UNIFIED COMMANDS (CINC) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 2, 1989. The subcommittee met pursuant to call at 9:30 a.m. in room 2216, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Earl Hutto (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. EARL HUTTO, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. HUTTO. The Subcommittee on Readiness will please come to order. Today we will continue our review of the 1990/1991 budget request but from a different perspective, that of the commanders in chief who must translate the budget numbers into warfighting capability. This is the first year we have invited representatives of the CINCS to testify before our subcommittee and, given the proposals that have been surfacing concerning the future defense budgets, we will be turning to them for guidance more and more. In the last few months we have seen several articles that advocate cutting near-term readiness in favor of long-term procurement. Well, our first two witnesses this morning represent the two largest organizations that would be affected by this strategy. We look forward to their views on the current Soviet threat, the nearterm prospects for decreased tensions and their reactions to these proposals to reduce readiness levels. We are also interested in their views on the current readiness levels of their forces and how the proposed Reagan/Bush 1990 budgets would impact on their operations. Finally, we recently held a hearing on the Vander Schaaf Report on Unified and Specified Commands that recommended a number of consolidations and realignments. We are interested in receiving the views of the CINCS on this report. This afternoon we will receive testimony from representatives of the commanders in chief for special operations and for transportation. We hope to cover the same issues with these CINC representatives as well as some ancillary areas. CINCSOC is a new and altogether unique unified command. This subcommittee has been involved with the Special Ops Command since its birth, and we will continue to monitor its progress. If there are growing pains and problems we want to hear about them. (505) CINCTRANS is also a relatively new command and we want to explore its current status of readiness. We also want to explore in detail the Vander Schaaf recommendations concerning the consolidation potential of CINCTRANS and its component commands. In the absence of our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Kasich, we will admit his statement for the record. PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. KASICH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE I would like to thank Chairman Hutto for calling this hearing and welcome our panel of witnesses from the unified commands. These gentlemen are going to have to give this subcommittee the very best guidance possible as we put together the fiscal year 1990 Readiness budget. Mr. Chairman, there has been an unusual trend in the recent debate over defense priorities. A school of thought holds that both fiscal constraints and the world political situation dictate that the Readiness budget can be cut without harming our national security. If there is anyone capable of refuting that argument, it is these witnesses who are responsible for the day-to-day combat capability of our armed forces. I share the chairman's interest in their views on our readiness against the current threat. I am also interested in the witnesses providing us with their candid comments on the adequacy of the proposed Operations and Maintenance budget. Finally, a hearing held by the subcommittee 2 days ago raised a number of issues concerning the staffing of our unified and specified commands. According to the Vander Schaaf Report, there are a number of economies that can be made in staffing the command headquarters. We need a candid assessment of these proposals as we consider the O&M budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HUTTO. Since we have a number of topics to cover today, and some of them are classified, here is how I would like to proceed. We will hear from both witnesses, then have a round of questions which should take us to roughly 11 o'clock. We will then close to discuss the classified items on the agenda. We are very pleased to have with us as our witnesses this morning Maj. Gen. Royal N. Moore, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, J-3, Pacific Command and Lt. Gen. Edwin S. Leland, Chief of Staff Army, European Command. We are delighted to have you both with us. You may proceed as you see fit. General Moore, would you like to present your statement? STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROYAL N. MOORE, JR., U.S. MARINE CORPS, J-3, PACIFIC COMMAND General MOORE. On behalf of Admiral Hardisty, I would like to express my appreciation to this committee for the opportunity to discuss the preparedness of forces in the Pacific Command. Our military presence helps to maintain regional stability, open lines of communication, and promote free commerce. Moreover, our forward deployed, ready and sustainable forces are a deterrent against aggression. The century of the Pacific is now upon us. As a maritime nation, we seek alliances, friendships, and trade with Pacific nations. Over the years, we have succeeded through bilateral treaties, trade agreements, and security assistance programs. In each of these our military forces have made a noticeable contribution. We contribute to the security of nations through combined exercises and training. Our fleets help maintain the sea lines of communication. The humanitarian contributions of our soldiers, sail ors, airmen, and marines during and after natural disasters have not gone unnoticed by the peoples of our region. I must report, however, that the threat to this peaceful region continues. Our forces have remained constant over recent