Table Of Content

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995 Y4.AP 6/1:0 36/5/995/ PT.2 Departnent of Defense Appropriation... ^JJ^Qjg BEFOREA SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania, Chairman cCHSAJÎLÊSWWiIfIS£O'Nt^Te^x'as^"^" iC.^^W^.PB"IL^L-YMOCUDNAGD,E,FlPoerindnasylvania JP^M•EAUaTRL£ET;DRI>^/NJx.CÔ.^VLÎDA^SKV\COJLPSNOÂ,S^BKÔCY^,a,'liMfIîon"nrd"nniîeaâsnoaCtae^^na JJBOEOERBRSYLKIELVEEINWNI,GSS,NTeOCwNa,liMfeLoxoriunciisoaiana GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia DoAKMnsiasaLirilsAcdtNau,nEt.LsA.;lRMSiiatcctauhtcbsyoJ,uoArnPgeaT,str,riJim.JcbuDullaeiKveaeitendndPaWaCnic.,lqlPuSsaiaoinrngga,e,SKJT.cohihMrmaneogitonGhue.yrl,iPLclA.kads,mPhieaantinles,drtrsGRaorotnebi,gveeorGrtAryiedVgRe..soDrDayavhiJlsb'eWDraaglvtiSdetraFsff PART 2 National GuardPrograms 1 ReservePrograms 2.97 Spare andRepairParts 397 ReadinessofU.S. Forces 409 Commanders in Chief: KPaocriefaicnCCoommmmaanndd .z^^s. 515 5gl Central Command gl3 European Command 707 RwandaandHaitiOperation^,r^^:~::::::::.:: 759 Printed for the use ofthe Committee on Appropriations ,«<.*iHnfir>p/H(ic«iTC^tO^y. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania, Chairman NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania CHARLES WILSON, Texas C. W. BILLYOUNG, Florida W. G. (BILL)HEFNER, North Carolina BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana MARTIN OLAVSABO, Minnesota JERRY LEWIS, CaUfomia JULIANC. DEXON, California JOE SKEEN, New Mexico PETERJ. VISCLOSKY, Indiana GEORGE (BUDDY)DARDEN, Georgia Donald E. Richbourg, J. David Willson, John G. Plashal, Robert V. Davis, David F. KiLiAN, Alicia Jones, Juliet Pacquing, Timothy L. Peterson, Gregory J. Walters, MarciaL.Matts,PatriciaKeenan,SaraK.Magoulick,andGregoryR.Dahlberg,Staff Assistants;StacyA.TrimbleandC.PaigeSchreiner,AdministrativeAides PART 2 Page National GuardPrograms 1 Reserve Programs 197 Spare and RepairParts 307 Readiness ofU.S. Forces 409 Commanders in Chief: Pacific Command 515 Korean Command 581 Central Command 613 European Command 707 Rwandaand Haiti Operations 759 Printed for the use ofthe Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 81-747O WASHINGTON : 1994 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Wa.shington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-046051-4 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman JAVMicIeECLh.aiWrRmIaTnTEN, Mississippi, JJOOSHENPHT.MM.YEMRcSD,ADIEn,diaPneannsylvania NEAL SMITH, Iowa C. W. BILLYOUNG, Florida SIDNEYR. YATES, lUinois RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana TOM BEVILL,Alabama JERRY LEWIS, Cahfomia JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JOHNEDWARD PORTER, Ilhnois CHARLES WILSON, Texas HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington JOE SKEEN, NewMexico JMUALRITAINNCO.LDAKVOSNA,BOC,ahMfionmnieasota TFROAMNDKelR.ayW,OLTeFx,asVirginia VIC FAZIO, CaUfornia JIM KOLBE, Arizona W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina DEANA. GALLO, NewJersey STENYH. HOYER, Maryland BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada BOB CARR, Michigan JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa RICHARDJ. DURBIN, lUinois RON PACKARD, Cahfomia RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, WestVirginia HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland JIM CHAPMAN, Texas JAMEST. WALSH, NewYork MARCYKAPTUR, Ohio CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carohna DAVIDE. SKAGGS, Colorado DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio DNAAVNICDYEP.EPLROISCIE,,CNaohrftohmiCaaroUna EHRENNERSYTBJO.NIISLTLOAO,K,TeJxra.s, Oklahoma PETERJ. VISCLOSKY, Indiana THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, Cahfomia GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia NITAM. LOWEY, NewYork RAYTHORNTON, Arkansas JOSE E. SERRANO, NewYork ROSAL. DeLAURO, Connecticut JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia DOUGLAS TETE" PETERSON, Florida JOHNW. OLVER, Massachusetts ED PASTOR, Arizona CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida Frederick G. Mohrman, Clerk and StaffDirector (ID DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995 Tuesday, April 19, 1994. NATIONALGUARD PROGRAMS WITNESSES HON. DEBORAH R. LEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, RE- SERVEAFFAIRS