these officers has told you, the advertising program is essential in that regard. ADVERTISING The second point I would like to make is we requested about $120 million, DOD-wide for advertising. Most of that money will not go to buy time on radio and television, particularly television. In fact, the only services that will be buying any time on television this year are the Army and the Marine Corps. General Boles made reference to a joint recruiting advertising program as something that the Air Force relies on. This year the Air Force is not going to be able to rely on that program because it, too, will be unable to buy any time on commercial television. None of the services advertised on the Superbowl, it was not just the Navy. So a lot of hyperbole and a lot of complaints we have heard about recruiting are, simply put, unfounded. We have cut recruiting advertising. We have cut recruiting in general a great deal. I know the members of this committee appreciate that recruiting success is very fragile, and yet that success is essential to the future strength of the military. So I very much encourage you to support our request. I think it is prudent. I think we have cut about as far as we can cut and still be safe. In my judgment, the toughest job in a peacetime military is being a recruiter out in the field; and as General Cooper has eloquently said, I think it would be unfortunate, perhaps even tragic, if we send those fine men and women out in the field without the support that paid advertising provides them. Senator GLENN. We may want to talk a little more about these things because there is a lot of interest. After Senator Nunn has his turn here we will turn briefly to Senator Mack and Congressman Bilirakis, and maybe Senator Graham will be here by that time. I know you have an appointment I believe over at the White House, and we will get to you just as soon as Senator Nunn gets through. REDUCTIONS OVERSEAS Senator NUNN. I will not take long, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask each of the services how quickly you are bringing people back from overseas, particularly the Army and the Air Force from Europe? You may have covered that in your testimony, but I want to make sure we understand exactly the pace of the reductions from abroad. Could I start with General Carney? General CARNEY. Yes, Senator Nunn. As you know, before the drawdown began there were over 200,000 soldiers in U.S. Army Europe and we expect, with minor exceptions, such as the need for the withdrawal of our nuclear warheads and so forth to be at the base force end state fairly closely in Europe by the end of the fiscal year of 1993, which means about 92,000. Senator NUNN. That would be 92,000 reduced from where we are now? General CARNEY. That is correct, sir. Senator NUNN. By the end of fiscal 1993? General CARNEY. That is correct, sir. Senator NUNN. Does that get it down to the 150,000 level? Senator NUNN. The Army's portion of the 150,000, so you are talking about reducing 93,000 people from when until the end of 1993? From right now or from the beginning of the fiscal year? General CARNEY. We will be at 92,000 by the end of fiscal year 1993. Senator NUNN. You will be at the 92,000 reduction from the present level? General CARNEY. Yes, sir. I will have to provide for the record exactly where we stand today as we ramp down to 92,000 by the end of 1993. [The information follows:] The Army European end strength for end of fiscal year 1992 is expected to be about 129,000 and [deleted] by end of fiscal year 1993. Senator NUNN. I am just wondering whether that 92,000 is a fiscal year reduction or whether it is longer than the fiscal year starting now reduction. General CARNEY. We will be at 92,000 by the end of fiscal year 1993. Senator NUNN. That is the Army? Mr. JEHN. That is the Army strength in Europe at the end of this year. OVERSEAS DOWNSIZING Senator NUNN. I am trying to get the reduction number. How many are you reducing during fiscal year 1993 and how many are you reducing from now or any other base line you would like to use to the end of 1993? General CARNEY. I will have to provide it for the record, Senator, but I believe the number was 158,000 the last I recall it which would mean the reduction would be about 66,000. [The information follows:] From the end of fiscal year 1992 to the end of fiscal year 1993, we plan on reducing the European end strength by approximately [deleted] to achieve the base force end state of [deleted] by end of fiscal year 1993. Senator NUNN. About 66,000? General CARNEY. Yes, 158,000 down to 92,000, 66,000. Senator NUNN. That is over a 16-month period, 18-month period? General CARNEY. About 20 months, yes, sir. Senator NUNN. Does anyone know the pace of the reduction of