Page images
PDF
EPUB

Funding

Question:

In your testimony this morning and the prepared text provided us, you discuss and depict the funding that has gone into Major Furce Program 11. I notice your testimony ic primarily materiels oriented and has not addressed the total operations and maintenance issues under the purview of this subcommittee. Please explain Table I, since it appears to reflect the DOD budget and not necessarily MFP 11.

[blocks in formation]

Table I dues represent MFP 11 funding levels covering the three services and all appropriations. It was designed to show funding trends for MFP 11 and the relative size of funding allocated to SOF compared to the DOD budget.

Question: Since Fiscal Year 1986, what is the total amount of O&M funding that you are managing? What is the status of this funding?

Gen. Porter ": USSOCOM managed 11.4M in FY87, $22.3M in FY88 and 26.7M in FY89. These funds were provided to USSOCOM to operate the USSOCOM headquarters. The services are still managing the O&M funds allocated to our components.

Question: What difficulties, if any, are you experiencing in implementing the MFP 11 Program? What action are you taking to overcome these problema?

Gen. Porter:

The major difficulty that we are experiencing is determining how we will interface with the services in managing the MFP 11 and non-MFP 11 rescurces that support our special operations forces. We will always remain dependent upon the services for significant levels of support in the procurement, personnel, and accounting areas. The USSOCOM staff is developing a set of detailed Memoranda of Agreement between the services and USSOCOM. Management of the MFP 11 Program is a key item in these Memoranda as is the level of support that the services will continue to provide USSOCOM.

Question 14. (Mr. Russ) Please explain table 1, (Mr. Russ's prepared statement March 14, 1989), since it appears to reflect the DoD budget and not necessarily MFP-11

MFP-11

Answer 1A. Table 1 reflects the funding of MFP-11, SOF programs, over the period FY 1988-FY 1991. It reflects the annual' percentage of real change based on a baseline of FY 1988. as a percentage of the overall DoD budget is also identified. give perspective to the overall SOF cost; MFP-11 represents approximately one percent of the DoD budget.

Question 1B. (Mr. Russ) Since Fiscal year 1988, what is the total amount of O&M funding that you are managing? What is the status of this funding?

To

Answer 1B. SOF O&M funding for the Army, Navy, and Air Force totaled $397.2 and $536.3 million in FY 1988 and FY 1989 respectively. This provides daily ongoing operations, training, and management of Headquarters funds, which are administered by the Services to support their SOF operations. ASD (SO/LIC) and USSOCOM monitor the expenditure of these funds by periodic reviews with the Services. Based on our last budget execution review and discussion with the Services, O&M expenditures are obligating as planned.

Question 1C. (Mr. Russ) What difficulties, if any, are you experiencing in implementing the MFP-11 Program? What actions are you taking to overcome these problems?

Answer 1C. SOF has experienced significant growth in a number of complex programs. We have been actively involved in assuring that these programs were adequately funded and executed properly with realignments made as needed. We have been working closely with USSOCOM to assure that budgets for these programs are executed in a sound and timely manner. Those areas of concern that require special attention have been identified and reviewed with the perspective Services. One area in which we are concerned is in regard to the FY 1989 Congressional add of $286.0M for SOF. The one year obligation period extended to the procurement items in the add was not expected. This strains our efforts to execute the program by the end of the fiscal year. Relief from this restriction is requested. One item which could use your support is the MH-47E reprogramming which is required to comply with FY1988 Joint Appropriation language. The reprogramming action, submitted in May 1988 is still awaiting approval of both the SASC and HASC. We are available to answer any questions regarding this action.

Question 2. In your prepared statement, you show a 35 percent increase in operations funding from fiscal year 1988 to fiscal year 1989 due to the increase cost to operate in the Persian Gulf. Now that things are apparently slowing down in the Gulf, do we still need to increase the budget for SOF activities there?

Mr. Russ. No, we do not need to increase the SOF budget for activities in the Persian Gulf. As a matter of policy, O&M funds for gulf operations have not been included in the FY 1990 or FY 1991 budget.

The 35% increase from FY 1988 to FY 1989 was for readiness activities combined with moderate growth in force structure. This large increase in SOF O&M costs had two major contributing factors. Our operations in the Gulf required additional funding for day-to-day operations and increased maintenance and overhaul of Naval Special Warfare Platforms. At the same time, we required additional funding to support approved growth in SEAL Force Structure in 1989. That force structure growth continues in FY 1990 and FY 1991. Our planned budget fully funds this increase in force structure and its attendant operating cost. The other major cause of O&M growth occurs in the Air Force to provide the needed readiness funding to support operational aspects of Air Force SOF aircraft. Like the Navy, there were force structure increases in FY 1989 requiring increased O&M funding. This growth continues into FY 1990 and FY 1991. As in the Navy, our budget funds fully these increases in force structure and platforms.

Funding for Additional Missions

QUESTION: If additional missions were placed on Special Operations Forces, such as helping in the drug war, what would be your ability to perform these new missions with current O&M funding?

Gen. Porter: To date, our support to the DOD anti-drug mission, as defined by legislation, has been relatively limited. We can increase our contribution in limited fashion by repriortizing into the anti-drug role from exercise participation and some areas of training. However, given the "current" nature of the task and capabilities of SOF, USSOCOM's counter narcotic role

to date, is primarily to support US SOUTHCOM. Our principal tasking would include training and advising host nation military forces and, when authorized, police forces in drug source countries. If the SOF role were expanded in this area, Mobile Training Teams (MTT) and Deployments for Training (DFT) would continue to be requested and approved in accordance with existing laws, directives, and procedures and should not be considered as candidates for supplemental DOD anti-drug monies. Specifically, MTTs are funded through DOS International Narcotics Matters channels and DFTs would require .repriortization as described above.

Question 4. In regard to the appropriated funds currently

residing in the Defense Department, how are these funds allocated to the Individual Services? Who has the management

responsibility for the acquisition of Special Operations unique

items.

Mr. Russ
SOF funds appropriated to the individual Services are
released from DoD Comptroller to the Army, Navy, and Air Force
under MFP-11. As intended by the legislation establishing MFP-
11, overall visibility of Special Operations Forces programs is
maintained and procedures are in place to oversee and monitor the
expenditure of SOF funds within the Services.

Currently, responsibility for acquisition of Special Operations unique items rests with the Services and Defense Agencies. USSOCOM and ASD (SO/LIC) review and monitor the acquisition process to assure proper support of Special Operations Forces.

Executive Agreements

Question: Has the CINCSOC entered into any executive
agreements with the military departments for the execution of
the various budget elcments? If so, please explain.

Gen Porter: Not as of this date. However, the command is
currently in the process of establishing with cach Service the
mechanisms for MFP-11 Program and budget development. When
the details are mutually satisfactory, Memoranda of Agreement
will be executed to codify the programming and budget process.

Personnel

Question: Would you summarize for us the number of military and civilian employees presently in place at the Special Operations Command? Do you have the funding in the current budget for the legislatively mandated 450 persons? Do you need more than 4507 Gen. Porter : Headquarters USSOCOM has 470 (373 military and 97 civilian) authorizations and exceeds the mandatory manning level of 450. The command currently (March 1989) has 352 military and 90 civilian positions filled. The balance are in various stages of nomination and recruitment. All authorized positions are fully funded in the current budget. A requirement exists for approximately 130 additional authorizations. the increase required for Head of Acquisition Agency and Program Budget responsibilities. The detailed requirements for 41 of those additional authorizations have already been made to JCS. The balance is being defined at this time.

This would accommodate

« PreviousContinue »