Table Of ContentDEPARTMENT 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
cCHSAJ^IL^ESWWiIfIS£O'Nt^Te^x'as^"^" iC.^^W^.PB"IL^L-YMOCUDNAGD,E,FlPoerindnasylvania
JP^M•EAUaTRL£ET;DRI>^/NJx.C^O.^VL^IDA^SKV\COJLPSNO^A,S^BK^OCY^,a,'liMfI^ion"nrd"nni^iea^asnoaCtae^^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 pro-
ceed.
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 fu-
ture.
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 com-
ponents 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 coopera-
tion.
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 compensat-
ing leverage means is that we will use the Reserve forces in the
future to specifically reduce the risks associated with a smaller ac-
tive 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 insur-
ance, 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 recog-
nized 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 tradi-
tional core competency, which is combat, preparing for wartime
combat. And they will also continue to perform the first line ofde-
fense 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 com-
petency, 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 require-
ments. 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 environ-
ment, 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 peo-
ple, 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 pro-
grams 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, be-
cause 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
