Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee - Nominations

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: THE NOMINATION OF FRANCIS HARVEY TO BE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; RICHARD GRECO JR. TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; AND GENERAL GREGORY MARTIN, USAF, TO BE COMMANDER OF U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA)

WITNESSES: RICHARD GRECO JR.; FRANCIS HARVEY; GENERAL GREGORY MARTIN

LOCATION: 222 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Senator Levin.

And, Dr. Harvey, let me first state the obvious. You are an extraordinarily competent individual with a distinguished career. But the question today is not what you've done, which is admirable and, indeed, in some respects remarkable, it's what you will do as secretary of the Army.

This should come as no surprise to you. Do you support a permanent legislative increase of at least 20,000 to 40,000 soldiers in the active duty endstrength, and putting the cost of that increase in the Army's budget by taking funds from outside the Army to pay for it, which is the only way, in my perspective, the Army can maintain itself over the next several years?

MR. HARVEY: Senator Reed, I'm not at this time fully briefed and familiar with, and knowledgeable of all the elements of the endstrength issue. For sure, if I'm confirmed, I and the rest of the Army leadership have the responsibility to provide fully capable forces to the combatant commanders. I certainly am aware of that obligation. And this obligation, of course, is to the soldier and to the country.

Now, what I do know is that both the secretary of Defense and the Army is for an increase of endstrength. And to the best of my understanding, the president has authorized a 30,000 increase in the number of troops on a temporary basis.

I'm also familiar with the Army's position that they want at this time, at least, to be temporary because they have a number of initiatives in work to increase the combat power, which would then preclude from making these positions permanent.

Now I haven't reached a final conclusion on any of this. I can tell you from my own personal background and experience in a corporation that when I'm faced-and I know the analogy isn't perfect here-when I'm faced with a situation where there's a rapid increase in or a rapid growth of the organization, my first approach is to hire temporary people and then to see if I can sustain it, then we'll make permanent employees. And the reason you do that is because you don't want to lay off people and you want to ensure that the need is there.

So let me say that if I'm confirmed, I plan on-I know this is a very important issue, and I'm going to take a very objective look at that. I'm going to take a look at these Army initiatives. I'm going to see whether they're viable, whether, you know, they pass the test of viability. And if they don't, I will reach conclusions and make recommendations accordingly. But I just don't think I'm totally up to speed to make a final decision. But I'm open at this time to --

SEN. REED: Well, Dr. Harvey, I respect that, but we've heard that for years now. General Schumaker was going to look at this and the secretary of Defense has been looking at this. And the answer, I think, should be obvious. And I would have hoped in the interim between our meeting today that you have made yourself more aware of the specifics so you could give an answer rather than essentially a conceptual approach to the problem. And I'm disappointed in the answer.

Are you aware of the Defense Advisory Board's findings about the need for additional troops despite the changes the Army has taken, modularity and the temporary expedients?

MR. HARVEY: No, I haven't had the opportunity to read that report. I don't believe it's out yet, so --

SEN. REED: Well, you should -- (inaudible).

MR. HARVEY: -- I will plan on reading that for sure.

SEN. REED: Similarly with respect to the equipment of the Army. The Army sustained 2.439 billion (dollars) in equipment battle losses in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has an unfunded requirement of 1.3 million (dollars) for munitions. Last year the Army spent $4 billion on equipment reconstitution and next year will need much more. And this is not, I think, a way to do it, through emergency provisions. Would you support a recapitalization funding that is in the regular budget so the Army can fix its equipment?

MR. HARVEY: Again, Senator, I know these are important issues, and if confirmed, I will do-I will immediately address those and see whether that's feasible in the context of the Army plan and the Army budget. But again, I think at this time I'm just not familiar enough with all the details to make that. But I will address that carefully, look at it carefully, use my judgment, come to conclusions, make recommendations and proceed accordingly.

SEN. REED: Let me raise a final point, Dr. Harvey. We're all aware of General Shinseki's-when asked to give his opinion as a professional officer-he didn't volunteer it, he was asked at this committee-he made the point that we would need at least more than a hundred thousand troops in Iraq.

Not only was he honest, but he turned out to be right. He was treated very poorly by the Department of Defense, by high officials there. I think it sent a chilling effect in the military as to, you know, if you stand up and say in response to an honest question from this committee or any other committee, there's a penalty if you tell the truth. I think that is very destructive, corrosive.

What are you going to do to protect the officers, the men of the United States and women of the United States Army when called upon to give their professional judgment and when they're marginalized and shunned and made to feel that they have done something wrong? How are you going to protect those individuals?

MR. HARVEY: Senator, I think I mentioned in response to Senator Warner's question that one of the tenets of my management philosophy is trust teamwork and openness, and I think my track record speaks for that. I've never stifled input from any of my subordinates. I have a lot of respect for the military. I have a lot of respect for people. I welcome their comments. I would never stifle any honest input. I would appreciate that input, and I would integrate that into the overall decision-making process and then proceed accordingly.

So I don't think-I don't think I'm going to have any problem with an honest input from anybody that-any of my subordinates. I would respect that.

SEN. REED: Thank you, Dr. Harvey.

Mr. Chairman, if I can make one final point. Secretary White was fired in April of 2003. It is now October 2004. For 17 months we have not had a secretary of the Army. So this is obviously not --

SEN. WARNER: In-in --

SEN. REED: We've had an acting secretary.

SEN. WARNER: Confirmed. We've had a darn good undersecretary.

SEN. REED: I agree, but I-this was the-the White House has felt that this is not such an important job that they would send somebody up to be confirmed-and now in the last week of our session, this appointment is before us. I think that bespeaks the lack of urgency, at least from the perspective of the Department of Defense, to have a confirmed, permanent secretary of the Army, so I wonder why we're rushing.

SEN. WARNER: Well, it is the presidential prerogative to nominate. Dr. Harvey had been nominated for a previous post in the Department of Defense. That was awaiting floor action. He then offered to serve in this post at the request of the secretary and the president, and his papers arrived here-I'll put the dates in-I think it's 12 September; completed financials and so forth, 27 September. So the committee-as chairman, I feel we must be responsive to the constitutional prerogative of the president.

I would like to make one comment. I'm going to have to go to the floor now as a member of the Intelligence Committee, and also because of the tremendous -- (aside) -- if you could wait just one minute-importance of intelligence to the Department of Defense and the roles of this committee, I've got to get down and work on some amendments. My colleague, Senator Levin, has been a very helpful and supporting partner on that.

But time and time again, Senator Reed-you had a perfect right, of course, to bring up General Shinseki's observation. Let me give you a few concerns I have with that.

I was present that day, of course, when he was asked, at the end of a long hearing, the question about his professional views. And I'm not going to comment-he was a very and still remains a very distinguished and courageous officer. You know about his personal disabilities, which he accepted and continued in active service. And I think it was a wise decision to have had him being given the opportunity of chief of staff of the Army.

But when asked that question-I've studied his transcript. I remember his struggle with trying to provide the answer. I have not been able to find to date any record that the estimates of size that he provided were ever considered within the staff of the Army, were ever considered within the staff or by the Joint Chiefs. I hope some day we can determine the extent to which his views were shared within the Department of Defense, Department of Army and, indeed, most significantly on the Joint Chiefs as to his concern about those figures.

If the senator can ever provide that information, I would be delighted to read it and study it and carefully give my own views on that.

SEN. REED: Mr. Chairman, I think that would be an admirable inquiry, and that's something this committee could do, and I encourage you to do it.

SEN. WARNER: I thank the senator very much. Thank you.