a few minutes about why the Marines need the 
additional generals. As the Marines have been brought into the joint 
arena, the Corps received no increase in flag officer strengths while 
willingly picking up additional joint requirements at the general 
officer level. As they have been called upon to fill legitimate joint 
billets, the Marines have had to leave internal warfighting billets 
vacant. For instance, a Marine division and a Marine airwing have 
colonels serving as assistant commanders. This leaves only one general 
for forces of 18,000 and 15,000 respectively. The other services may 
have at least two to three flag officers in comparable units.
  As I have said, 6 of the 12 generals included in the bill would go 
directly into existing vacant warfighting positions. Four of the other 
six would permit the Marines an appropriate representation at the 
senior level in the joint arena. This will ensure equitable 
representation in joint duty positions as we envisioned when we passed 
Goldwater-Nickles. Let me add that the study that I mentioned earlier 
documented an even larger requirement for additional marine generals. 
The Commandant reduced that to 14. Our staff validated only 12. I 
really believe that this is the right thing for this body to do. This 
matter has received the closest of scrutiny at all levels and was found 
to be sound.
  In summary, Mr. President, the Marine Corps would agree with General 
Sheehan's remarks that the unwarranted growth of headquarters staffs 
ultimately threatens the services' warfighting capabilities. However, 
as I just discussed, the Marine Corps is not trying to increase the 
size of its headquarters staff, but is first attempting to correct a 
long-standing deficiency in the number of general officers authorized 
to fill existing warfighting billets, and second, is in good faith 
pursuing the need to meet the requirements of the joint warfighting 
arena mandated by Goldwater-Nickles. The Marine Corps' request has been 
studied extensively and is supported by both Secretary of the Navy, and 
the Department of Defense. Correspondingly, the Armed Services 
Committee has studied and agreed with the requirement.
  I respect the inquiry from my colleague from Iowa. He asked a good 
question and I am pleased to be able to report that the Armed Services 
Committee's recommendation is supported by analytical evidence and is 
requirements based. I am confident that we have made the proper 
recommendation; however, I assure my colleague that the Armed Services 
Committee will continue to exercise its oversight responsibilities by 
reviewing the Marine Corps general officer requirements annually.

                          ____________________