programs. A second area of needed reform relates to the role and authority of the Unified and Specified Commander (CINCs). Useful reforms have been made in this area in recent years, but more needs to be done. Again, the thrust of the changes included in the Committee bill deserves support. In particular, I recommend the following changes. Giving the CINCS authority in peacetime as well Strengthening the CINCs authority in the area of Increasing the CINCS influence in the resource The reforms noted above will not be fully effective unless concurrent steps are taken to ensure that the joint system gets its share of our best officers. Moreover, we must ensure that a reasonable portion of the officer force receives regular and indepth experience in Joint organizations and operations. The lack of joint experience by officers serving in key positions in the Joint and CINC staffs has been well documented. The "Joint Service" officer must be assured of a rewarding career if we are to attract excellent officer to joint duty and we must provide them with the training and experience they need to be effective. The reforms being considered by your committee would go a long way toward fixing these problems. War and crisis planning is another area that deserves greater attention from the joint military structure. This task should be seen as one of critical importance by the Joint Staff and the CINCS. It also deserves the support and involvement of the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense. Without their support any improvement is not likely to be sustained. Internal DoD Management Given the scope of the Defense manage ment task, its technical complexity, and the myriad influences that buffet the DOD manager, it should be no surprise that problems abound in all areas. Nonetheless, there are reforms which can make a real difference in the way we manage our programs. Let me emphasize two primary areas: First, we must fix responsibility and authority for management. OSD, let alone the Congress, cannot manage the research, acquisition, maintenance and personnel programs of the departments. This responsibility can only be carried out by the Services and the Service Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff must be granted that responsibility and the needed authority. It should be made clear that this is their principal role managing the dollars, materiel, and personnel under their control. Indeed, one of the side benefits of strengthening the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff is that it will reduce the time and energy the Service Chiefs spend on JCS matters, giving them the time they so badly need to focus inward on management issues. Second, the Service management structure needs to be overhauled with a clear goal of simplifying the staff organizations and removing management layers to speed decisions and make it easier to fix responsibility. Several areas deserve attention. Separate civilian and military staffs in the mili- The Service headquarters staffs are large and pond- The service system commands also need hard scrutiny. Their size, multiple layers, and complexity clearly slow the acquisition process. The steps the Navy is taking in this area should be Air Force. I commend the committee for recognizing the important role of the Defense Agencies. They perform a range of critical services yet are frequently ignored or given little management oversight. The series of actions you are considering would greatly enhance the attention given the agencies and tie them much more closely into the operational planning of the CINCS. I have not been close enough to the Defense Agencies to comment on the specific proposals, but their thrust seem to be correct and needed. Acquisition Reform No area of management has received greater attention and criticism in recent years than the way DOD buys weapons, equipment nd supplies. Indeed, no area has been so subject to reform via internal DoD regulation as well as legislation. Yet the problems persist, and in fact seem to be more difficult. I don't claim to be an expert in this area. let me suggest several themes when considering further change. But If we As noted earlier, the current acquisition process is Fresh new approaches are needed to simplify and speed up the process. We should look hard at how The system should rely primarily on incentives to Greater competition is need, but not simple minded The Packard Commission has proposed a new approach for the Congress and DoD to consider. The outline in their preliminary report is promising and I look forward to their detailed report and analysis. Another promising effort is the Georgetown CSIS study on weapons acquisition which was launched a few months ago. Its goal is to explore fundamental, root and branch reform, not mere change on the margin. Drastic reform, not tinkering, is needed and these studies may well point the way. III. BENEFITS The reforms suggested above would, I believe, over time make a real difference. I see three major benefits: A more coherent defense program with funding Better planning for crises and conflicts, better Improved program implementation to include more You hear that it is people that matter not the boxes on an organization chart. I wouldn't dispute the importance of people in the management equation. Yet structure and process also matter. They can be and often are real impediments to effective management. So organizational change is needed and it can make significant differences in the way DoD is managed and carries out its missions. Nonetheless, we must give greater attention to people. Without good people no organizational scheme, regardless of its perfection will work. I am deeply concerned by the decline in our ability to attract the best people to government service. Moreover, we are steadily losing many of the best career staff as they see the rewards and opportunities available in other areas. This clearly impacts defense management, and the problems are growing steadily worse. In my view at least, this area also deserves your most careful consideration. We must now take steps to change this trend and attract and retain the best people to public service. Among the actions that should be taken are: Remove or relax pay caps for senior people, career as well as those in appointive positions. Make conflict of interest and related rules more realis- Provide a sense of importance and worth for those that accept jobs in the public sector. Psychological income can Gentlemen, that completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. |