the Army from Europe, how many a month? General CARNEY. I do not have that. I would have to provide it for the record, but we have used the terms about 500 soldiers and their family members per day departing from Europe. [The information follows:] During the previous 12 months ending March 31, 1992, Europe experienced an average monthly reduction of 5,307 personnel. This reduction was accomplished by a combination of soldiers leaving Europe due to normal completion of tours and terms of enlistment, unit moves to the Continental United States, and units inactivated overseas, plus a decreased flow into Europe. Based on the current Army target for end fiscal year 1993 of [deleted] a reduction of [deleted] must be accomplished over an 18-month period, April 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993, an average of [deleted] per month. This reduction will be accomplished again by a combination as ex plained above. The past and future average monthly_reduction, however, can in no way be interpreted as being the monthly flow out of Europe. The actual flow will be controlled by the Commander in Chief, United States Army Europe. Senator NUNN. About 500 per day? General CARNEY. Yes, sir, soldiers and family members. It is a rapid pace. Senator NUNN. For those who quarrel with the administration's 150,000 end point in Europe and the Army's proportion of that is 93,000, then you would reach that end point at the end of 1993. General CARNEY. That is correct, sir. Senator NUNN. You do not have further reductions planned in 1994 and 1995? General CARNEY. No, we do not, sir. Senator NUNN. Would the same thing be true of the Air Force, General? I repeat the same question to you. Do you reach your stable level in Europe according to the administration's proposal at the end of fiscal year 1993? General BOLES. We keep coming down until fiscal year 1995, if I use the fiscal year 1991 President's budget flying squadrons are reduced from 30 in fiscal year 1992 to 11 by fiscal year 1995. Senator NUNN. In Europe? General BOLES. In Europe, yes, sir. [The information follows:] Since last year, the Air Force reduced or replaced 8 OA-37s, 1 B-2A, 6 C-29s, 66 C-135s, 24 C-141s, 81 T-37s, and 41 T-38s in fiscal year 1993. Additionally, we programmed Clark AFB for closure, implemented productivity initiatives and generated savings from restructuring actions. Senator NUNN. So your reduction from Europe is spread out more than the Army's is in order to reach your base line? General BOLES. Yes, sir. Senator NUNN. You reach your base line in 1995, the Army reaches theirs in 1993 in Europe. General CARNEY. Correct, sir.. BASELINE REDUCTIONS Senator NUNN. Admiral, I know your European numbers are a little harder to figure because you have got so many at sea, but in the way you figure them when do you reach your base line and how many are you withdrawing? Admiral ZLATOPER. Relative to Europe itself, Senator, we do not really have a base line reduction. Our Nation's commitment in Europe proper is on land with combined naval operations and joint operations with the EUCOM staff and other AFSOUTH staffs. We have home ported in that area only a flag ship and a couple of support ships for it and there is no plan to remove any of those three ships from the European theater. Now we do have the Subic drawdown, something in excess of 5,000 sailors which we will have out of Subic Bay by December of this year. A large portion of those functions though will be transferred to Guam, some taken up to Yokuska, and the remainder brought back to the United States. If you are talking about retrenchment back to the United States, it would be something less than 2,000 we are bringing back from overseas bases. Senator NUNN. General Carney, if the Congress were to, and I do not advocate this, but if the Congress were to accelerate your time frame for getting down to your base line, in other words accelerate the fiscal year 1993 withdrawal pace of the U.S. Army what would be the result of that? General CARNEY. We have no contingency plans, quite frankly, Senator. We are drawing down 70,000 this year and another 42,000 in fiscal year 1993. I think it would be tragic to go any faster than that. We are already at those levels and into 1994 and 1995 we are going to be required to RIF officers. I am fortunate to be able to say at that level and at that pace we do not believe we will have to RIF enlisted soldiers, but this is a painful process. RIFS Senator NUNN. When do you believe you will have to start RIFing officers? General CARNEY. We have a RIF board in session right now, Senator. As I stated for the record, we anticipate the need to reduce 300 majors through this process this fiscal year, 1992, although that number is reduced each time another