value your input and the leadership that you have taken in these

areas.

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as always, it is not only a privilege, but a pleasure to have the opportunity of working with you. I think our record is one of total bipartisanship with exactly the same goal in mind: the benefits and welfare of the men and women who serve in the military.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to echo your sentiments and welcome our new personnel chiefs that are here before us for the first time. All of them have had an eminently successful and brilliant careers. I guess this proves that no good deeds go unpunished. [Laughter.]

But we do welcome you and look forward to working with you in the years ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that what this subcommittee does, this year and the next, is of vital importance.

We had witnesses before the full committee, the CINCS, the service chiefs and other civilian leaders in the Pentagon who have indicated that the most severe problem facing the military today is the uncertainty amongst the men and women who are presently on active duty. They do not know where they are going to be sent.

They do not know if they are going to be involuntarily separated. They do not know if they are going to be able to remain at their present assignment, and obviously, this kind of uncertainty and turbulence leads to enormous potential for morale problems within the military. This denigrates the tremendously successful effort that was made during the 1980s to provide us with the highest quality men and women that this Nation has ever produced, a quality clearly substantiated by their performance in Operation Desert Storm.

I remember the testimony before the full committee of my friend, Admiral Larson. He testified that not only is there enormous uncertainty and concern out there amongst our armed services personnel, but this kind of uncertainty leads to a situation where the very best people we have decide to leave and the less good remain.

And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the work we do, we should keep in mind that its goal is to provide a certain degree of predictability to the men and women in the service. We must prevent a degeneration of the quality and performance of the men and women in the military today.

One additional point Mr. Chairman, and I do not mean to be partisan, but we cannot afford again to spend $6.3 billion in unnecessary and wasteful spending and at the same time tell men and women in the military that we cannot afford to keep them.

That $6.3 billion that was spent on truck engines and museums and other pork barrel projects for various Congressmen and Senators is not acceptable in a period when we have to take the draconian measures the responsibility of which has been laid on you and me and the other members of this committee.

So I look forward to working with you closely. I know the welfare of the men and women of the military is your highest priority and has been for more years than you would like to recount. I think that working together we can go a long way in resolving some of

these problems with the cooperation and effort of the fine people that we have before us.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GLENN. Thank you, John.

Our witnesses have all submitted written statements, that we will, without objection include in the record and I will ask each of our DOD witnesses to briefly summarize his statement before we turn to the briefing by our GAO witnesses.

Mr. Jehn, welcome, we will start with you. Welcome back again. You will be followed then by General Carney, Admiral Zlatoper, General Cooper and General Boles.

Mr. Jehn, if you would lead off, we would appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER JEHN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR FORCE MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL

Mr. JEHN. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here, Senator Glenn, Senator McCain, always a pleasure to work with you. I think both of you have noted what all of us would say, that we have a very important task in front of us, but we are also right in the middle of it, and that is a point I want to briefly make here. I appreciate your entering my more complete statement in the record.

REDUCTION AND RESTRUCTURING

This is the third year I have appeared to discuss the manpower and personnel programs in the President's budget. Each of the last 2 years I began by remarking on the momentous changes that have occurred in the world in the previous 12 months. This year is really no different. The last 12 months mark the last gasp of Soviet communism and the final dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.

But something remarkable is underway right here as well; we are in the middle of an enormous reduction and restructuring of the Department of Defense. By the end of this fiscal year, there will be almost 300,000 fewer women and men on active duty in the Department of Defense than there were at the end of fiscal year 1989.

We will have over 100,000 fewer civilian employees in the Department of Defense, and through it all we are meeting our two principal objectives: First, that we maintain combat capability and readiness; and second, that we remain fair to people, the people in the military and the civilian employees, both those who leave and those who stay.

Our military's performance last year in Operation Desert Storm is clear evidence of our continuing capability and readiness. An important measure of our fairness is our minimal use, so far, of involuntary separations. But as you suggested, Senator Glenn, in your opening remarks, there are many other measures of our success in managing this unprecedented reduction.

This is success that the Department must rightfully share with the Congress and particularly this subcommittee, as together we have so far reduced the size of the military while maintaining its strength.

As you noted, since 1989 we have maintained highly competitive levels of pay for military personnel. We have created the voluntary separation incentive and the special separation bonus, incentives whose purpose and effect is to minimize involuntary separations while balancing our reduction.

We have extended involuntary separation pay to enlisted members. We have maintained the highest levels of recruit quality, despite significant cuts to our recruiting resources, including a nearly 50 percent cut in recruit advertising, a fact that still some stubbornly refuse to recognize.

