[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 58 (Monday, May 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4635-S4636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  1998 JAMES FORRESTAL MEMORIAL AWARD

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on the evening of May 6th, I had 
the honor of being in the audience to witness the presentation of the 
1998 James Forrestal Memorial Award by the National Defense Industrial 
Association to the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee, Senator Ted Stevens. The first recipient of this 
impressive award was President Dwight D. Eisenhower, followed by a 
number of most distinguished citizens who were personally involved in 
helping our nation during difficult times, and who guided the 
development of a close working relationship between our government and 
private industry toward the requirements of National Security.
  I have had the privilege of working with Senator Stevens for nearly 
30 years. It is no secret that I admire and deeply respect our 
colleague. Our nation is truly fortunate to have as Chairman of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, an individual as dedicated to public 
service and to the maintenance of military strength and readiness.
  Upon receipt of this award, Senator Stevens shared with the audience 
his views on the status of the military and our nation's future. These, 
perhaps provocative, but, definitely profound remarks should be studied 
and restudied by all who believe in the importance of our military 
forces.
  Mr. President, I ask that Senator Stefvens' address be printed in the 
Record.
  The Address follows:

                     Address by Senator Ted Stevens

       As one who admired Sec. James Forrestal, it is a great 
     honor to receive this award which bears his name. The name of 
     a great leader who responded with vision and insight to the 
     defense organizational, and leadership, needs of our Nation 
     after World War II.
       Indeed, Secretary Forrestal, serving as Secretary of the 
     Navy, demonstrated great courage and wisdom as an advocate 
     for a restructuring of the Department of War and Department 
     of Navy--a restructuring we all know led to today's 
     Department of Defense.
       The Forrestal Award is especially meaningful coming from 
     your organization--NDIA. By insuring that industry has a 
     strong, clear voice on defense issues, NDIA serves our Nation 
     well.
       Secretary Forrestal's visionary leadership established a 
     national security structure which has seen us through over 
     fifty years of peace and war. With only modest adjustments, 
     the course he charted allowed us to navigate through the cold 
     war.
       Some of Secretary Forrestal's observations from 1947 
     provide a thoughtful perspective on current defense issues.
       In testimony on the National Security Act of 1947, 
     Secretary Forrestal said the bill ``provides an organization 
     which will allow us to apply the full punitive power of the 
     United States against any future enemy. It provides for the 
     coordination of the three armed services, but what is to me 
     even more important than that, it provides for the 
     integration of foreign policy with national policy, of our 
     civilian economy with military requirements.''
       Just as our Nation faced a ``Post World War'' environment 
     in 1947, we now prepare for the 21st century and military 
     contingencies which differ greatly from the cold war. Tonight 
     I will focus on some common themes which motivate us, like 
     Secretary Forrestal, to ponder the need for adjustments in 
     the current defense establishment.
       After World War II, the nation had to devise a new 
     military-industrial structure to prepare us for an uncertain 
     future. In 1947 testimony, Secretary Forrestal outlined his 
     thinking--he said:
       ``First, there is a need, apparent during and since the 
     war, for the planned integration of all of the elements, 
     energies, and forces in our Nation which have to be drawn 
     upon to wage successful war. In these categories come not 
     merely the Army and Navy and the State Department, but 
     industry, and by `industry' I mean industrial management, 
     which I regard as one of the keystones which produce success 
     in war.''
       All these concerns are valid today, but the facts 
     underlying the need he discussed will be significantly 
     changed. DOD will be buying in a less competitive environment 
     than ever--requiring careful attention to ensure that 
     innovation and foresight are not lost.
       Further, today's defense systems are more complex, take 
     dramatically longer to develop and build, and cost 
     significantly more to acquire, maintain and operate. In the 
     first nine months of 1945, we accepted delivery 5,111 P-51 
     Fighters. Now, at the peak rate, we will build 36 F-22's and 
     48 F-18 E/F's, both with long lead times greater than 33 
     months.
       Not only are there fewer prime defense contractors, but 
     each one is moving to be more efficient; inevitably this 
     process will limit or eliminate excess production capacity. 
     The speed and success of Desert Storm demonstrated the new 
     role for industrial management in a ``come as you are'' war.
       I remember visiting Joint Stars in Saudi Arabia--a system 
     in the demonstration/validation phase of development, but 
     being used

