to start ratcheting down, we are going to reverse this growth that we have had for the last 10 years, because we can reverse the growth.

For most of the last year and one-half, in the Pentagon in quiet meetings never seen or heard by the public we have had the damnedest fights you can imagine as we brought the services around to this kind of base force concept. There is not a service that would not have made a powerful case for an even larger force. We brought them around and made them realize that we have to lead the Armed Forces of the United States into this new future of a lower force for a different strategic environment. And I am proud of the way the Chiefs and the services have responded.

But my concern right now is that people want an even greater response, and they want this greater response for purposes that have nothing to do with national security. I know we have deficit problems. I know we have economic problems. I am as concerned as any other American.

But what I do not want to do is break the force that provides the most important social service to the Nation, and that is the service of protecting the Nation. I am deeply concerned that, if the Congress wishes us to go any faster or any further in the near term, that we will do serious damage to this force and we will do serious damage to our ability to protect the Nation.

Senator BUMPERS. Thank you, General.

General POWELL. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your continued support.

Senator INOUYE. You know, you should have given that speech when we were all here. I mean that, not facetiously.

General POWELL. Perhaps you will give me another opportunity some time, sir.

Senator INOUYE. I will do that.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Additional questions submitted by subcommittee members, together with the Department's responses, will appear in the appendix portion of the hearings.]

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. The subcommittee will stand in recess until Tuesday, March 3 at 10 am. in room SD-192. At that time the Secretary of the Navy, the CNO, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps will come before us.

[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., Thursday, February 27, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Tuesday, March 3.]

The subcommittee met at 9:56 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Johnston, Leahy, DeConcini, Bumpers, Stevens, Garn, Kasten, D'Amato, Cochran, and Specter.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY AND MARINE CORPS BUDGET OVERVIEW

STATEMENT OF H. LAWRENCE GARRETT III, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. This morning we consider the fiscal year 1993 budget request of the Department of the Navy. The request before the subcommittee totals $82.9 billion for Navy programs. It is a reduction of $4.6 billion from funds available in fiscal year 1992 and to help us in our review we have here this morning the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable H. Lawrence Garrett III; Adm. Frank B. Kelso II, Chief of Naval Operations; and Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Now, gentlemen, when we met in this forum last year we all recognized that we are facing a new world, the threat of war with the Soviet Union was being discarded, but it was obvious that the world remained a dangerous place for we had just concluded the war in the Persian Gulf.

Today many are euphoric with the twin victories in the cold war and the Persian Gulf and they clamor for a larger piece dividend, whatever that is. However, as I review your requests, I am convinced that we may be moving too hastily.

The budget before us provides no funds for submarines. Nonetheless, many of us on this subcommittee believe that the new Commonwealth of Independent States will continue submarine production this year as they did last year. Furthermore, the request assumes the rescission of amounts provided in previous years for two SSN-21 class submarines, and this proposal I believe will threaten

the viability of one-half of our nuclear submarine construction capability, and raises serious concerns with the survival of the nuclear power industry.

Indeed, the entire shipbuilding industrial base is being threatened. Under the President's budget a total of only six ships are programmed to be built. This means several shipyards, many of which are already teetering on the verge of insolvency, may receive no new orders in the coming year.

The budget also proposes to terminate the Navy's new long-range advanced air-to-air missile, the LSD-41 amphibious ship, the E-2C early warning aircraft, the MK-50 vertical launch ASROC system, and a host of many others. Additionally, nothing has been done to meet the Marine Corps' medium-lift requirement to replace the aging CH-46 helicopter.

Mr. Secretary, every Member of Congress welcomes the end of the cold war. We all hope that reductions can be judiciously made in our military forces. However, we look to you and the military officers who accompany you as the stewards of our maritime forces. It is your duty to ensure that the budgets you propose are sufficient to meet our national security requirements. So your task this morning is to explain to this subcommittee how the funds that you request will be sufficient to meet the Nation's needs.

As I read this statement, I could not help but recall a few items that I was taught a bit younger studying history. There was a time about 200 years ago when this Nation concluded its first and most important war, the Revolutionary War. At that time, our commander-in-chief was Gen. George Washington and he had under his command 30,000 men, that was the Continental Army.

When he became President he pleaded with the Congress to permit this Continental Army to exist, not at 30,000 but a lesser number. The Congress responded and when the dust cleared the Continental Army consisted of 80 men-55 at West Point and 25 in Pittsburgh.

At the end of World War I, there was another cry and clamor in the Congress for reduction in forces. The reduction was done rather precipitously and history tells us that when Gen. George Patton reported to Benning to take over the sole armored division he had 325 tanks. Of the 325 tanks, over one-half would not move, and so he wrote to the War Department seeking funds for spare parts.

The War Department sent him a lengthy letter saying that we have no funds. But fortunately, he was a very wealthy man, I believe one of the wealthiest men in Virginia and so he wrote out his check and went to Sears Roebuck and bought spare parts and that is how we got our first armored division.

In fact, Gen. George Marshal when he reported to Leavenworth found he had 200 men-cooks, drivers and mechanics-and about one-half of them had never fired a gun, and that is the way it was.

After World War II I remember when I was about to be called back to duty, and that is how desperate we were. We had cut our forces of 12 million down to 1.2 million in 1949 and in the spring of 1950 that was cut further to 500,000. When June 25 came along and the North Koreans came over the line, all we had were stevedores, cooks, and clerks in Japan to face them.

We are now being told that we could have avoided about one-half of the first 10,000 casualties in Korea if we had sent men who were trained and properly equipped.

As chairman of this committee I do not want to officiate over a situation like that, so with that, I welcome you, sir.

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I, of course, appreciate the opportunity to again appear before you to discuss the future of the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps. I ask now that the Department of the Navy's formal statement be inserted in the record.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection.

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the revolutionary events of the last 30 or so months have been remarked on often and at great length. So I will not recite them again here. I would only point out that all of us today who are involved in planning the defense of this country have an unprecedented opportunity-an obligation, in fact to change the fundamental strategic mind set of the world's most powerful and most responsible nation.

Now that fact has been uppermost in the minds of the Navy and the Marine Corps leaders for some time; and the naval services have already changed profoundly-adapting to their evolving responsibilities in this new era.

RESPONDING TO CHANGE

I have heard it argued, of course, that the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have not changed enough, that they look too much like they did last year before the Warsaw Pact dissolved and the Soviet Union as we then knew it disappeared.

Well, it is true that they may not look very different, even though they are much smaller. American sailors and Marines are using, today, many of the same ships, same airplanes, tanks, and artillery pieces that they were using yesterday.

They are led by many of the same officers, assigned to many of the same bases, and practicing many of the same basic skills. That is because highly capitalized hardware, experience, and talent are simply not things that you write off and replace overnight.

But it is not what the fleet looks like that matters. What matters first is that the sea services have adapted existing resources to the requirements of a dramatically new environment. The fleet's new operational focus, as Admiral Kelso and General Mundy can relate the focus of its tactics, its organization and deployment patterns-is on regional influence and deterrence, on providing onscene crisis response capabilities, on fighting in shallow, littoral areas, on joint and enabling operations, and on the ability to tailor our seamless sea, air, and land expeditionary forces to a very wide range of potential contingencies.

What matters second is that the fleet of 1996-on the drawing boards right now as we meet-is much different than the fleet of 1996 as we envisioned it less than 4 years ago.

I recently reviewed one weekend a list of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps programs that we have terminated or bought out since