[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11286-S11287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think the leadership of the Armed 
Services Committee deserves a lot of credit for wrapping up the 
conference on the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill in record 
time.
  This measure was ready before the August recess. We just could not 
get to it because of other pending business.
  The chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking 
Democrat, Senator Nunn, have done an outstanding job.
  They resolved a number of very complicated and difficult issues, and 
they did it in a very timely and business-like way.
  I would also like to thank the committee for protecting my 
amendments:
  Section 217 that establishes a 1991 baseline for the independent cost 
estimate for the F-22 fighter; and
  Section 809 that places a $250,000 per year cap on executive 
compensation.
  However, I am very unhappy with one part of the final bill--section 
405.
  I am very disappointed to see this provision in the final bill.
  Section 405 authorizes an increase in the number of general officers 
on active duty in the Marine Corps.
  It raises the current ceiling from 68 to 80 generals.
  That is an increase of 12 generals.
  I attempted to block this measure but failed. My amendment was 
defeated by a vote of 79 to 21.
  The House had rejected it earlier but could not prevail in 
conference.
  So we lost the fight.
  The Marine Commandant, General Krulak, visited me in late July and 
helped to soften some of my objections.
  For example, he assured me that the 12 new generals will be assigned 
to warfighting billets. That is good.
  He promised me that the new generals will not fill mushrooming 
headquarters billets.
  Those are the billets that Marine General Sheehan is so worried 
about.
  But General Krulak's guarantees do not overcome my basic objection to 
the idea of adding brass at the top when the military is downsizing.
  From that standpoint, section 405 of the bill defies understanding.
  With 80 generals on board, the Marine Corps will have more generals 
than it had at the height of World War II when the Marine Corps was 
three times as big as it is today.
  The Marine Corps is critically short of platoon sergeants. That is 
where we should add money--not for generals.
  The Marine Corps is already topheavy with brass.
  That came through loud and clear during Operation Restore Hope in 
Somalia, according to Col. David Hackworth.
  Colonel Hackworth's thoughts are presented in his new book entitled:
  Hazardous Duty: America's Most Decorated Living Soldier Reports From 
the Front and Tells It the Way It Is.''
  Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Johnson was in charge of Operation Restore 
Hope in late 1992.
  He had 12 rifle companies under his command or about 1,200 fighters.
  But as Colonel Hackworth points out, General Johnson's headquarters 
strength was 1,141.
  So General Johnson's headquarters staff almost outnumbered the 
fighters.
  In all, he said, there were 12 American generals in Somalia, one for 
every rifle company.
  A rifle company is commanded by a captain, and a captain does not 
need a bunch of generals giving him orders.
  All he needs is one good colonel.
  Colonel Hackworth concludes with this thought: ``Never had so few 
been commanded by quite so many.''
  So why does a shirinking Marine Corps need more generals? The Marine 
Corps already has too many generals commanding troops in the field. 
Somalia proved that point. They aren't needed for combat. They are 
needed for bureaucratic infighting in the Pentagon budget wars.
  The Committee makes that point crystal clear in its report. I quote: 
``The increase is intended to permit the Marine Corps to have greater 
representation at the general officer level on the Department of the 
Navy-Secretariat staff and in the joint arena.''
  The Marines think more generals at the table will mean a bigger slice 
of the pie or a better piece of the action somewhere down the road.
  That's what this is all about: capturing important bureaucratic real 
estate.
  Mr. President, in my mind, this is bad public policy. It's going to 
backfire--big time. Giving in to the Marine Corps's request will not 
lay this issue to rest. This is not the end of it. It's just the 
beginning.
  It is an ominous sign of interservice rivaalry that could ignite a 
war over who can get the most stars.
  The Army, Navy, and Air Force are now going to complain: The Marines 
got theirs. Now we want ours.
  The floodgates are about to open.
  The Army, Navy, and Air Force are already lining up with their 
requests for more generals.
  The Navy went on record in March, saying it has ``331 valid flag 
officer requirements.''
  The Navy is authorized to have 220 today. Does this mean the Navy 
needs another 111 admirals?
  The Navy is already topheavy with brass, having just about one 
admiral per ship.
  The Army and the Air Force are even more topheavy--fatter with brass.
  Yet both the Army and the Air Force are lobbying Secretary Perry to 
get their requests for more generals approved.
  Now, while Mr. Perry is doing this, he is also telling the military 
to continue downsizing.
  Does this make sense, Mr. President? Does it make sense to topsize 
when you're downsizing?
  Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, shed 
some light on this issue back in 1990 when post-cold-war downsizing 
began in earnest.
  General Powell's thinking on this issue was outlined in an article 
that appeared in the August 1 issue of the Washington Post.
  The article was written by Mr. Walter Pincus.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this report printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Aug. 1, 1996]

             Marines Land Generals Despite Some Opposition

                           (By Walter Pincus)

       The Marines have landed their 12 more generals and despite 
     some opposition appear to have the situation well in hand.
       House conferees yesterday reached an agreement on the 
     fiscal 1997 defense authorization bill that will allow the 
     Corps to appoint a dozen more generals, enlarging its top 
     tier so that the Marines will have a fair share of 
     representatives in joint commands and be able to fill vacant 
     positions.
       If the conference report passes both houses and is signed 
     by President Clinton, the Marines will be entitled to raise 
     the number of active duty generals from 68 to 80. That would 
     give the 174,000-member Corps, one more general than it had 
     in June 1945 when the force was 475,000 strong, according to 
     Rep. G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery (D-Miss.), who opposed the 
     increase.
       Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who led the opposition 
     in the Senate, said yesterday he was ``very disappointed and 
     frustrated'' by the House conferees' action. He said he had 
     hoped the increase could have been held off pending a study 
     ``based on recent downsizing in the rank and file.''