[[Page S4636]]

     in the overall Desert Storm operation--while still under 
     industry control and support.
       Indeed, we rarely hear discussion now about raw material 
     shortages or industrial surge capacity. And we are no longer 
     an Island Nation--this Nation's military industrial base is 
     now part of a global economy. This industrial challenge has 
     parallels in our military command structure.
       Secretary Forrestal, intimately familiar with the demands 
     of World War II, enunciated what others often think when he 
     said--``Military strength today is not merely military power 
     but its is economic and industrial strength.''
       Today we continually find ourselves in peacekeeping and 
     other contingency missions--missions for which our soldiers 
     and leaders are not necessarily trained or equipped. 
     Instabilities are more likely to call for a response to 
     terrorism, civil war, and ethnic strife, instead of 
     territorial invasion.
       Future battles may take place in urban environments with 
     political constraints on collateral damage, difficult 
     conflict conditions for any military commander. Deploying 
     military force should not be the solution to every regional, 
     ethnic or humanitarian crises. No forces should deploy 
     overseas unless we establish mission objectives that our 
     political and military leadership can plainly articulate.
       A second similarity to the challenges faced by James 
     Forrestal is the confidence of the Nation in the weapon 
     systems and combat platforms within the military inventory. 
     Secretary Forrestal concisely outlined his thoughts in words 
     I believe ring true today--``Men fight not for abstractions, 
     but for the concrete things they can visualize in terms of 
     their own country.'' Following World War II, this Nation felt 
     confident in its ability and the then-existing ``Tools of 
     war''.
       Following operation Desert Storm, the United States was 
     equally confident in our weapons. I saw first hand during the 
     gulf war the impact that ``early'' generation precision 
     guided weapons and information technologies, such as JSTARS, 
     had on our decisive victory in that conflict.
       The entire world saw those advances also--we now need new 
     technologies to assure that our ``cutting edge'' is sharp. We 
     must implement those technologies rapidly.
       Obviously, we also need new tactics, new systems, and a 
     modernized command, control, and communications management 
     concept. And, there are new threats--ballistic missiles, 
     cruise missiles, chemical and biological weapons, information 
     warfare, and space-based sensors and systems.
       These resonate Secretary Forrestal's comments on the need 
     for a ``planned integration of all of the elements, energies, 
     and forces in our Nation.''
       These new threats call into question the traditional 
     weapons of war as well as the accepted practice of splitting 
     budget resources among the military services. Just as 
     aircraft technology spawned a new military service, the new 
     technology forces which will influence future warfare demand 
     that we look at our research and development priorities and 
     the allocation of procurement funds.
       The last parallel to 1947 I cite is one I deal with most 
     directly as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee--
     that is the pressure of a substantially decreased budget. As 
     each of you know, the defense budget today has reached 
     dangerously low levels. Defense spending has fallen far 
     faster than any other category of Federal spending--dropping 
     39% since 1985. In constant dollars, it is lower than 
     1939. Yet, the budget agreement, as well as current public 
     sentiment, makes it most likely that defense spending will 
     be flat through 2002.
       The pressures on this flat budget are as great as I have 
     ever seen, and probably greater than the pressures faced by 
     our leaders in 1947. One basic fact is that neither Congress 
     nor DOD have much flexibility in the Defense budget.
       Force structure determines the level of military personnel 
     spending--presently about one-third of our budget. Second, 
     these forces must be trained and ready which consumes roughly 
     one-third of the Defense budget devoted to operation and 
     maintenance.
       Finally, the remaining one-third is left to modernize and 
     develop the next generation of military systems which will 
     ensure no adversary can match U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines 
     and airmen. However, this remaining ``one-third'' for 
     modernization is not what it used to be.
       In constant 1998 dollars, procurement has declined from 
     $104 billion in FY 1988 to $49 billion in FY 1998 and R&D 
     declined from $48 billion to $36.5 billion. That decline is 
     exacerbated by on-going contingency operations in Bosnia and 
     Iraq.
       The $10.5 billion committed to Bosnia alone from 1995-1999 
     will consume all the savings achieved by tough base closure 
     and force structure decisions, while also reducing our 
     investment in modernization and R&D. To meet these 
     challenges, we can no longer afford business as usual at DOD.
       This brings our discussion back to my first point--future 
     conflicts will stress our current military and defense 
     industrial establishment. These entities will have to work 
     together to consolidate functions, precisely define missions, 
     eliminate redundancy and assure victory through perfection of 
     planning and execution through total use of command, control, 
     communications and intelligence functions.
       The challenge before us today is to look towards a new 
     national defense establishment for a new century in a new 
     millennium--a structure which will allow our great Nation to 
     organize, plan, and maintain peace and security.
       Secretary Forrestal once said, ``The greatest economy is in 
     preventing war. The best insurance against war is national 
     preparedness and an effective coordination of our foreign and 
     our military policy.'' These are the goals we continue to 
     strive to achieve. I solicit help from each of you in 
     defining new ideas needed to carry this Nation securely into 
     the 21st century.
       Knowing I will be working with all of you in the days 
     ahead, I am honored to be recognized by this group with the 
     Forrestal Award.

                          ____________________