QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR D'AMATO QUESTION: A-6F/G PROCUREMENT ISSUES I understand the Navy is planning to use the 1988 funding for A-6Fs provided in the continuing resolution for the production of 6 to 12 A-6ES FY '88 and '89. The balance of the money will go toward research and development into an A-6G, which is an A-6 that incorporates some of the A-6F technology. The Navy plans to buy 164 A-6Gs, all remanufactured. The result of this is that the A-6 production line will shut down after the fiscal year 1989 buy. Don't you think it would be wiser to fund the production of some new A-6Gs, perhaps 6 or so a year, to keep the production line warm, in case we need to ramp up in an emergency? ANSWER: In view of fiscal contraints on all Navy APN funding, we plan to procure some A-6E SWIP aircraft to be delivered over a two year period in order to keep the production line operating at the minimum sustaining level in case we need to mobilize and to fill inventory shortfall. QUESTION: Does the Navy have enough A-6 aircraft for our carrier fleet? If the Navy remanufactures all 164 A-6s, won't that exacerbate a shortfall in the A-6 inventory? ANSWER: The Navy has adequate numbers of A-6 aircraft to fully man our deployed carrier forces. The remanufacture program will be performed in conjunction with the regularly scheduled depot level maintenance cycle, therefore, little, if any, impact is anticipated on the A-6 inventory. IMPACT ON DRUG INTERDICTION OPERATIONS OF RETIRING 16 FRIGATES Question. The Navy has decided to decommission 16 frigates from the Atlantic and Pacific fleets over the next 2 years for a savings of $166 million. I understand that the mission of 8 of these ships which operate in the Caribbean is drug interdiction. Is this true? Answer. The U.S. Coast Guard has statutory responsibility Question. Under Secretary Taft recently testified before Answer. The Navy will continue to work closely with the to ensure that individual ship schedules are optimized to support drug interdiction operations. Careful scheduling can compensate in some measure for the loss in flexibility caused by reduced strength and budget shortfalls. Innovative operational measures, such as the use of hydrofoil patrol craft (PHMS) forward deployed to bases in the Caribbean with Coast Guard TACLETS embarked, and more effective use of ships of opportunity also contribute to increased mission support. The Navy's ship sighting and reporting program through which all maritime and air units operating in drug-threat areas report locations of suspect vessels provides vital intelligence for more effective use of drug interdiction resources. U.S. Navy biliteral and unilateral operations with Caribbean navies promote international cooperation between western hemisphere governments. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator JOHNSTON. The subcommittee will now recess subject to the call of the Chair.] [Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., Tuesday, March 22, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1988 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim Sasser presiding. Present: Senators Sasser, DeConcini, Stevens, D'Amato, and Cochran. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN O. MARSH, JR., SECRETARY OF THE ARMY OVERVIEW OF ARMY BUDGET REQUEST OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SASSER Senator SASSER. The subcommittee will come to order. Today the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee will hear from the Secretary of the Army, the Honorable John O. Marsh, Jr., and the Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Carl E. Vuono, on the Army's fiscal year 1989 budget request. The members of the subcommittee welcome you, Mr. Secretary, and you, General, and we are looking forward to your presentation today. I would like to say on behalf of the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, who is necessarily absent today, that the committee is very aware of the extraordinary effort that you and your staffs have put forth in order to completely revise your fiscal year 1989 budget request in just 8 short weeks. I know I speak for the chairman and the other members of the subcommittee when I say that we are aware you missed many holidays, you worked many late nights putting the effort into this very important endeavor, and I wish to express our appreciation to you, Mr. Secretary, and to you, General, and to your staffs for these splendid efforts. BUDGET LEVELS As a result of the budget summit agreement between the congressional leadership and the President, the fiscal year 1989 national defense levels have been set at $299.5 billion, necessitating a 10-percent reduction from the levels that were originally proposed by the administration. Because of the commendable desire to protect conventional forces and the fact that the Army's modernization efforts have lagged behind those of the other services, Secretary Carlucci I think has quite rightfully-and I applaud his effort on this part-allocated the smallest percentage of this reduction to the Army. That is good news for the Army and, quite frankly, speaking for this Senator, I think it is good news for our national defense. AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 1989 BUDGET But the bad news is the amended fiscal year 1989 Army budget request represents a negative real growth of 1.6 percent, compared to the fiscal year 1988 Army budget approved by Congress last December. In order to accommodate this reduced purchasing power, the Army has chosen to: (1) reduce active duty end strength by about 8,600 soldiers, necessitating a reduction in active force structure; (2) reduce civilian and selected reserve end strengths by 36,569 positions; (3) fund depot maintenance for major end items at only 68 percent of requirements; (4) slow the planned increases in wartime sustainability; (5) slow funding for the backlog of maintenance and repair on our fixed facilities and military housing; and (6) terminate some programs, including the Aquila remotely-piloted vehicle, the 120-mm mortar, the M-198 Howitzer, the antitactical missile and the Copperhead artillery round programs, defer the LHX helicopter, defer the advanced antiarmor weapon, heavy, also defer our armored family of vehicles, Army data distribution system, and the forward area air defense command, control, and intelligence program. There have been reports of concerns expressed by the service secretaries about some of the choices that have been made in this budget scrub. We look forward today, Mr. Secretary, to your views on why you selected these choices and also that of the Chief of Staff, and look forward to your views on how you will operate within this reduced fiscal requirement. Before I ask for your statements, gentlemen, I would like to call upon the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Stevens of Alaska, for any opening remarks he might wish to make at this time. Senator Stevens. CHANGES IN ARMY STRUCTURE Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask to put my opening statement in the record. As I indicated in the statement, I do not fully agree with what has been done, but I have got to admire both of you for the decisions you have made in following through on a very difficult process. I have reviewed your testimony. I am just reviewing this book. I think it highlights the changes in the Army as a result of the leadership that you have shown, Secretary Marsh and General Vuono-you and |