[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8974-S8976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MARINE CORPS GENERALS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak about something that is
in conference now between the House and Senate on the fiscal year 1997
defense authorization bill, something I spoke about several times on
the floor of this body before. I think I have some new information. In
fact, I do have some new information that I was not able to use in the
last debate.
This information has a direct bearing on the Marine Corps request for
12 more generals that is a bone of contention in the conference between
the House and the Senate--the Senate supporting it, the House, thus
far, in their deliberations on the other side being opposed to
increasing the number of Marine Corps generals.
I did not have this particular piece of information when I addressed
this matter on the floor on June 26 and again on July 17. I spoke on
the extra Marine Corps generals during consideration of both the fiscal
year 1997 defense authorization bill and the defense appropriations
bill. In fact, I offered an amendment to block the Marine Corps request
for more generals, but I failed.
These missing documents would have greatly strengthened my case. I
want to thank Washington Post writer Mr. Walter Pincus for his alerting
me to the fact that these documents existed. I am not talking about
some purloined Pentagon documents either.
I am referring to the legislative history behind the current ceiling
on general officer strength levels. First, there is section 811 of
Public Law 95-79 enacted in July 1977. That established a ceiling of
1,073 general officers after October 1, 1980.
Second, there is section 526 of title X of the United States Code,
and this happens to be current law. Section 526 placed a ceiling on the
number of general and flag officers serving on active duty at 865 after
October 1, 1995.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these two sections of
the law printed in the Record, along with other relevant materials.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Public Law 95-79 [H.R. 5970]; July 30, 1977--Department of Defense
Appropriation Authorization Act, 1978
* * * * *
Sec. 811. (a)(1) The total number of commissioned officers
on active duty in the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force above
the grade of colonel, and on active duty in the Navy above
the grade of captain, may not exceed 1,073 after October 1,
1980, and the total number of civilian employees of the
Department of Defense in grades GS-13 through GS-18,
including positions authorized under section 1581 of title
10, United States Code, shall be reduced during the fiscal
year beginning October 1, 1977, by the same percentage as the
number of officers on active duty in the Army, Marine Corps,
and Air Force above the grade of colonel and on active duty
in the Navy above the grade of captain is reduced below 1,141
during such fiscal year, and during the fiscal years
beginning October 1, 1978, and October 1, 1979, by a
percentage equal to the percentage by which the number of
commissioned officers on active duty in the Army, Marine
Corps, and Air Force above the grade of colonel and on active
duty in the Navy above the grade of captain is reduced during
such fiscal year below the total number of such officers on
active duty on October 1, 1978, and October 1, 1979,
respectively.
(2) On and after October 1, 1980, the total number of
civilian employees of the Department of Defense in the grades
and positions described in paragraph (1) may not exceed the
number employed in such grades and positions on the date of
enactment of this subsection reduced as provided in paragraph
(1).
(3) In time of war, or of national emergency declared by
Congress, the President may suspend the operation of
paragraphs (1) and (2).
(b)(1) Subsection (b) of section 5231 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) The number of officers serving in the grades of
admiral and vice admiral under subsection (a) of this section
and section 5081 of this title may not be more than 15
percent of the number of officers on the active list of the
Navy above the grade of captain. Of the number of officers
that may serve in the grades of admiral and vice admiral, as
determined under this subsection, not more than 25 percent
may serve in the grade of admiral.''.
(2) Such section 5231 is further amended--
(A) by striking out subsection (c):
(B) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
(C) by striking out ``numbers authorized under subsections
(b) and (c)'' in subsections (c) and (d) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``number
authorized for that grade under subsection (b)''.
(3) Subsection (b) of section 5232 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(b) The number of officers serving in the grades of
general and lieutenant general may not be more than 15
percent of the number of officers on the active list of the
Marine Corps above the grade of colonel.''.
(4) The second sentence of subsection (c) of such section
is amended by striking out the period and inserting in lieu
thereof a comma and the following: ``and while in that grade
he is in addition to the number authorized for that grade
under subsection (b) of this section.''.