major in that particular RIF zone applies for VSI or SSB. Senator NUNN. So you do not believe you will have to RIF enlisted people in 1993, but you do believe you will have to RIF officers? General CARNEY. We do, yes, sir. The VSI and SSB was successful in eliminating the need for a captains RIF, I am happy to say. We achieved about 700 captains in the RIF zone who voluntarily took VSI or SSB. We did not achieve satisfactory numbers in the rank of major and consequently that board is ongoing, but majors still can apply for VSI and SSB by the first of May. Senator NUNN. Is the Air Force going to have to have any RIFS in fiscal year 1993, General Boles? General BOLES. Sir, at the present time we have achieved about 30 percent of the goal we set for VSI/SSB for officers. Our target is to avoid if at all possible any RIF and I mentioned, I think before you came in, some conditions under which, if we continue to access to the current level, to meet the current end-strengths, we would need to RIF officers for fiscal year 1993, but our Chief of Staff, and our Secretary have both committed themselves to taking all possible actions to avoid a RIF. Senator NUNN. What about the Navy and the Marine Corps, same question. Admiral ZLATOPER. Senator, regarding 1993, we can get through our numbers without getting to a RIF and, in fact, we are using VSI and SSB to shape our force in a positive manner. We have some overmanning in certain areas, and we have offered it to those people, and they are coming in. We are up around the 800 take rate right now and are about to offer it to another increment. We can get our 1993 numbers without a RIF. General COOPER. Senator, we will not RIF any Marines in fiscal year 1993 or in the program years and we are using VSI SSB, sir. SSB/VSI Senator NUNN. Okay. I have one other question, Mr. Chairman. I know you are ready to move on, but can someone address the question of why 85 percent of the people are choosing SSB instead of VSI, and maybe a brief description of the difference between those two programs. I know, Mr. Jones, you talked about it in the GAO report, but I will ask that question to the panel, any volunteers? Why are so many choosing SSB which, as I understand it is the lump sum and VSI is the spread out payment? Can someone address that? Mr. JEHN. I would be willing to, Senator Nunn. The most direct answer to your question is we do not have any systematic evidence yet as to what is leading people to choose one over the other, but I should note that to some degree the response we have gotten so far was something we expected and predicted. To date, most of the individuals who have volunteered to take either of these two options have been among our more junior personnel, those with 8, 10, 11 years of service. We fully expected that the lump sum would be more attractive to those individuals, while the VSI would be more attractive to more senior people, many of whom we have not yet heard from. So, at the moment that is the best answer I can give you. The final results are far from in yet, as each of the personnel chiefs has indicated, and we will know a lot more in a few months. RETIRED AND DISABILITY PAY Senator NUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator GLENN. Thank you, Senator Nunn. We will have a little break right now. Senator Graham, Senator Mack and Congressman Bilirakis are here. We will turn to hear from them on the subject of concurrent receipt of retired military pay and VA disability pay. If you would Mr. Jones, Mr. Holman, and the three of you there on the end, could you trade places with them in the front row behind you so they can get up there to a microphone? Thank you very much. Under current law military retired pay is offset dollar for dollar by VA disability pay. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Senator Graham has introduced a bill, S. 1381, that would allow military retirees to receive military retired pay and VA disability pay concurrently on a sliding scale basis. Congressman Bilirakis has introduced a similar bill in the House. These gentlemen and Senator Mack requested the opportunity to testify on S. 1381 and we are happy to accommodate them and so we are glad to have you here this morning. Who wants to lead off? Senator MACK. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my thanks to you and the members of the manpower and personnel subcommittee for holding this hearing. As the chairman will recall my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and I wrote you last September to request a hearing on S. 1381 so we are quite appreciative of this opportunity this morning. In discussing the Military Retirement Equity Act of 1991 I believe it is essential to underscore the word equity. The Federal Gov |