We have doubled child care funding. We have implemented an extensive transition assistance program for military personnel, civilian personnel and spouses. We have maintained training and high optempo for our forces, all the better to maintain capability and readiness.

I could go on and on. In short, so far, we are doing this drawdown in the right way. I look forward very much to working with this committee to ensure we continue to get it right. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Jehn follows:]

PREPARED Statement by HON. CHRISTOPHER JEHN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR FORCE Management AND PERSONNEL

MANPOWER OVERVIEW

When I appeared before you at this time last year, our Armed Forces had just completed the overwhelmingly successful Operation Desert Storm. We still had hundreds of thousands of active and reserve members in theater. We had invoked stoploss and delayed personnel reductions to deal with the crisis in Southwest Asia. Since then, we have brought home the troops who served and won in Desert Storm. We are bringing home from Europe many other service members who won the Cold War. And now we have resumed our program to reduce the Nation's military substantially.

This country has a proud military heritage. Yet historically we have not always done well in reducing our military forces. We did not always treat our people as well as we might have, and certainly we did not prepare well for challenges that emerged a few short years later. We are determined not to repeat those mistakes. In accomplishing the current reductions, we have two major objectives-to maintain the highest state of readiness consistent with our resources and to treat people fairly. My statement will describe our plans for maintaining a vibrant and effective Total Force while keeping faith with our members-both those who must leave and those who will stay as part of the new, smaller force.

THE FUTURE TOTAL FORCE

Today the threat of a global war beginning on short notice in Europe has substantially decreased. Because of historic changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, we can now reduce the overall size of our forces and our defense budget. However, future peace and stability in the world will continue to depend greatly upon our willingness to retain and deploy high-quality forces. And, as Secretary Cheney stated in his budget overview statement, "The future may also come to depend on others' perceptions of our will and capability to reconstitute forces and to deter and defend against strategic attack... Maintaining that posture, maintaining the capacity to respond in a crisis will be absolutely crucial in heading off future crises and dissuading future aggressors from challenging our vital interests." As we make the transition to a smaller Total Force, we must ensure that it can meet these requirements.

The Total Force of the future should be balanced, integrating the capabilities and strengths of the active and reserve forces. Active forces will provide the primary capabilities for day-to-day operations, as well as most of the combat and support units needed for initial responses to regional contingencies. Reserve forces will provide other essential support units (in increasing numbers for extended confrontations), as well as combat units to augment and reinforce active forces in large or

protracted confrontations. Reserve forces will also provide units to perform several missions particularly well-suited to reserve forces including stateside air defense, civil affairs, and tactical air reconnaissance. Civilians will continue to play critical support roles, as they did in Desert Storm, when-for example-civilian technicians and engineers performed maintenance on aircraft, missiles, radars, tanks, and helicopters both in theater and in the United States. Finally, retired military personnel and host nation support will remain important sources of manpower and special skills.

The President's budget request for active military, Selected Reserve, and civilian manpower for fiscal year 1993 (shown in Table 1) reflects a significant step in moving toward the future Total Force.

TABLE 1.—Fiscal Year 1993 Amended President's Budget End Strength

* Fiscal year 1991 Active military end strength includes those Reserves (17,059) still on active duty as of September 30, 1991, in support of Operation Desert Storm/Shield, Reserve numbers are offset correspondingly.

2 Reserve includes Active Guard / Reserve and Selected Reserves.

* Includes direct and indirect hire civilians.

• Includes civilian end strength for all Defense Agencies and Activities. The 31,000 end strength increase between fiscal year 1991 and fiscal year 1995 is caused primarily by the consolidation and shifting of contract auditing, supply depots and inventory control points from the services to the Defense Logistics Agency, the creation of the Defense Commissary Agency and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and an increase in the On-Site Inspection Agency civilian end strength

As we began fiscal year 1992, our active component strength was less than 2 million-the lowest level since 1951. Active duty end strength will be further reduced by 120,000 in fiscal year 1992 and 99,000 in fiscal year 1993. (At this time last year, we proposed reductions of 88,000 in fiscal year 1992 and 91,000 in fiscal year 1993). From its post-Vietnam peak of 2,174,000 in fiscal year 1987, active military end strength will decrease to 1,766,500 by the end of fiscal year 1993, a reduction of 407,000, or 19 percent. By fiscal year 1997, it will decrease to 1,626,000, a total reduction of 548,000, or 25 percent.

Selected Reserve end strength will be cut by approximately 35,000 in fiscal year 1992 and another 113,000 in fiscal year 1993. By the end of fiscal year 1993, Selected Reserve strength will have decreased 164,000, or 14 percent, from a high point of 1,171,000 in fiscal year 1989. By fiscal year 1997, it will decrease to about 920,000, 21 percent below the fiscal year 1989 level.