____
Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act, 1978--Conference
Report
* * * * *
Reductions in Certain Military and Civilian Positions in the
Department of Defense
The Senate amendment to the House bill (sec. 302) provided
for a reduction in the number of general officers and
admirals by 23 below planned levels in fiscal year 1978 and
an additional reduction of 47 in fiscal year 1979 to an
authorized level of 1,071 and also provided for an alteration
of the statutory provisions governing admirals in the Navy
and generals in the Marine Corps to place them in a similar
position to the Army and the Air Force when the national
emergency provisions lapse. The Senate amendment (sec. 502)
also provided for a reduction in the number of civilians in
General Schedule grades GS-12 through 18, or equivalent, by 2
percent in fiscal year 1978 and by the same proportionate
reduction as applied to generals and admirals for fiscal year
1979.
The House bill contained no such provisions.
The conferees agreed to reduce the authorized levels of
generals and admirals to 1,073 over a 3-year period beginning
with fiscal year 1978 and to apply a reduction to Defense
civilian employees in General Schedule grades GS-13 through
18, or equivalent, by the same proportionate amount over the
same period. The conferees feel strongly that the reductions
in the numbers of top-ranking military personnel should be
coupled with a concurrent reduction in the numbers in the top
six Defense civilian grade levels. For this reason, Sections
302 and 502 of the Senate amendment have been combined and
set out as a separate provision (sec. 811) in the general
provisions of the conference report. The conferees also agree
that all civilian reductions shall be accomplished through
attrition. The conferees concluded that a technical
correction of the Senate provision was required to achieve
consistency between statutory provisions affecting admirals
and Marine Corps generals and the general officers of the
other services.
[[Page S8975]]
The conferees agree on the need for a process to enable
Congress and the Department of Defense to develop criteria
for an ongoing review of the number of general officers and
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report with the
fiscal year 1979 military authorization request on the
required numbers of general officers as well as any
justification for deferring the proposed military and
civilian reductions in whole or part.
The House recedes with an amendment.
____
Authorizing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1978 for Military
Procurement, Research and Development, Active Duty, Selected Reserve,
and Civilian Personnel Strengths, Civil Defense, and for Other
Purposes--Senate Report 95-129
* * * * *
Sec. 302: Committee Amendment Reducing the Number of Generals
and Admirals
For fiscal year 1977, the Department of Defense plans to
have 1,165 generals or admirals--one flag officer for every
1,800 active military members. This number is in sharp
contrast to 1968 when during the Vietnam war, there was one
general officer for every 2,600 military members and to the
peacetime 1964 level when there was one general for every
2,100 military members. The Department of Defense proposed to
reduce the number of flag officers by 24 in fiscal year 1978.
The committee adopted an amendment to reduce this number by
an additional 23 in fiscal year 1978 and by 47 in fiscal year
1979. Since the services have undertaken different levels of
effort to reduce flag officers, the amendment gives the
President the authority to apportion the total number of flag
officers rather than applying a uniform reduction for each
service.
The purpose of this amendment is to begin a process to
enable Congress and the Department of Defense to develop
criteria for an ongoing review of the number of officers at
this level. The committee requests the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report with the fiscal year 1979 military
authorization request on the required numbers of general
officers including any justification for deferring the
proposed reductions in whole or part.
Within the total number of general officers authorized, the
Army and Air Force are restricted to having no more than 15
percent of the total number of generals at the grades of
lieutenant general and general and no more than 25 percent of
the general officers at these two grades can be at the grade
of general. However, except in time of war or emergency,
certain specific numbers are included in law for the Navy and
Marine Corps: 26 vice admirals and four admirals for the
Navy, and two generals for the Marine Corps. In addition, the
Marines are restricted to a number of lieutenant generals and
generals total number of officers at the grades of lieutenant
general and no more than 10 percent of the number of general
officers. These provisions for the Navy and Marine Corps have
been suspended by the President under national emergency
authority which is expiring. The committee feels the
distribution of general officer authorizations by grade
should be consistent and has included provisions in the
amendment to make the restrictions for the Navy and Marine
Corps consistent with those for the Army and Air Force.
