Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Do you believe that there is a serious imbalance between Marine F nibious shipping?

Mr. WEBB. While current Navy amphibious lift capability reflects s avy is aggressively pursuing an amphibious lift improvement progr equirements of National Strategy. Present amphibious lift is capable our of nine Marine infantry regiments, with air and other support hibious assault. Three infantry regiments are allocated to Maritime orces and support combat operations not involving forcible entry. ombat forces of the Marine Corps, two active infantry regiments and ith supporting air assets, will require turn-around shipping, air lift, egic transport for movement to theater. The Navy program for impro hibious lift capability is in accordance with Defense Guidance and is neet specific Marine Corps requirements as defined in the Departme Amphibious Lift Study. The program, as submitted in the President orts attainment of intermediate lift capability of simultaneous Marin Brigade (MAB) operations in both Atlantic and Pacific areas plus con pendent Maritime Prepositioning Force supported operations elsewhe of fiscal year 1992. Our goal, also supported by the President's budge our amphibious lift capability to a Marine Amphibious Force (MAF) 996. The shipbuilding program proposed in the President's budget goals in requests for authorization for the WASP class LHD, the I Variant) and LCAC. Navy plans, programs, and budgets to support a objectives have been developed in the context of National Strategy a of-life fiscal constraints of Total Obligational Authority (TOA). I inte Marine Corps leadership to address this question in detail soon after

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED KENNEDY

NAVY PRIORITIES

Senator KENNEDY. You are of course familiar with the Navy's sur for two nuclear aircraft carriers in this year's budget request. Until th had been told no new carriers would be needed until the 1990s.

*

In response to the Navy's early carrier replacement proposal, Admi memo to the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated, and I quote, choices have to be made, I would give first priority to sustainability, tions, ASW, and the SSN program.'

Do you share Admiral Crowe's priorities? If so, should we appro modernization proposal only if these higher priority programs can funded? If not, what priority would you give the early carrier modern

al?

Mr. WEBB. First, I would like to point out that Admiral Crowe's dated October 1986 was an internal document and formed only a sm active dialogue which was underway at the time. Chairman Crowe' the vital programs referred to in the memo have been addressed, an the requirement and the Navy's priority for acquisition of the carriers

77-336 0 - 88 - 4

The Chairman and I both share the same concerns for having balanced programs and are apparently in agreement. Some critics think that Readiness and Sustainability were shortchanged. This is simply not true. Special care was taken to preserve operating resources at levels requested by the CINCs. In fact, Sustainability growth from fiscal year 1980 to fiscal year 1990 has more than doubled that of force modernization. Readiness and Sustainability spending has risen from 60.5 percent of Navy Total Obligation Authority (TOA) from fiscal year 1983 to fiscal year 1987 to 63.5 percent of Navy TOA in the current budget for fiscal year 1988/1989. The important programs to which you refer are adequately funded.

Regarding the priority placed on the carrier replacement program, it is important to put it in perspective. During budget deliberations CVN procurement emerged as the most pressing priority and an even strain was placed across Navy programs to support our number one priority. If ships have to be retired because of funding_reductions, based on CINCS stated requirements, carriers would be the last to go. The key point is that at any budget level, the carriers must be replaced and, the lower the topline is depressed, the greater the premium on replacement to avoid being eaten up by trying to operate and maintain aging carriers.

There is an additional area affected by this carrier replacement program which is absolutely vital to our readiness and that area is people. This program impacts time our people spend away from home, their quality of life at sea, the equipments we give them to operate and many other important aspects relating to job satisfaction and retention. Sustaining the proper number of carriers directly affects operational tempo-the rotation between deployed operations and stateside operations. Newer ships, of course, provide substantial quality of life advantages over those ships approaching their fifth decade of service. The kinds of equipment we give our personnel to operate provide clear signals about our concern-are they modern and up to date or are they nearly obsolete and maintenance intensive? People concerns are among my highest priorities and I will consider the impact on personnel in each and every decision as I assume my new position.

Most importantly, the carriers are critical to deterring aggression and adventurism. The bottom line comes down to this. Our national security strategy mandates a Navy sized around 15 deployable aircraft carriers, and we have an opportunity to sustain that goal at greatly reduced costs to the taxpayer.

