[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.
  
                            ____________________