HOUSING SHORTAGE

Senator INOUYE. I was quite impressed by your graphic and dramatic presentation on the number of troops and personnel being returned from Europe. One fully loaded 747.

My question is, Where are we placing these people? I ask this be cause there have been several articles talking about Fort Bragg, I believe, and Fort Stewart, saying that these camps are just overflowing-they have no space, and that these communities are not able to absorb anymore personnel. Where are we putting them?

Mr. STONE. I will take the first attempt to answer that, Senator. Your question is, of course, an appropriate one.

The first thing I might mention is that, of course, some of those soldiers who are coming back from Europe are leaving the Army. So we do not have to find a home for all of them; some portion of them would only need to be housed temporarily while they are transitioning out of the Army. So that takes care of a portion of them that are coming back.

The second part of that responsibility to house soldiers properly is a question of timing. As the Army comes down in size in 1993, and as soldiers who are presently stationed in the United States leave the Army, they will be vacating quarters and they will be vacating barracks. The soldiers coming back from Germany will have those extra quarters and barracks to move into.

In some cases, the timing does not work perfectly. General Sullivan and I are very sensitive to that problem. I have been working on it every day. We are doing everything we can to make sure that personal hardship is not imposed on those people who are coming back from Germany.

General SULLIVAN. As the Secretary said, we are very sensitive to it, Senator. And on those posts-Fort Bragg, for instance-we went in and we targeted the post and we released some people earlier. They wanted to go anyway, so we released them. We are managing it with the commanders to ensure that we keep the people housed. We are at 681,000 today; we are going to 640,000. As these people come back from Europe, like the Secretary said, we are managing it very closely, and we are very sensitive to it.

FORCE MIX

Senator INOUYE. Senator Rudman, in his usual bluntness, has once again focused upon the issue, which I am certain this committee will be facing. I think we will spend more time on that one issue-Guard, Reserve, Active-than any other single issue.

In the equation that you spoke of, how much weight would you put on the State mission of the Guard? Now, we speak of the Federal military combat mission of the Guard and Reserves. But, I think when you talk to Governors, they would place greater emphasis upon the State mission of the Guard.

Second, taking my chairman's cap off and putting on my politician's cap, the Guard is a potent political force. I just wanted to make that comment, sir.

Mr. STONE. Could I make one comment, Senator? I will go back to that rather childish graphic that I used earlier. There were 50 States in the United States. There were 50 Governors. There may

have been a few vacancies, but there were 50 Governors. Those 50 Governors had a State mission, then. Those 50 Governors were executing that State mission. And I do not have the exact figure in front of me, but I think the Guard in those days was about 300,000. I will provide the figures for the record.

During the decade of the 1980's, the Guard grew from 300,000 to 460,000. Did the State mission grow by that much? Did the State mission the Governors had to execute grow by 40 percent? Now, I will concede that perhaps there was some growth. The Guard today is much more involved in an antinarcotics campaign than it was before, as is the Active Army. So I will concede that there is some room for growth, and there is some need for growth. But my feeling is that the State mission cannot have grown by the amount of growth that has taken place in the National Guard total

force.

And I will finish by saying that I certainly agree with your final conclusion.

[The information follows:]

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD STRENGTH

The Army National Guard fiscal year end strengths for the period 1975 through 1992 are listed below:

'Due to adjustment of the fiscal year period from 1 July-30 June to 1 October-30 September this represents the period 1 July-30 September 1976. As of January 1992.

General SULLIVAN. I will begin by agreeing with that. In my case, in the uniformed sense, we never structured the Guard or equipped them for the State mission. They are really structured and equipped for the Federal mission. The wartime mission.

We are using the Guard and the Reserve in very dramatic ways in Central and South America in task forces that we put together. For example, there are today two task forces in Central Americaone in Honduras and one in Panama-Guard engineer units are building roads and so forth and they are very effective, very good. I think it is a good use of the Guard and Reserve, and I am sure the Governors of the States involved, in the case of the Guard, find them very effective.

But those engineer units are really structured for the wartime mission. And that, of course, is part of the dilemma because, if I take a corps and six divisions out, then there is a whole tail that goes behind that to the Secretary's point. But they are, primarily, structured for a wartime mission, although some of the units have a dual capability, as you know, such as military police and engi

neers.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Rudman.

Senator RUDMAN. No, thank you.

Senator INOUYE. Well, I would like to thank both of you, Mr. Secretary and General. Once again, congratulations, sir. I look forward to working with both of you as we move along in the fiscal year 1993 Army programs.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Additional questions submitted by subcommittee members, together with the Department's responses, will appear in the appendix portion of the hearings.]

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator INOUYE. We will now stand in recess until Tuesday, March 17. At that time, we will receive testimony from the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force on the fiscal year 1993 Air Force budget request. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., Thursday, March 5, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 17.]

The subcommittee met at 9:58 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Inouye, Leahy, Sasser, DeConcini, Stevens, Cochran, and Domenici.

STATEMENTS OF:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HON. DONALD B. RICE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

GEN. MERRILL A. McPEAK, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. The subject of our hearing this morning is the fiscal year 1993 budget request for the Air Force. The budget request for funding under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee is $1.6 billion and this represents an increase of $1.5 billion over funds provided by the Congress in fiscal year 1992, excluding Desert Storm. As such, the Air Force is the only military department to receive a budget increase this year.

AIR FORCE DOWNWARD TREND

The budget request before the subcommittee continues the Air Force on its downward trend towards a 261⁄2 tactical fighter wing Air Force. It funds the last four B-2 bombers and the last 24 F16 fighters. The MX missile and the small ICBM programs have been terminated, but the C-17 transport aircraft and the new advanced tactical fighter, the F-22, remain on track. Overall R&D funds are increased above the amount provided in fiscal year 1992.

FUTURE OF THE AIR FORCE

Our witnesses this morning have come forward to testify on their plans for the future. The Air Force has embarked on a much needed journey to streamline its operation and force structure, creating a combined warfighting command, a combined materiel command,