"We will continue to have the best trained, best equipped, most ready military forces in the world. Operation Desert Storm proved how decisive those kinds of forces can be. We must have skilled, motivated personnel, sufficient opportunities for unit training, and equipment that is well maintained and backed by a very robust logistical base."

Defense Department about how you might use those assets and convert those assets. In fact, I think it's $700 million that we've got in this budget in order to help the communities and people make the transition from defense to the civilian economy. We need to learn how to do that. We need to work on it, and we need to work on it together.

The second area is, even if the defense budgets are smaller than they've been in the past, they are still going to be a major part of the economy of the United States. What we've found in the defense budget of the United States is that there's a lot of very interesting R&D (research and development) that goes on in the military budget. A lot of good R&D goes on in the military budget. And what we've learned is how to weaponize that R&D very, very skillfully. Just look at Desert Storm. Desert Storm is Exhibit No. 1 when you see the quality of the high-tech weapons of the United States. You can see what's at stake here.

thumbprint on and the guy's picture comes up on the machine. It's really a lot of stuff that's used in the military and also used in civilian (life). That's kind of the wave of the future, and Bill Clinton is very interested in that.

That's in this bill. You have $700 million for the conversion part of it; about $1.7 (billion) is the whole government. That's not DoD. I think DoD is about $800 or $900 million of that in the defense budget for dual-use technology. It's in the '94 budget.

So the military plays a part in answering all of these dangers of the post-Cold War world. As we restructure forces to implement the strategy and respond to these dangers, we will keep some basic principles in mind.

R&D Spinoffs

But what we have not done is figure out how to commercialize that same R&D technology. There's a whole lot of things that have been developed in this world, spun off of military R&D, but not developed by Americans into a commercial product, but developed by Germany and Japan into a commercial product. So what we've got to do is get much more involved in how do you commercialize the R&D spinoff that comes out of this budget.

Bill Clinton is extraordinarily interested in that. He made a trip out to Westinghouse ... to dramatize this and to announce a program. There's $1.7 billion that he announced that we've had as part of what's called dual-use technology — of developing technologies that are used by the military but also in some sense by the civilian economy.

That was a pretty impressive display of electrical cars and machines that you can use to find the car's position and track it through traffic and roads and things. Then a whole bunch of stuff in crime prevention where you can ... a portable thing you put the

develop new operational concepts to capitalize on our technological superiority.

So the real challenge that the president has given all of us

all of us, you, me, all of us here

- is to compete effectively in the 21st century while we retain the military capabilities we need to defend and advance our interests in the world. To meet that challenge, we must sustain an orderly environment in which democracy and trade can flourish, and we must strengthen the multilateral and bilateral security mechanisms that protect such an environment.

I believe that the 1994 defense
budget strikes the right kind of
balance between the need for
economic revitalization at home
and the efforts to create a safer
world.
I want to wish all of

you
the

very best as you turn to new jobs in a military that is changing rapidly to implement our strategy. We need your leadership, we need your creativity and your experience if we are to succeed. Even though the number of people in the military is shrinking, everybody understands - I understand, the president understands — that there is no more important responsibility than putting on the nation's uniform and answering the dangers of the postCold War world. My job is to ensure that

you

have the resources that you need to carry out our defense. You will have it.

Thank you all very, very much.

Absolute Imperative

We understand the absolute imperative for well-trained, ready, highly capable forces. Let me say here that the president and I are determined that the power-projection forces will be second to none; our nuclear forces will be sufficient to deter any nuclear power that can be deterred; and we will have the capabilities that we need. We will continue to have the best trained, best equipped, most ready military forces in the world. Operation Desert Storm proved how decisive those kinds of forces can be. We must have skilled, motivated personnel, sufficient opportunities for unit training, and equipment that is well maintained and backed by a very robust logistical base.

In Desert Storm, we also saw the value of our high-tech edge. Our future forces must retain that edge. That requires continued investments in R&D. It also demands we

Published for internal information use by the American Forces Information Service, a field activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Washington, D.C. This material is in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission.

regional contingencies. It places special emphasis on strategic mobility and military power projection – for example, by fully funding a sixth LHD amphibious assault ship and developing the V22 Osprey.