MAJ. GEN.RAYMONDF.REES,USA,ACTINGCHIEF,NATIONALGUARD BUREAU MAJ. GEN. DONALD W. SHEPPERD, USAF, DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD MAJ. GEN. JOHN R. D'ARAUJO, USA, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Introduction Mr. MuRTHA. The Committee will come to order. This afternoon the Committee will heartestimonyfrom two panels. The firstpanel will address the programs of the National Guard, and the second panel will addressthe programs ofthe Reserve Forces. We welcome our first panel to the Committee today. The Honor- able Deborah R. Lee,Assistant SecretaryofDefense forReserveAf- fairs; Major (general Raymond F. Rees, Acting Chief, National Guard Bureau; Major Greneral Donald W. Shepperd, Directorofthe Air National Guard; and Major General John R. D'Araujo, Director oftheArmyNational Guard. I want to welcome all ofyou to the Committee, but we have a series of votes in the House of Representatives today so we will have to expedite things a little bit. We will put your statements in the record and ifyou will sumniarize them for us, we will proceed quickly and we will try to get you out ofhere. Ms. Lee, please proceed. Summary Statement ofMs. Lee Ms. Lee. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. It certainly is a pleasure to be beforeyou today to be able to talk about what our Reserve components are doing for the country. The Reserve Chiefs and I would like to deliver one opening statement and then each ofthe Reserve Chiefs will be very brief, leaving the maximum time forquestions. (1) ROLE OFTHE GUARDAND RESERVES Secretary Perry recently testified during his confirmation hear- ing that both the Reserves and the Guard must play an indispen- sable role in our military planning forthe future, particularly with the downsizing that is taking place with our active duty forces. I would like to coverfourseparate topicsforyouverybriefly. First, I would like to tell you about our strategy through the Bot- tom-Up Review and how we intend to use the Reserves in the future. Second, I would like to talk to you about some actions we are taking in the area of readiness, which is our number-one priority in DOD. Third, ourefforts to increase the accessibility ofthe Reserve components as we looktoutilize them more. And fourth, a few words about a relatively new area that we are working very hard, the area ofwhat we call civil military cooperation. RESERVE MISSIONS First, under the Bottom-Up Review, let me point out that the Bottom-Up Review did recognize and did specifically size the Re- serve components for three very important missions: first, to be able to fully integrate with the active forces, to be able to fight and decisively win two major regional conflicts should we come to that point in this country; second, we have forces that are available to meet domestic missions; and third, forces for what we call strategic insurance, because all too often we find ourselves preparingto fight the last war instead oflooking ahead and hedging our bets against whatthe next warmightbe like. In the Bottom-Up Review review process we also moved away from the old strategy for reducing Reserve forces that came to be called proportional reductions. You in Congress told the DOD that this was not a proper way to proceed for the future, and I am pleased to report that the new team in the Pentagon agrees with that. COMPENSATINGLEVERAGE STRATEGY So we too have rejected that strategy. Instead, we opted in favor of a new strategy called compensating leverage. What compensating leverage means is that we will use the Reserve forces in the future to specifically reduce the risks associated with a smaller active force and to capitalize on the fact that they are less expensive to maintain in peacetime. This means our challenge is to assign to the Reserves the proper missions that maximize their strengths and to provide them with the resources they need to get the job done. Very briefly, what does this mean for the Reserve components? For the Air Reserve forces, although we are coming down in fight- ers, we will be specifically applying compensating leverage and in- creasing their involvement in strategic airlift and refueling, two areas where the Reserves have served extremely successfully in the past. For the Naval Reserve, compensating leverage means that we are going to, for the first time, place a carrier in the