____
United States Code, Title X
* * * * *
Sec. 526. Authorized strength: general and flag officers on
active duty
(a) Limitations.--The number of general officers on active
duty in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and the number
of flag officers on active duty in the Navy, may not exceed
the number specified for the armed force concerned as
follows:
(1) For the Army, 386 before October 1, 1995, and 302 on
and after that date.
(2) For the Navy, 250 before October 1, 1995, and 216 on
and after that date.
(3) For the Air Force, 326 before October 1, 1995, and 279
on and after that date.
(4) For the Marine Corps, 68.
(b) Transfer between services.--During the period before
October 1, 1995, the Secretary of Defense may increase the
number of general officers on active duty in the Army, Air
Force, or Marine Corps, or the number of flag officers on
active duty in the Navy, above the applicable number
specified in subsection (a) by a total of not more than five.
Whenever any such increase is made, the Secretary shall make
a corresponding reduction in the number of such officers that
may serve on active duty in general or flag officer grades in
one of the other armed forces.
(c) Limited exclusion for joint duty requirements.--(1) The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may designate up to 12
general officer and flag officer positions that are joint
duty assignments for purposes of chapter 38 of this title for
exclusion from the limitations in subsection (a) that are
applicable on and after October 1, 1995. Officers in
positions so designated shall not be counted for the purposes
of those limitations.
(2) this subsection shall cease to be effective on October
1, 1998.
(d) Notice to Congress upon change in grade for certain
positions.--(1) Not later than 60 days before an action
specified in paragraph (2) may become effective, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report
providing notice of the intended action and an analytically
based justification for the intended action.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies in the case of the following
actions:
(A) A change in the grade authorized as of July 1, 1994,
for a general officer position in the National Guard Bureau,
a general or flag officer position in the Office of a Chief
of a reserve component, or a general or flag officer position
in the headquarters of a reserve component command.
(B) Assignment of a reserve component officer to a general
officer position in the National Guard Bureau, to a general
or flag officer position in the Office of a Chief of a
reserve component, or a general or flag officer position in
the headquarters of a reserve component command in a grade
other than the grade authorized for that position as of July
1, 1994.
(C) Assignment of an officer other than a general or flag
officer as the military executive to the Reserve Forces
Policy Board.
(e) Exclusion of Certain Officers.--The limitations of this
section do not apply to a reserve component general or flag
officer who is on active duty for training or who is on
active duty under a call or order specifying a period of less
than 180 days.
(Added Pub. L. 100-370, Sec. 1(b)(1)(B), July 19, 1988, 102
Stat. 840, and amended Pub. L. 101-510, Div. A, Title IV,
Sec. 403(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1545; Pub. L. 102-484,
Div. A, Title IV, Sec. 403, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2398;
Pub. L. 103-337, Div. A, Title IV, Sec. 404, Title V,
Sec. 512, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2744, 2752.)
historical and statutory notes
Prior Provisions
A prior section 526 was renumbered section 527 of this
title by Pub. L. 100-370.
1994 Amendments
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 103-337, Sec. 404, struck out
``before October 1, 1995 and 61 on and after that date''
after ``Corps, 68''.
Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 103-337, Sec. 512, added
subsecs. (d) and (e).
1992 Amendments
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102-484, Sec. 403(b), inserted a
subsec. (b) heading: ``Transfer between services''.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102-484, Sec. 403(a), added subsec.
(c).
1990 Amendment
Pub. L. 101-510, Sec. 403(a), designated existing text as
subsec. (a) and as so designated, inserted subsection heading
and substituted provisions setting forth limitations in
authorized strength for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine
Corps. beginning in Oct. 1995, set out in pars (1)-(4) for
provisions limiting authorized strength to 1,073 officers,
made minor changes in text and added subsec. (b).
Change of Name
Any reference in any provision of law enacted before Jan.
4, 1995, to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives treated as referring to the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives, see
section 1(a)(1) of Pub. L. 104-14, set out as a note
preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress.
Effective Date of 1990 Amendment
Section 403(a) of Pub. L. 101-510 provided that the
amendment made by this section is effective Sept. 30, 1991.