INTENTIONS REGARDING WOMEN IN THE NAVY

Senator KENNEDY. The Navy appears to be the most restrictive of the three military departments in providing improved career opportunities for women. Both the Army and the Air Force have increased the number of positions open to women. The Navy on the other hand, appears to be moving in the other direction. Until the decision was overturned by Secretary Weinberger, the Navy planned to place a 5year cap on the number of women in the service.

As Secretary of the Navy, would you seek to open more positions to women? Do you support the Navy's proposed cap on the number of women?

Mr. WEBB. As I mentioned in my hearing, I strongly support the assimilation of women into non-traditional career paths short of combat service in skills and units suitable to the needs of the service. In addition, I am told that to date there have been no responsible surveys measuring the experiences and attitudes of women in the Navy, particularly of enlisted women, regarding such matters as sea duty and isolated service. Nor does there appear to be any analysis of the pool of potential female enlistees in the general population regarding the impact of such policies on potential enlistees. I am prepared to conduct a thorough and objective examination of all current issues regarding women in the naval service, to report the findings to the Secretary of Defense, and to share the results with this committee, in a timely fashion.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ALBERT GORE, JR.

FEMALE ISSUES IN MY PRESENT POSITION

Senator GORE. As Assistant Secretary of Defense, what issues pertaining to the role of women in the armed services has he dealt with, and how has he come down on those issues?

As Secretary, what issues does he foresee in this connection? Would he, for example, expect that demographic pressures (shortage of military age males) will push women into roles that are short of combat, but increasingly in harm's way? How might that apply, if at all, in the case of the Navy?

Mr. WEBB. Policies with respect to women in the Guard and Reserve directly mirror those of the active services. These policies have been implemented in their entirety. My primary interest has been to ensure that women in the National Guard and Reserve are provided equal opportunity for advancement and career development. I have ensured that my office is deeply involved in women's issues, and I appointed a member of my staff to work with and support the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). I supported the Navy's legislative proposal, enacted last year, to remove gender based discrimination in the sea services for promotion to flag rank. In addition, my office was instrumental in the inclusion of data on reserve women in the publication "Military Women in the Department of Defense.'

In addition, I have personally recruited and hired a number of women to serve on important positions on my staff. These include one of my senior budget analysts, a GS-15; my senior research assistant, who served 4 years active duty in the Air Force, was a Presidential Management Intern, and currently serves as a Captain in the Air Force Reserve; a senior manpower analyst, a Naval Reserve TAR who was the first female TAR to command reserve line units in Oakland; and a second senior manpower analyst, an Army lieutenant colonel.

[Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the nomination hearing was adjourned.]

[The nomination of James H. Webb, Jr., was reported to the Senate by Senator John W. Warner on April 8, 1987, with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 9, 1987.]

The committee met in open session, pursuant to not p.m., in room SR-222, Russell Senate Office Building, S Nunn (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Nunn, Exon, Levin, and Warner.

Staff present: Arnold L. Punaro, staff director; Romi ee, deputy minority staff director; Patrick A. Tucke counsel; Andrew S. Effron, counsel; Christine C. Dauth, Robert E. Bayer, Robert G. Bell, Richard D. Finn, Jr., Hoehn, Jr., Ronald P. Kelly, T. Kirk McConnell, and Mosher, professional staff members; Pamela G. Powell, ant.

Also present: Jeffrey B. Subko, assistant to Senator Weaver, assistant to Senator Levin; Milton D. Beach, Senator Glenn; William J. Wight, assistant to Senat Alan Ptak, assistant to Senator Gramm; and Patrick A. assistant to Senator McCain.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM NUNN, CH Chairman NUNN. The hearing will come to order. General Galvin, we are delighted to have you with deeply apologize for having kept you waiting all this t you know, we have just heard a briefing that took long pected.

The Armed Services Committee meets this afternoon a hearing on the nomination of Gen. John Galvin to be er in Chief of the U.S. European Command or "CINCE tunately, the Iran/Contras Committee is holding a hear at this very moment; therefore, I will have to leave a period of time.

The Armed Services Committee is very interested in sider to be one of the most important positions in our tary command.

I would like to make it clear that the position to Senate has been asked for its advice and consent on Galvin is a four-star position of Commander in Chief European Command.

« PrécédentContinuer »