The second danger arises from potentially hostile regimes possessing or acquiring nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The presence of thousands of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union is a continuing concern to us. Uncertain conditions there also contribute to a second element of this danger: the possible proliferation of formerly Soviet weapons and weapons-making knowledge to potentially hostile regimes. The past several years have witnessed growing efforts by developing states, including some unfriendly to the United States, to acquire nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Currently, more than 20 Third World nations are embarked on efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction,

In the past, America spent billions to deter the use of strategic nuclear weapons, and we worked hard over the decades to achieve arms control agreements to constrain and reduce nuclear stockpiles. We now have the opportunity to reduce this threat directly and peacefully, at relatively low cost, to fulfill the promise of the START I and START II treaties. Our programs also can reduce the potential for weapons to make their way to potentially hostile countries.

The FY 1994 budget addresses the threat of weapons of mass destruction in several important ways.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction require new and innovative approaches on a wide variety of fronts -- policy, weapons acquisition, intelligence, analytical capabilities, export controls and international political regimes. For FY 1994, we are requesting $40 million for counterproliferation efforts.

We begin with the $9.3 million requested by the Bush budget for the Defense Technology and Security Administration to support U.S. participation in export control

and technology security efforts. We add $25 million to assist those former Soviet republics not eligible for Nunn-Lugar funds in establishing effective export controls, as well as to support other nonproliferation regime efforts.

We also add $6 million for policy research and analysis to guide future nonproliferation efforts and identify added opportunities for effective counterproliferation activities. This relatively small investment would complement the programs funded by the NunnLugar legislation and would carry enormous potential to reduce a serious danger to America.

The administration also is requesting $400 million to continue and expand cooperative threatreduction efforts initiated under the Nunn-Lugar legislation. These funds would provide for the expedited dismantlement of delivery vehicles required by START I; safe transport and storage of nuclear weapons for their dismantlement; destruction of chemical weapons; and other demilitarization and nonproliferation activities. Existing authorities for such programs are subject to numerous restrictions, and their application has been slow and uneven. The new funds would be placed in a separate account and would be more readily available.

Our efforts to address the threat of weapons of mass destruction also includes refocusing the Strategic Defense Initiative, detailed below, and continuing to maintain strong nuclear forces.

tion in the form of peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance.

The Clinton administration will act vigorously to promote democratic reform. Initiatives include renewed efforts to forge security partnerships with Russia, Ukraine and other nations and to improve our defense ties in the emerging democracies in Eastern Europe. Additionally, a requested $50 million will support efforts to institutionalize and expand military-to-military contacts with other states, which will expose foreign military officers to democratic traditions and could facilitate peaceful resolution of conflicts in which foreign militaries are involved. Also helpful will be efforts to help demilitarize the economies of the nonnuclear states of the former Soviet Union and of Eastern Europe.

Economic Strength

President Clinton has stressed that America's economic strength is central to its security. The massive federal budget deficit, sagging U.S. productivity, inadequate competitiveness and low economic growth are major challenges to our security.

Under President Clinton, DoD will contribute to U.S. economic strengthening in important ways. Consistent with U.S. military needs and declining threats, defense spending will be cut, which will help reduce the deficit and provide funds to invest for economic growth. The administration will seek to redirect to domestic needs any defense assets — bases, industries and personnel — rendered redundant by the end of the Cold War. To begin to do this, the FY 1994 budget provides $700 million to assist the transition of people and communities toward a post-Cold War economy. DoD also has allocated $1 billion for dual-use technologies, which will facilitate commercialization of defense research and development.

Central to restructuring DoD to meet its post-Cold War defense needs will be a thorough review of the roles, missions and functions of our military services. We must eliminate duplication, while maintaining useful diversity among the services. Where diversity is

Democratic Security

The spread of democracy around the world supports U.S. security and fosters global stability and prosperity that can benefit all peoples. When democracy falters in key nations, it can have a major impact on America's national security policies and our military needs. A key U.S. concern clearly is the possible return of hostile, authoritarian regimes, especially in the former Soviet Union. Elsewhere in the world, we also must remain concerned about threats to democratic government and about prolonged internal violence and suffering, which often trigger demands for international interven

retained, we will consolidate training and support activities to save money:

Gen. (Colin Powell's (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) report on roles, missions and functions represents an important first step in this process. I have directed that several of the chairman's recommendations be implemented promptly. Most notable is the designation of a single commander in chief, CinCLANT (Atlantic Command), to be responsible for the readiness and training of designated forces in the continental United States. In other instances, I have asked for fast-track studies that explore additional options or offer specific plans for implementation.