Savings Provisions
Reference to law replaced by Pub. L. 100-370 to refer to
corresponding provision enacted by such public law;
regulation, rule, or order in effect under law so replaced to
continue in effect under provision enacted until repealed,
amended, or superseded; and action taken or offense committed
under law replaced treated as taken or committed under
provision enacted, see section 4 of Pub. L. 100-370, set out
as a note under section 101 of this title.
Legislative History
For legislative history and purpose of Pub. L. 100-370, see
1988 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1077. See, also, Pub.
L. 101-510, 1990 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 2931; Pub.
L. 102-484, 1992, U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 1636;
Pub. L. 103-337, 1994 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 2091.
cross references
Reserve general and flag officers in an active status
strength and grade exclusively from counts under this
section, see 10 USCA Sec. 12004.
Mr. GRASSLEY. In 1990, the Armed Services Committee decided there
were too many generals. The number needed to be reduced. The committee
cut the number of generals from 1,073 in 1990 down to 858 by 1995. That
is a reduction of 20 percent or, more specifically, 215 generals in
total over a 5-year period of time.
Mr. President, how did this come about? What is the reasoning behind
the reduction? By answering these questions, I hope to help my
colleagues understand why the Armed Services Committee reduced the
number of generals 6 years ago. If we understand why they did what they
did 6 years ago, perhaps we can understand why they are ready to move
in the opposite direction today.
The legislative history does contain important clues. It should help
us solve this riddle. Back in 1990, the Armed Services Committee could
see the
[[Page S8976]]
handwriting on the wall. They saw the cold war coming to an end. The
Soviet military threat was evaporating, and the Defense Department was
downsizing and doing it in earnest. In 1990, the committee predicted
that there would be an overall force reduction of at least 25 percent
between the years 1990 and 1995. Well, the committee's prediction was
right on the money.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a table that shows how military end strengths have gradually declined
since February 1987.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air
Fiscal year Total Army Navy Force Marine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987........................................................ 2,174,217 780,815 586,842 607,035 199,525
1988........................................................ 2,138,213 771,847 592,570 576,446 197,350
1989........................................................ 2,130,229 769,741 592,652 570,880 196,956
1990........................................................ 2,043,705 732,403 579,417 535,233 196,652
1991........................................................ 1,985,555 710,821 570,262 510,432 194,040
1992........................................................ 1,807,177 610,450 541,883 470,315 184,529
1993........................................................ 1,705,103 572,423 509,950 444,351 178,379
1994........................................................ 1,610,490 541,343 468,662 426,327 174,158
1995........................................................ 1,518,224 508,559 434,617 400,409 174,639
1996........................................................ 1,493,391 499,145 428,412 393,400 172,434
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, what the committee said would happen in
fact did happen, and it is continuing to happen this very day.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to also have printed in the
Record a table from page 254 of Secretary Perry's March 1996 annual
report to the Congress.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follos:
TABLE V-4--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL
[End of fiscal year strength in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Percent
------------------------ change
Goal FY 1987-
1987 1996 1997 97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Military............... 2,174 1,482 1,457 1,418 -33
Army........................ 781 495 495 475 -37
Navy........................ 587 424 407 394 -31
Marine Corps................ 199 174 174 174 -13
Air Force................... 607 388 381 375 -37
Selected Reserves............. 1,151 931 901 893 -19
DoD Civilians................. 1,133 841 807 728 -27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GRASSLEY. This table shows the process of downsizing, that this
process is ongoing and not over yet. It is expected to continue in the
future.
Mr. President, the committee concluded that the number of generals
and admirals should be reduced consistent with the predicted reductions
in the force structure. I want to repeat, the reduction in the number
of general officers should be consistent with the reduction in force
structure. That was the logic. As the force structure shrinks, the
numbers of generals and admirals should come down at a comparable rate.