Reserve. We also will be having our Naval Reserve more involved than ever in the area ofmine countermeasures. And by fiscal year 1999, which isthe period thatthe Bottom-Up Review covers, we will, bytheend ofthat period, have the most modern Naval Reserve fleet that we have ever known, shipsfully compatible and able to work alongside the active dutyNavy. For the Marine Corps Reserve, the Bottom-Up Review directed the reinstatement ofthe reinforcement mission and the forces to go with that mission. Under the old Base Force Plan, these forces would have been lost, but again, we have reinstated those forces underthe Bottom-Up Review. On the Army side, the compensating leverage notion strength- ened the traditional combat role ofthe Army Guard, most notably through the 15 enhanced readiness brigades. In addition to those 15 brigades, otherforces would also be availablefor strategic insurance, and of course all of our forces are at all times available to answerthe call when disasterstrikes here athome. I mightjust point out that for the first time the DOD has recognized the state mission as being a very integral and important part of our national security. I wanted you to know that we fully sup- portthat, and are workingwiththe National Guard on that. Similarly, the Army Reserve under the Bottom-Up Review will take on an increasingly important and early deploying role on the combat support and combat service support side. They will also help us a great deal more inthe area oftotalArmy training. Although the Reserves in each instance will be reduced between now and 1999, this compensating leverage strategy means that they will not be reduced as much as the active components and as a result the total force ofthe future will rely more on the Reserves on apersonnelbasis than we do today. ARMYRESERVEANDARMYGUARDRESTRUCTURE In the wake ofthe Bottom-Up Review, the Secretary ofDefense and the Chief of Staff of the Army jointly announced a follow-on plan to restructure the Army National Guard and the Army Re- serve. I wanted to describe that plan to you. There are three key parts tothe plan. First, there are overall reductions in both the Army Guard and the Army Reserve. By the end of 1999, the Army Guard will reach a level of 367,000 and the Army Reserve a level of 208,000, for a combined total of 575,000. This compares with about 670,000 today, so we still have a way to go between now and 1999 in our downsizing. Second, the Guard will be more specifically focused on its traditional core competency, which is combat, preparing for wartime combat. And they will also continue to perform the first line ofdefense in terms ofpeacetime domestic emergency assistance, and as such, will continue to have combat support and combat service sup- portunits. To make all this possible under that smaller end strength, some unit structure which is currently in the Reserve, will be transferred to the Guard. Togiveyou an ideaofthe kinds ofunits which would cross over, the Guard would pick up some artillery, aviation, mechanized infantry, armor and special forces units, all of which have either that combat orientation or are very important from the standpoint of the state mission and emergency assistance. So the Guard, in point two, is focused on combat and domestic emergency. Point three is the Army Reserve part ofthe story. The Army Re- serve in the future will be specifically focused on its core competency, which has traditionally been combat service support. In so doing, certain unit structure which is currently in the Guard will transfer to the Reserve. By that I mean units including medical, signal, militarypolice andtransportation units. There has been lot of talk of late, about the cost ofthis plan. I would like to assure you that this plan will not result in the cre- ation ofany major new units or in any major new facility requirements. In terms ofthe costs, we have scrubbed the numbers hard and are very confident that it will cost less, and we think substan- tially less, than a hundred million dollars, and even that includes the costs that you would have in any sort ofa downsizing environment, such asthe transition costs and environmental costs. I don't think, at least not in myjudgment, that this is too great a price to pay when you consider that ultimately through this plan we will save billions ofdollars through reducingforces