These actions alone, however, will not be enough. I have directed that the contributions of each service to long-term U.S. defense needs be evaluated throughout the bottom-up review. We will consider a range of military threats, especially the new dangers; technological challenges and opportunities; and the likelihood that proposed changes will bring major cost savings. We will specifically examine service air power roles and requirements, as well as expeditionary ground force roles and requirements, to name but a few areas of consideration.

The end of the Cold War allows a major reduction of America's armed forces. But new types of security dangers demand that the new U.S. force structure not simply be a smaller version of the earlier one. The aim should be forces with versatile and decisive capabilities adequate to carry out major regional operations like Desert Storm. Defense reductions must be made wisely to protect against ending up with a “hollow force." This entails taking special care to protect the readiness of our forces, the proper balance between forces and infrastructure, and the quality of our people.

The FY 1994 budget maintains force readiness at current high levels. It will keep the operating tempo and training rates up to prior-year levels. For FY 1994, Army ground and air training operations are at prior-year objective rates of 800 miles per year for combat vehicles and 14.5 flying

hours per month per tactical aircrew. Navy steaming days remain at 50.5/29 days per quarter for deployed/nondeployed fleets. Flying hours per month for active Air Force tactical aircrews will be 19.5 hours.

The FY 1994 DoD request includes continued support for training, maintenance and other readiness-related activities. This contrasts sharply with a 17 percent real decline in procurement. This illustrates that the end of the Cold War justifies some reductions in procurement, but not in readiness.

Cutting force structure is part of DoD's plan to maintain balance in the U.S. defense posture and avoid a hollow force. The aim is the selective elimination of forces, support for those forces and infrastructure, so as to leave in place a posture that is balanced among those elements.

The FY 1994 budget accelerates planned force reductions. From FY 1993 to FY 1994, Navy battle force ships will fall from 443 to 413, and aircraft carriers will drop to 12; Army active divisions will be reduced from 14 to 12; and Air Force fighter wings will fall from 28 to 24. Consistent with START, the administration will continue adjusting the size and composition of our strategic forces, which include ICBMs, submarinelaunched ballistic missiles and bombers.

In FY 1994, U.S. troops strength in Europe will fall to 133,700. This is down from 164,000 in FY 1993 and 304,000 in FY 1990. Congress has mandated a ceiling of 100,000 U.S. troops in Europe by FY 1996.

quality of life programs including barracks improvements and family housing, and personnel policies reflecting our high concern for our military people and their families. And by rejecting a hollow force, Clinton/Aspin budgets will preserve a U.S. military in which Americans, in and out of uniform, can take great pride.

Also helpful to preserving quality will be DoD policies to minimize involuntary separations. In reducing its ranks, DoD will rely on retirements, fewer accessions, attrition and voluntary measures as much as possible. For civilians, FY 1994 allocates $100 million for voluntary separation incentives and transition health benefits. For military people, the FY 1994 budget funds various transition activities and includes $290 million for the temporary 15-year retirement program.

The gulf war proved that America's operational edge from superior training and technologically advanced weapons is decisive. That edge achieved victory, while greatly limiting casualties and the length of conflict.

To retain America's operational edge pending the bottom-up review, the FY 1994 budget provides selective modernization for key weapons, which also will help protect the U.S. defense industrial base:

0 Armored forces (M-1 tank/ Bradley fighting vehicle upgrade);

Army helicopters (Black Hawk);

Air Force fighters (F-16s); O Surface combatants (DDG-51 AEGIS-equipped destroyers);

O Naval strike aircraft (F-14 fighter upgrades);

O Airlift aircraft (C-17).

Pending results of the review, the FY 1994 budget also protects development of future generation weapon systems:

O Tactical aviation (F-22, F/A-18 E/F and A/F-X);

Army aviation (Comanche light helicopter);

O Attack submarines (Centurion);

O Space systems (MILSTAR and Spacelifter programs).

The bottom-up review will be the main vehicle through which this administration will design its full

Guard and Reserve

Fully integrating Guard and Reserve forces with active forces remains vital to the effectiveness of America's total defense posture. This conviction will be reflected in Clinton defense budgets and in reforms that will be developed in the coming months. Selected Reserve end strength will continue to fall but at a slower rate than planned previously.

The FY 1994 budget is designed to sustain the high quality and morale of our uniformed men and women. Our troops will benefit from rigorous training, strong