That was the Armed Services Committee's thinking as expressed in its
report in the fiscal year 1991 defense authorization bill. That
thinking is outlined on page 159 of that Report 101-384.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that section of the
report be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH CEILINGS
The committee recommends (sec. 403) a provision that would
establish ceilings on the number of general and flag officers
authorized to be on active duty for each of the military
Services as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year, committee
Current recommendation
ceiling -------------------------
1991 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army................................ 407 386 302
Navy................................ 258 250 216
Marine Corps........................ 70 68 61
Air Force........................... 338 326 279
-----------------------------------
Total............................. 1,073 1,030 858
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ceilings established for fiscal year 1995 are
consistent with the committee's expectation that force
structure and organizational realignments over the next 5
years should result in an overall force reduction of at least
25 percent. The fiscal year 1995 ceilings reflect this
expectation, and the fiscal year 1991 ceilings set the
military Services on a responsible course to achieve the
fiscal year 1995 ceilings.
The committee also believes that these ceilings should
assist the military Services in making critical decisions
regarding the reduction, consolidation, and elimination of
duplicative headquarters. The ceilings should also assist the
military Services in eliminating unnecessary layering in the
staff patterns of general and flag officer positions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Based on the shrinking force structure, the committee
reduced the number of generals and admirals by that 20 percent as
follows: the Army, from 407 down to 302, a reduction of 105; the Navy,
a reduction of 42, down from 258 to 216; the Marine Corps, from 70 down
to 61, a reduction of 9; the Air Force, from 338 down to 279, a
reduction of 59.
Mr. President, with one exception, those figures remain the law
today. The Marine Corps got special relief legislation 2 years ago that
raised its ceiling from 61 to 68, or by 7. But back in late 1990, there
was no disagreement about what had to be done, reducing the number of
generals as force structure gets smaller.
The House Armed Services Committee report contained almost identical
language. I quote from page 268 of House Report 101-665.
The committee believes that the general and flag officers
authorized strength should be reduced to a level consistent
with the extra force structure reductions expected by fiscal
year 1995.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that section of the House
report be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
section 441--flag and general officers
Section 526 of title 10, United States Code provides that
the total number of general and flag officers authorized to
be on active duty may not exceed 1,073. The committee
believes that the general and flag officer authorized
strengths should be reduced to a level consistent with the
active force structure reductions expected by fiscal year
1995. Section 441 would amend section 526 of title 10, United
States Code to limit to 845 the total number of general and
flag officers authorized within the military services on
September 30, 1995.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as the force structure shrinks, the
number of generals and admirals should be reduced. That was the logic
used by the House in 1990. That was the logic used by the Senate in
1990. That logic is embodied in current law. That has always been the
logic since time began.
Let us apply that logic to the Marine Corps' request for 12 more
generals. If the Marine Corps needs more generals, then it must mean
that the Marine Corps is getting bigger, that it is expanding. But all
the data point in the opposite direction. All the data indicate that
the military services, including the Marine Corps, are continuing to
downsize.
Why doesn't the 1990 logic apply anymore? Have Marine generals been
inoculated to be immune from cuts? Why is the Marine Corps trying to
top size while it is downsizing? As the force structure shrinks, we
need fewer generals. That was the guiding principle used by the Armed
Services Committee in 1990 when they put general officers on the down
ramp.
They put the generals on the down ramp even when the dark storm
clouds were rising over the Persian Gulf. There was no talk about
vacant war-fighting positions at that time. There was no talk, as we
were given an excuse for this increase, about the joint bill
requirements mandated in Goldwater-Nichols. There was just one driver.
The force structure was shrinking so we needed fewer generals. In other
words, it seems to me that they were expressing at that decisionmaking
time in 1990 common sense.
That logic was valid then. It is just as valid today. Nothing has
changed. There is no reasonable explanation for what is going down. It
is bad public policy.
The Navy, for example, is already on record as saying it needs 25 to
30 more admirals. We know that the Marine Corps request is just a
spearhead. It is a test case. The Army and Air Force are getting their
wish list ready. If the Marine Corps request goes through, then these
other services will follow, meaning their request for more generals and
admirals. Pretty soon we have a national disgrace on our hands.
This is a bad move that will prove to be an embarrassment to the
Senate sometime down the road.
I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for the consideration of
this point of view. I have expressed this in a letter to the conferees
as well. I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Washington.
____________________