years. However, the Soviet Union presents a strong and growing military force. While we are encouraged by Mr. Gorbachev's announcement to cut conventional forces, we in the largest U.S. warfighting command must look at military realities. Soviet ground, air, and sea forces have modernized and grown. They have expanded their sphere of military influence to Vietnam, where Cam Ranh Bay remains the largest Soviet overseas deployment base. They have upgraded North Korean capabilities with modern Soviet technology and military hardware. The recent fielding of mobile ICBM's and arming of bombers with cruise missiles is additional cause for concern. While we believe it is too soon to determine Soviet intent, we are convinced the preparedness of our forces is a key factor in the Soviet move toward reducing worldwide tensions. The Soviets respect the strength of our forces. Maintaining our strength also encourages our friends and allies in the region. U.S. Forces are a stabilizing influence affecting the regional and sub-regional rivalries. Our continued strong military posture preserves U.S. influence and access. It underwrites the relationships vital to expanding U.S. exports. Are our forces prepared to fight and win? Emphatically, yes. Our readiness is high, and leadership in the field is excellent. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have demonstrated their ability for joint and combined warfare during exercises such as Team Spirit in Korea, Orient Shield in Japan, and Cobra Gold in Thailand. Our ability to sustain forces is slowly improving. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this committee's help in maintaining this state of preparedness. Let me highlight a few items which we require to maintain our strength in the Pacific: People Programs: Today's servicemen and women are of the highest quality I have seen in my 30 years of service. They are intelligent and motivated. We have a sizeable investment in their increasingly complex training. To maintain this quality we need to ensure they continue to be challenged by modern equipment. They must also receive pay and facilities considerations which reflect not only their significant contributions, but are competitive with civilian markets which vye for their talents. Also required are continued modernization efforts in our major problem areas: antisubmarine warfare, surveillance and intelligence, air warfare with preferred munitions and strategic lift. We must stay these efforts on to keep ahead of the increasing Soviet threat and capabilities. In the area of sustainability, increased stockage levels will decrease the risk of defeat in a protracted conflict. Our preparedness, expressed as readiness is a derivative of the quality of our people and the extent to which they are provisioned, equipped, and trained. Maintaining a proper balance requires careful coordination of limited budget dollars. In order to maintain readiness, we're falling behind in such areas as real property maintenance and depot level maintenance of major end items. We're also stretching out procurement of ordinance limiting funds for exercises as well as training fuel. The positive side of what we've been doing, however, is cause for great optimism. Modern equipment, such as the F-16 C and D, the F/A-18, AEGIS ships, and LCAC, are technological leaps in capability and are much easier to maintain. In the area of sustainability, the past 5 years have seen gains in modern munitions, war reserve spares, fuel storage, and strategic airlift and sealift. Through this decade, our investment in replacement spares has greatly improved the supply on hand. Army units report that half of their requirement is prepositioned, while Pacific fleet, Air Force, and fleet Marine Forces are almost fully stocked. The need for constant vigilance in maintaining security in the Pacific Command requires a force that is both ready and sustainable. With the support of the Congress, we have diligently moved forward, even in the face of fiscal constraints. Our readiness remains high, while sustainability is getting better. Protecting these achievements is essential to maintaining peace. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recognize that congressional support of our Pacific Command Forces is largely responsible for their excellent readiness posture. Our people are motivated, trained, and equipped to provide a credible deterrent and a formidable warfighting force. We owe them our full support, especially in the quality of life area. In the Pacific, the threat remains, but our Pacific allies and friends have great confidence that we will maintain the regional stability that has underwritten economic growth and democratic development. With your continued support, ready, sustainable U.S. military forces will continue to maintain peace in the region. Thank you. PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROYAL N. MOORE, JR., USMC MR. CHAIRMAN: I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE PACIFIC COMMAND. WE ALL SHARE AN ABIDING INTEREST IN PRESERVING AMERICA'S VITAL SECURITY STAKE IN THE PACIFIC. OUR MILITARY FORCES IN THE PACIFIC HELP MAINTAIN THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF THE REGION THROUGH THE MAINTENANCE OF A CREDIBLE DETERRENCE POSTURE. THIS DETERRENCE POSTURE IS BASED ON A SOUND STRATEGY OF FORWARD DEPLOYMENT AND HIGH FORCE READINESS. IN THESE UNCERTAIN TIMES WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT OUR MILITARY FORCES IN THE PACIFIC REMAIN READY, SUSTAINABLE AND APPROPRIATELY SIZED TO FULFILL OUR WIDE-RANGING SECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES. INTRODUCTION I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS MY REMARKS ON THE INCREASING IMPORTANCE OF THE PACIFIC, THE THREAT TO PEACE AND STABILITY IN THE AREA, THE U.S. SECURITY POSTURE IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD, |