CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Senator GLENN. Do you think our laws, rules, regulations, and so on as to how we handle conscientious objectors are adequate now? Mr. LESSEY. It would be premature for me to comment on that. I have done a lot of reading on the subject, but let me get inside, so to speak, and see if I find any weaknesses in that area, Senator.

MANPOWER SHORTAGES AND POSSIBLE DRAFT

Senator GLENN. One of the areas we are going to want to keep in touch with you on-and it comes out of some of the demographic studies we have had here—is that while the All Volunteer Forces have worked and they are working well now, the demographics of the number of the people in the age pool that will be eligible diminishes drastically over about the next 6 to 10 years. And while we are in good shape right now on this, I am not sure we are going to be in that kind of shape out here 6 or 8 or 10 years into the future. And we need to be aware of that.

Do you have any thoughts on whether we are going to have to go to a draft one of these days, and if so, how imminent that might be?

Mr. LESSEY. Well, I better make just two comments. I think, first of all, the Nation's colleges share this same demographic problem. Second, I prefer to defer to the Congress on the issue of whether we would find ourselves in the position of actually having a draft and inductions.

Senator GLENN. I was afraid you would say that. [Laughter.]

It's something we all have to face together, and we are going to have to work with you on the manpower pool and how you break that down and what requirements there might be because I do think while some Members of Congress, some members of this committee, have already called for a resumption of Selective Service or of a draft or a lottery for service and perhaps some plans for alternate service, some things like that, I haven't been willing to do that yet. But I can begin to see with the numbers that we have looked at that this may very well be necessary in the future. It is not going to be very pleasant and it's going to be something that while a lot of people may not cringe from, there is going to be a lot of resentment of it too if we have to take 2 or 3 years or whatever the time period is out of people's lives. But we may well have to do that.

And I don't look forward to that, nor do I think we need to do it immediately. But I think we do need to get some national discussion going on this as to how we are going to handle it whether it is going to be, for example, a 1 year requirement with 10 years in the Reserve, or 3 years right at the beginning and that absolves you from wartime mobilization. There are all sorts of permutations on this.

The case has been made for the current situation that while the All Volunteer Forces are working and we are getting the people in and fairly high caliber people, most of them high school graduates these days, a fairly high percentage, nevertheless that may not be sufficient in the future. Plus, is it fair that the draw of economic benefits to go into the military which obviously attracts the lower

socioeconomic strata in our society-is it fair that those are the people who are going to get shot at, wounded and killed for all the rest of us if a war starts? And should we have a draft that says okay, you take the rich kids, the poor kids, whoever comes up in the draft across the board and the whole social and economic structure of our country shares equally in the danger of getting shot at if war starts? That's a pretty powerful argument to me on the other side of this equation.

I am not proposing that we go to a draft or we go to selective service or set up a system like that now, but I think it is one that all of us need to think a lot about. And if we go to something like that, you are going to be right smack in the middle of it. Now, it may not happen on your watch, but it is something that we need to certainly do some planning on. So, I hope you would be thinking along some of those lines too.

Mr. LESSEY. The more effective we are, sir, I think the less chance there is of it happening on anybody's watch.

Mr. Chairman, if I may expand briefly on my last answer where I placed myself more in the journeyman role following your policy guidance, certainly the Selective Service is prepared to provide you with any professional advice we have and statistics and thinking which we come up with in this area which might be helpful to you. Senator GLENN. Yes. Well, I appreciate that.

And, Mr. Lessey, do you agree, if confirmed, to respond to all requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress?

Mr. LESSEY. I certainly do.

Senator GLENN. And if you are confirmed by the Senate, will you and your staff respond to all questions by this committee or any other appropriate member or committees of the Congress in a forthright and expeditious manner?

Mr. LESSEY. Yes, I will.

Senator GLENN. Good. Thank you.

We have here staff members representing some of our members here. Do any of the rest of you have questions on behalf of your members? Anyone else? Nothing.

I will certainly recommend your nomination. We have been through your record in its entirety. We find it exemplary for the job that you are going to embark on. And I hope that we can get your confirmation voted out very early next week so we can get you on the job and doing what needs to be done.

The hearing will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair

man.

[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned subject to call of the Chair.]

[The nomination of Samuel Kenric Lessey, Jr., was reported to the Senate by Senator Sam Nunn on December 15, 1987, with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1987.]

NOMINATION OF ROBERT W. PAGE, SR., TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CIVIL WORKS

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1987

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., in room SR222, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Alan J. Dixon presiding.

Present: Senators Sam Nunn (chairman of the committee), Alan J. Dixon, J. James Exon, Phil Gramm, Steven D. Symms, and Richard C. Shelby.

Staff present: Jeffrey H. Smith, general counsel; Patrick A. Tucker, minority counsel; Christine C. Dauth, chief clerk; and Kathryn E. Bognovitz, special assistant; Robert E. Bayer, Ronald P. Kelly, and Patricia L. Watson, professional staff members; Lori Jackson, staff assistant.