[[Page S11287]]

       But the Marines have insisted that the increase is 
     warranted. ``We don't ask for something unless it is truly 
     needed,'' Marine Commandant Gen. Charles C. Krulak said in a 
     letter to Grassley.
       The Iowa Republican warned that other services will now be 
     encouraged to request more admirals and generals, despite the 
     military drawdown. ``This is just a small snowball rolling 
     down a hill that is going to expand very rapidly the number 
     of brass in all services,'' he said.
       Last March, Adm. Frank L. Bowman, chief of naval personnel, 
     told the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``I am convinced 
     the Navy needs 25 to 30 more flag officers in order to have a 
     manageable number of people to assign without having to rely 
     on gapped billets or filling flag officer billets with senior 
     captains.''
       Yesterday, Capt. Jim Kudla, spokesman for Bowman, said the 
     Navy proposal ``is not yet out of the hopper,'' but added 
     that a number is under study in the office of Navy Secretary 
     John H. Dalton.
       The Navy, which this year has 428,000 officers and enlisted 
     personnel, currently is authorized to have 216 flag officers 
     plus four more allowed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is 
     down from a total force of 535,000 in 1990 when it had 256 
     admirals.
       Under current plans, Navy personnel will go down to 395,000 
     by late 1998 and level off there. Nonetheless, according to 
     Bowman, the Navy's increase in admirals is justified because 
     ``I believe we went too far in flag officer reductions in the 
     Navy. We are feeling the pinch.''
       In 1990, then-Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney and his 
     chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin L. Powell, 
     agreed that as they reduced overall service levels, they 
     would as a ``matter of good faith'' look at cutting generals 
     and flag officers ``proportional to the reductions in base 
     forces,'' a former senior Powell aide said yesterday.
       Since the main forces were being reduced by 25 percent, 
     Cheney and Powell looked at cutting the number of generals 
     and admirals by at least 20 percent. Powell argued that the 
     military services were like a pyramid. ``You can't just cut 
     at the bottom,'' the former aide said in describing Powell's 
     position. ``You have to take some off at every level so it 
     still had the proper shape to it.''
       Powell regularly met with other members of the Joint Chiefs 
     to have them ``pledge their commitment'' to the cuts which, 
     the former aide said, ``were painful.'' Those chiefs have now 
     retired and the services, starting with the Marines, have 
     begun to relieve the pain, the aide added.
       The issue has led to some tough back-room politicking while 
     House and Senate conferees worked out their differences.
       Recently, House and Senate aides said they had been told by 
     Pentagon sources that Arnold L. Punaro, minority staff 
     director of the Armed Services panel, aide to Sen. Sam Nunn 
     (D-Ga.) for 23 years and a Marine Corps Reserve brigadier 
     general, had masterminded the move. The sources, from other 
     services, alleged that Punaro was preparing a billet for 
     himself for next year after Nunn retires from the Senate.
       Punaro, who had heard the rumor, reacted sharply to it.
       ``The new active-duty Marine Corps general officer 
     positions have nothing whatsoever to do with my future,'' he 
     said. ``I will remain a civilian when I leave my current 
     position with the Senate Armed Services Committee.''
       Committee sources said Punaro stayed out of the issue other 
     than to sit in on briefings by Krulak in Nunn's office.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will quote from the article:

       As a matter of good faith, General Powell reportedly said, 
     ``you have to look at cutting generals and flag officers 
     proportional to the reductions in base forces.''

  General Powell said the military services were organized like a 
pyramid. He said, ``you can't just cut at the bottom. You have to take 
some off at every level so it still has the proper shape to it.''
  Mr. President, that is Colin Powell talking, and he should know 
something about how the military is supposed to be organized. Colin 
Powell says we should reduce the number of generals when the force 
structure is shrinking.
  So why are we adding brass at the top when the force is getting 
smaller? Someone needs to provide an honest answer to that question. I 
have not heard one yet.
  If we keep adding at the top and cutting at the bottom, pretty soon 
the military pyramid will lose its shape. We will have an upside-down 
pyramid.
  Congress must not allow its decisions to be driven by interservice 
rivalry. There has to be a better way to determine the right number of 
generals.
  On July 19, I wrote to the President, asking him to intervene in this 
matter. He is our Commander in Chief and needs to take charge and show 
some leadership.
  I asked him to delay this decision until an independent review is 
conducted to determine how many general officer positions are needed, 
based on real military requirements. I have never received a response.
  I am afraid he's been steamrollered by the generals, just like the 
Congress.

                          ____________________