March, were made, as Secretary Jehn suggests, at a time when there was far less clarity than there is now.

We are now redeploying much faster than expected. We have reversed stop loss and the other measures that caused our force to grow, earlier than expected. We will be drawing forces out of Saudi through Europe and out of the structure faster than expected when they testified in March. So the 100,000 gap is now 710,000 to 660,000. So we have about a 50,000 active duty problem. And that is manageable within the current authorizations we have.

Senator GLENN. You will get back on track then for the 660,200 and the 618,200 in 1992 and 1993, then, as you see it now.

General RENO. Sir, that is correct. And we will get back on track with concurrent force structure reductions. Now, there will be involuntary separations, and I am sure you will be questioning that later. But the 50,000 will cause involuntary separations.

Senator GLENN. That is for 1993.

General RENO. For 1992 and 1993.

Senator GLENN. Okay, how many involuntary separations do you estimate?

General RENO. Mr. Chairman, it will be-first, let me make a point. We are currently presenting alternatives to the Chief of Staff and the Secretary, and those alternatives are addressing a smooth ramp of involuntary separations, where you would reduce each year a substantial number over the draw-down period through 1995. We are looking also at alternatives which would cause us to take deeper involuntary separations quickly in order to stabilize and reset the force.

I do not have a policy decision on that yet, Mr. Chairman. But I can tell you that the numbers are substantial, and I would like to provide that, if I may, for the record, because the decision will be made shortly.

[The information follows:]

Seventy-nine percent of the fiscal years 1991-1993 end strength reduction will be achieved through reduced accessions and increased voluntary separations. Of the involuntary separations required, over half will be from initial term or retirement eligible inventories. The following shows increased involuntary separations planned by

1 With two exceptions, the fiscal year 1991 involuntary separations are early retirements. The exceptions are (1) an estimated 1,500 enlisted airmen who will be separated under the lower high year of tenure policy for grade E4 announced by the Air Force in May 1990, and (2) an estimated 100 additional Reserve Marine Corps officers on the active duty list who will not be selected for a Regular commission. These figures do not include those involuntary separations which occur under existing strength management programs. For example, approximately 2,000 officers and 2,000 enlisted members who are separated annually for promotion nonselection are not included. However, where service promotion or tenure policies are being changed to achieve the strength reductions, the resulting increases in promotion nonselection separations are included in the above figures.

Senator GLENN. Okay, fine, we would like to have that, too. And I went over a couple of minutes on my time. Senator McCain.

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Reno, I think you make a very important statement in your prepared statement. You said that the troop reduction in the 1990's will be different from all previous reductions. "We will reduce a high quality volunteer force that enlisted with an implied opportunity and expectation for a worthwhile career. Minority group members comprise over 40 percent of the total enlisted force. Blacks make up 32 percent of the total enlisted force. Black women make up 49 percent of all enlisted females, et cetera."

I am wondering if it is fair, in your view, to impose these Draconian, involuntary reductions on not only all of the men and women who serve, but particularly minorities who have been able to take advantage of the military; it might be the last of the meritocracies. And I wonder if that offends a basic sense of fairness and equity in our society.

General RENO. Senator, first of all, we share your concerns and I personally share them. As a part of our reshaping strategy, to use Admiral Boorda's words, we are doing everything we can to ensure that we minimize the number of soldiers and officers that we involuntary separate. For example, we are complying to the letter of the law by assessing at a number no greater than that which we need for an army of 520,000 that is in authorization.

So we are cutting out on the front end. We will comply with the law and execute selective early retirement to the maximum, so that we release the maximum number that are vested with a retirement benefit. We will seek every opportunity for volunteers to leave. For example, we are now

Senator MCCAIN. General Reno, if I might interrupt you, you are not answering my question. I understand what your policies are going to be. I wonder if you would answer the question. Do you find that, from a moral standpoint, it is offensive that we would involuntarily separate men and women who have chosen to make the military a career.

The reason for these involuntary separations is because of the declining defense budget. Although we are, as we have done for many years, shaping a force structure around a budget rather than a budget around requirements to defend this Nation's vital national security interests.

I find it terribly unfair to these brave men and women to involuntarily separate them. It seems to me that the Congress of the United States and this committee, and the administration, should readjust our budget so that we do not involuntarily separate people.

It has taken me a long time to come to that conclusion. I think that there are certain programs that we could delay or reduce their funding given the diminishing threat from the Soviet Union. Perhaps this committee should equitably adjust the defense budget and it would not be a lot of money to prevent this incredibly unfair policy which we are inflicting not only on all men and women in the military, but many of our minorities who have had the unique opportunity to frankly better themselves, and more importantly, better this great Nation.

General RENO. Yes, sir, Senator I apologize for elaborating. The point I was going to make, we are doing everything we can to keep it from being Draconian. Having said that, yes, absolutely, it is unfortunate we have to do that. This is the first time we have had to step in and make these type reductions on a volunteer force of the quality we have.

The driver behind that is the reduction to a strength of 520,000 that is in the authorization bill. That is the driver against those numbers.

Senator MCCAIN. Which is driven by the budget, as we know.
General RENO. To some degree, yes, sir.

Senator MCCAIN. Does anyone else want to comment on that? Admiral Boorda?

Admiral BOORDA. Well, we are in the position of not having to do that across the entire 6-year defense plan, we will not have involuntary separations. That assumes a lot of things that I am assuming turn out to be true, retention rates and what-have-you.

We are going to have to continue to do selective early retirements, and that bothers me. Those are people who thought they had 30-year careers as captains, and 28-year careers as commanders, and they do not have that now.