Although we realize that some people oppose cuts to Reserve end strength, it does not make sense to exempt reservists from our planned streamlining. Reserve forces have made significant contributions in the past, and we expect they will in the ire as well. And reserve performance was outstanding in Operation Desert

Storm. However, as the Secretary has stated, "As we take down active forces, it is wasteful not to reduce the reserve elements assigned to support those forces." For example, as we eliminate six active Army divisions, it is logical to eliminate also the reserve combat support and combat service support units that supported those divisions. Otherwise, those reserve units will have no wartime missions, and paying for them will keep us from paying for other genuine wartime needs.

We are particularly concerned about maintaining the readiness of the Reserve and Guard components; therefore, our plan for reducing these forces calls for deactivating some units, the better to fully man, train, and equip remaining units. Some counter-proposals would retain units without corresponding active components in wartime; in times of scarce funding this will lead to underfunding of reserve and active units, a dangerous step toward the "Hollow Force" of the 1970s. Our reduction strategy stresses readiness and usefulness of reserve units over the number of units.

The President's budget calls for reducing DOD civilian employment by 44,000 positions in fiscal year 1992 (from a level of 1,045,000 at the end of fiscal year 1991) and by an additional 43,000 positions in fiscal year 1993, resulting in an employment level of about 958,000. By the end of fiscal year 1997, civilian employment will fall to 904,000, 20 percent below its fiscal year 1987 level and 212,000 or 19 percent below our employment level in December 1989, when we began our hiring restrictions. These numbers include jobs cut at installations on both the first- and secondround lists of closures and realignments. Only a few smaller installations will close this fiscal year. The remaining closures from Rounds I and II will occur in fiscal years 1993 through 1997.

The manpower reductions discussed above reflect the reduction in force structure across the Department. The Army will go from 26 divisions today (16 active and 10 reserve) to 20 divisions in fiscal year 1995 (12 active, 6 reserve, and 2 cadre). During the same time period, the Army will eliminate a total of 6 non-divisional brigades or regiments (1 active and 5 reserve).

Navy Battle Force Ships will decrease from 528 ships today to 451 ships in fiscal year 1995. Included will be a reduction in the number of ballistic missile submarines from 34 to 23; an addition of five cruisers (from 47 to 52) and two destroyers (from 47 to 49); and a decrease of 24 frigates (from 59 to 35) and 52 other support ships. Aircraft carriers will stay constant at 12; carrier air wings will go to 13 (11 active and 2 reserve) by fiscal year 1995.

Marine Corps reductions and restructuring will center on the Command Element, the Ground Combat Element, and the Aviation Combat Element. Changes in the Command Element will increase command and control while reducing headquarters overhead. Ground Combat changes will reflect the transition to M1AI tanks, reorganization into smaller platoons, and reorganization of artillery regiments and batteries. A tank battalion, an artillery battalion, and an armored assault battalion will be deactivated. Aviation combat element changes will reflect the transition to more modernized and capable aircraft and the deactivation of 2 F/A-18 squadrons, an AV-8B squadron, and an OV-10 squadron.

Air Force adjustments include the elimination of 43 bombers (from 261 to 218), 39 tankers (from 594 to 555-active decreases from 436 to 293; reserves increase from 158 to 262), 6.5 tactical fighter wing equivalents (from 33.5 to 27-active decreases from 21.7 to 15.3; reserves remain virtually the same, going from 11.8 to 11.7), and 22 airlift aircraft (from 805 to 783-active decreases from 458 to 402; reserves increase from 347 to 381).

As we implement manpower reductions, some of our actions may have adverse effects at the community level. To assist affected communities, the Department has conducted an Economic Adjustment Program since 1961. The fiscal year 1992 Defense Authorization Act strengthened this program and continued the authorization for grant assistance to communities unable completely to fund planning activities required to adjust to the impacts of Defense program changes. We expect our Office of Economic Adjustment to be of continued importance to local communities as personnel reductions and base closures accelerate.

RESHAPING THE TOTAL FORCE: RECRUITING, RETENTION, SEPARATION

The challenge we face is not simply to reduce our force, but to shape it so that our manning is aligned with our emerging force structure. Although we will accomplish a great deal of our manpower reductions by decreased recruiting, too few recruits today would mean too few seasoned noncommissioned and petty officers a decade from now. It also is essential that we continue to provide chal.enging opportunities for professional development and career advancement; failing to do so could jeopardize retention of our best performers. And if our separation policies appear insensi