Also present: Charles C. Smith, assistant to Senator Dixon; Milton D. Beach, assistant to Senator Glenn; Terrence Lynch, assistant to Senator Shelby; William J. Wight, assistant to Senator Warner; Mark J. Albrecht, assistant to Senator Wilson; Alan Ptak, assistant to Senator Gramm; Samuel J. Routson, assistant to Senator Symms; and Patrick A. Putignano, assistant to Senator McCain. OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR ALAN J. DIXON, PRESIDING Senator DIXON. The committee meets this afternoon to consider the nomination of Robert W. Page, Sr., to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

As the chairman's commitments will preclude him from being present throughout this hearing, he asked me as chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, Sustainability and Support to preside this afternoon.

Mr. Page is a native Texan and a graduate of Texas A&M University where he received a bachelor's degree in architectural engineering. He saw service in World War II with the U.S. Navy and for a brief period after the war served with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Following his Government service he began a distinguished career as a construction engineer with many of the Nation's largest and most prestigious engineering firms. And he saw many years of service overseas, particularly in the Middle East where he man

aged the construction of many industrial complexes similar to our civil works programs.

I'd like to note for the record that although our Committee on Armed Services has responsibility for considering Mr. Page's nomination, most of the programs that he will administer as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am aware that that committee had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Page this morning, and we intend to work closely with Chairman Burdick in disposing of this nomination.

Mr. Page, we welcome you, your lovely wife Nancy and your daughter Meg to the committee. I know this is a very special day for your entire family. I understand that our distinguished colleague from the State of Texas, Senator Gramm, has some introductory remarks, and I would welcome them at this point.

Senator GRAMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, first of all you've covered a lot of Bob Page's resume. I think, Mr. Chairman, that his service in the Pacific theater in World War II and in the CIA will represent good experience as he deals on water projects with the Congress. [Laughter.]

I think secondly one can hardly doubt his ability to do the job for the last 3 years he has been chairman and chief executive officer of the largest engineering and construction company in the world, and for 15 years has been either president or chairman of some of the largest construction firms on earth.

I think we're very fortunate to have a person who has practical experience in getting things done from an engineering point of view, who has a broad background of private business and public service. And I am confident that Bob will be an outstanding Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, and I look forward to working with him on all the water projects that we need in Texas and in other parts of the country as well.

Mr. PAGE. It was kind of you to say that, Senator Gramm.

Senator DIXON. Do any other members of the committee have opening statements?

Senator ExON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do.

Senator DIXON. Senator Exon.

Senator EXON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Page, I welcome you here. You come with excellent credentials and I intend to enthusiastically support you. I am very pleased that the President made the nomination.

I think that you're going to find the work in this area very interesting and challenging. And although you come with a very good background, I suspect that you'll run into some new things that you've never run into before, not the least of which will be Members of the Congress looking over your shoulder.

There are some things though that we will be working together on and many things with the Corps of Engineers. As Assistant Secretary for Civil Works you will have very important responsibilities with the United States. And indeed, I am hopeful that you are prepared to carry them out in a cooperative and a prudent manner, which I think you will do because of your past experience.

As you know, water resources are central to the economic livelihood and quality of life in many of our Western States. The Corps

has a very definite role to play here. Having said that, I want to focus on a situation that is very important to my State of Nebraska and something that I hope we can work cooperatively together on.

I don't expect that you'll be able to do all the things that Nebraskans would like to see you do, but we'd like to think that in a man in your position we have an ear open to the standpoint of the concerns of Nebraskans and other States in the great midwest area. The State of Wyoming has proposed construction of a dam on Deer Creek which is a tributary of the North Platt River. Although no Federal funds would be involved in this construction, the Corps of Engineers is required to prepare an environmental impact statement. I think you're going to run into several of those during your tour of duty.

I have participated in development of that statement on a number of occasions in an effort to ensure that Nebraska's interests are well represented. Despite that participation, Nebraska officials and I remain concerned over the accuracy of the information included in the statement. I would simply say that while it is a difficult time to agree on what is accurate and what is not accurate depending on one's point of view, I do hope that the Corps will continue their traditional policy of being totally accurate and not be influenced by one side or another on many of the important matters that will come before you.

The Deer Creek is also the subject of an action now pending between the States of Nebraska and Wyoming in the U.S. Supreme Court. If Nebraska's concerns are not addressed in the environmental impact statement, I suspect we will face a full-blown Supreme Court battle. I have been through water wars before, and I can tell you that long drawn out litigation is not my preferred way to do business, nor do I think has history shown that it's a good way for the individual States to do business.

I suspect that as a new nominee you may not be intimately familiar with this dispute, but I would like to get your assurance that one of your first priorities will be to take an in-depth look at the issues involved here and the Corps of Engineers' role in that dispute. If you think that their role has been proper and they have done a good job on the impact statement, then I will at least agree that you have taken a look at it even though you might not agree with my point of view.

There is a similar dispute between Colorado and Nebraska on a project known as Two Forks. Like Deer Creek, Two Forks is not dependent on Federal funds. The Corps is continuing its work on an environmental impact statement in this area. It is my understanding that the Corps has scheduled a meeting in Grand Island, NE on February 2 on the Two Forks situation. I was pleased with that move and would like your assurances that you will take a long, hard look at the issues raised in that hearing on the Two Forks situation.

Finally, I want to bring up the Missouri River National Recreation River. This project has been deadlocked over a dispute on cost sharing for the Steam Bank stabilization measures. As a part of the Nation's wild and scenic river system, this stretch of the Missouri River deserves to be protected by the Federal Government. I have tried hard to make that point clear to officials within the ad