Senator MCCAIN. No admirals, sir?

Admiral BOORDA. Yes, sir, we are sending a lot——

Senator MCCAIN. I was only joking.

Admiral BOORDA. I know you were.

Senator MCCAIN. General Hickey, do you have any, or General Smith?

General HICKEY. I share your concern, Senator. I have been in this business, in this position, since 1986. We have already reduced the Air Force about 100,000. We have tried every way we can think of to do those kinds of reductions without involuntary things. And now, after that first 100,000 is gone, we have another significant 5 years of cuts. And we have run out of flexibility. It is unfair; the world is unfair. And with the conditions we have, I do not see an alternative.

General SMITH. Certainly, sir, the Marine Corps is vitally aware of the tremendous contributions that minority marines have made to the all-green Marine Corps. As you are well aware, we like to look at all marines as green. We are trying to be fair. We are trying to take care of our people and still provide the combat readi

ness and flexible force that you and the American people expect of the Corps. Thank you, sir.

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Since we are on sensitive issues, I would like to bring up with you the issue of women and combat. Clearly, as we anticipated, in fact, Senator Glenn and I had several discussions on this issue in previous years, the issue of what is “in combat" and what is "not in combat" becomes more blurred as the range of missiles and aircraft increase to outside the immediate battlefield area.

We had several situations where women not only found themselves in combat to where we had the loss of women both as prisoners as well as due to enemy hostile fire. I think it is time we reevaluated the combat exclusion policy for women. Clearly, women have demonstrated again that they can perform any role that they are called upon that any male is called upon to do.

General Hickey, what is your justification for continuing to not allow women to fly front-line combat aircraft.

General HICKEY. Well, Senator, in my own personal view, the last impediment to doing that is the law, which precludes us from doing it. There are a lot of anomalies in the way that it is even stated and the way that we have implemented it. But that is really the only crux in my view.

I think in the last year or two it has been the leadership of the Air Force's view that as I said last year before another committee, that there is not, including fighter pilots and pulling 9 G's, a mission in the U.S. Air Force that women are not physically and mentally capable of performing. And I have not changed my mind since I said that the last time.

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, General. General Smith.

General SMITH. Senator, I think the Corps will continue to employ our fine corps of women Marines in excess of 9,000 exactly as they are allowed to be utilized, as prohibited by the combat exclusion law. They did a great job in tough situations in southwest Asia; I have seen them deploy all over the world and do a great job. But the law and our policies governing that were functioning within that, and I do not think it is broken; I do not think anything needs to be done with it.

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, General. Admiral Boorda.

Admiral BOORDA. Well, I think it is a tough question for you as well as us. Clearly, we in the Navy have pushed the limits of the law and have women doing, I think, all the things we can do within 6015. However, we are looking at that again as a result of our recent study that Admiral Bobby Hazard did.

The real question I think for you becomes one, as you change the law-and I do not mean you personally, I mean the entire Congress-if we are going to do something like that, it has to be truly equal. And you will recall, as we all do, the tremendous brouhaha over babies and mothers and fathers and what have you, and combat is not a voluntary occupation. And deploying is not voluntary.

And we would have to be willing to undertake the commitment to make it truly equal opportunity for both males and females to have both the opportunity to serve and also some of the sacrifices that go with it. I think that is a real hard question to answer, and

there is a lot of debate behind that, both inside our halls and yours as well.

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Could I, with your indulgence, perhaps have General Reno, answer this question since this line of questioning is continuing. Thank you, continue General Reno.

General RENO. Senator, very quickly. As the other ground force, I would align with the position that General Smith enunciated. We had five killed, 21 wounded, two captured, as you well know. But each of them suffered their fate, respectively, consistent with our current policy. The female soldiers, all 26,000 in Saudi Arabia, performed magnificently. And as my colleagues have said, trained to standard, they can equal the performance of their male counterparts in the position to which we have them assigned.

The thing that is unique to the ground force, in our judgment, is the rigor and the probability of capture when they are committed with the forward combatant forces. We feel that the policy is appropriate; our policy is a derivative of the law, and we would not see any compelling reason to change.

Senator MCCAIN. Well, General Reno, it is my understanding there was a female Army doctor who was shot down during a combat search and rescue mission in hostile territory.

General RENO. Sir, that is absolutely correct.

Senator MCCAIN. The fact remains that women in the military that I have spoken with feel that they are inhibited from progressing up the career ladder because they are prevented from being in the front line business of combat.

My question is, are we going to make everybody equal and give them an equal opportunity and an equal risk, as Admiral Boorda has just pointed out? Or are we going to continue the unrealistic policy without further examination, which says that women will not serve in combat. As you just stated, I do not know what the percentage is, but certainly women did serve and sacrifice in combat situations, no matter how you may want to describe their specific roles in Desert Storm.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is an issue that you and I should examine and pursue, in light of the Persian Gulf experience, it is appropriate to re-evaluate. And I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GLENN. Thank you. I would like to continue getting these end strengths for 1992-1993 pinned down here before we go onto other subjects in my questioning. I did not mean to bring criticism.

Admiral Boorda, your proposed active duty end strength is 551,000 for 1992, 536,000 in 1993. Can you hit those? And should we make other adjustments, or can you still hit your 1995 level of 501,000?

Admiral BOORDA. Yes, sir. By April, our 1995 level now I show as a little higher than that in our budget submission. But we will be on the glide slope for reductions by April of next year, and sooner if I can do that. And I can make all those reductions without any RIF's, involuntary separations, other than the SERB that I mentioned earlier.