that we will no longerneed forthe post-Cold Warworld. The best part, I believe, is that through this plan we have al- ready been able to free up $800 million, which we have then ploughed back in our POM directly to improve National Guard and Reserve readiness in very concrete ways, such as full-time support, increased OPTEMPO and higher levels of depot maintenance. So $800 million hasbeen ploughedbackto improve ourreadiness. OFF-SITEAGREEMENT One final point concerns the process used to develop it. Unlike the past, when the different parts oftheArmyfamily fought among themselves about how to restructure, how to downsize, this particu- lar plan was developed through great discussion and unprece- dented cooperation. The Active sat down with the Guard, who sat down with the Reserves, who sat down with the major Reserve-ori- ented Associations, and they not only shared in a problem but in a problem-solving environment and together they hammered out a plan. That plan was subsequently adopted by the Army and by the SecretaryofDefense. The last point I would offer on it is that, in myjudgment, there are pieces ofthe plan which everyone likes, and everyone dislikes. Yet, in my judgment, it is very much a package deal. If one part unravels, I suspect the entire plan, and the broad support will also unravel. DOWNSIZINGOFTHE RESERVES With greater reliance on the Reserves, it is important that they be ready and accessible, and I would like to cover that briefly. In the area of readiness, let me talk people. As we restructure and daorewnvseirzye,ceovmemriytteeffdorttoitshbaetinagndmawdeemteoatnakiet.cWareewoifllouarccpeoompmloe.daWtee those who are able to move into other positions and we will also provide transition benefits for those who will leave us. We have fullyfunded those transition benefits for 1995. In the area ofrecruiting and retention, there is no question that the publicity about downsizing, uncertainty, and cutbacks have coupled together to send the wrong message to the American people, the message that somehow we are no longer hiring in DOD. That is not true. While we will be smaller, there is a continuing need to attract high-quality people, so that is our challenge. The challenge will be for our recruiters to get out there and get the word across through the advertising dollars that we have, and throughthe resources that supportthem. We are well positioned to capture active component people comming offofactive duty. That is good news forus and so we will emphasize more ofour efforts to attract those prior service person- nel. The quality ofourenlisted accessions is still veryhigh and programs like the bonuses and the Montgomery GI bill help us enor- mously in that effort. In terms ofretainingthe highquality force thatwe alreadyhave, we are doing quite well by and large. Keeping these people on duty is very important. It keeps our training requirements down, so we will continue to closelymonitorour retention. But so far, on the re- cruiting and retention side, we are in pretty good shape today. Our challenge is towatch the dangersigns on thehorizon. ENHANCED READINESS BRIGADES Let me say something about enhancement for early deploying forces. The Bottom-Up Review recognized that, unlike the Cold War period where everybody had to be ready very early on, in the new world environment, not all forces need to be equally ready, because not all forces will deploy at the same time. As a result, we are trying to do a better job of aligning our peacetime readiness levels with those units that are most likely to deploy first. That means that we will be giving priority in the future for readiness directed toward our early deploying support units and our En- hanced Readiness Brigades in theNational Guard. Mr. MuRTHA. Let me stop you there Ms. Lee and ask these gen- tlemen to put their statements in the record with yours so we can get rightto the questions. [The statements ofMs. Lee, General Rees, General D'Araujo and General Shepperd follow:] STATEMENT OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS THE HONORABLE DEBORAH R. LEE BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE DEFENSE SUBCOMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH NATIONAL GUARD & RESERVE PROGRAMS APRIL 1994 19, 1:30 P.M. FOROmCIALUSEONLY UNTILRELEASEDBYTHE HOUSEAPPROPRIATIONSCOMMITTEE DEFENSESUBCOMMITTEE