that I don't think that the proposals that are sent up to us, any of them, are the way they are ultimately going to be.

Let me phrase the question this way. We have reviewed the original distribution of total obligation authority within the Department of the Navy. The Marine Corps was allocated a 1 percent decrease from 1989, about $91 million, while the Navy received a plus of 4.3 percent, or about $3.8 billion. The O&M numbers are even more stark. For the Marine Corps, as I recall, they are down $111 million. Depending on which figures you use, you are talking about either 6 percent or 8.9 percent, but an increase for Navy O&M.

The revised budget makes reductions to both accounts but hasn't addressed that basic inequity, from my perception, in the initial budget split; and the Navy appears to be funding its programs at the expense of the Marine Corps-not the first time, I would say, in the history of the naval tradition.

I would like to have you explain how the initial split of total obligation authority was determined and why there is such a disparity between Navy and Marine Corps accounts, and, while you are touching on that, I understand-I'm sorry I was a little bit late; I guess it was Mr. Ray from Georgia who brought up the concern that I have, charging under our O&M accounts at a time when we are having to drastically cut back and reconsider 600-ship navies and how many more ships we are going to have to build. Now we appear to be providing ourselves with an in-house capability with an increase in end strength and O&M accounts for design for ships in-house, again, to aggravate the situation of the O&M funds.

I would be pleased to hear your response about how much thought went into this between the Navy and the Marine Corps. Again, I am addressing it to the admiral, and I also just want to point out that, in my considered opinion, if I had a dollar to bet, I would bet that isn't the way it is going to end up when the final analysis comes. But I would be happy to hear your justification.

Admiral WALSH. Well, sir, a couple of things. First of all, when we look at either Navy readiness or Marine Corps readiness, we look at the functions and not the appropriation split. If you look at it that way, I don't think you see the imbalances as when you just look at a straight appropriation.

The reason I say that is, out of the Operation and Maintenance Navy appropriation we pay for all of Marine Corps aviation medical and all of the Marine Corps's Maritime Preposition Ships.

Mr. MARTIN. I understand that you are talking about all their flying hours you are paying for that aren't charged against their O&M.

Admiral WALSH. All the depot maintenance and the spare parts, essentially everything except the BOS for Marine Corps Air Stations is paid for out of the Operation and Maintenance Navy account.

For all practical purposes, all Marine Corps aviation is supported from Navy appropriations. All Marine Corps medical is paid for by the Navy and a good piece of their training is paid for out of the Navy account. The Maritime Preposition Ships are paid out of the Navy account.

A very large piece of the Marine Corps readiness, their ability to go to war, is not paid for out of the O&M, MC account, it is paid for out of Operation and Maintenance, Navy.

Likewise, when you look at the procurement accounts, a large part of the procurement in the Navy appropriations are for Marine Corps programs. Again, Marine Corps aviation is paid for out of the Aircraft Procurement, Navy appropriation. There are parts of the R&D account, which is an R&D, Navy, appropriation, which are Marine Corps programs.

The way the Department allocates resources occurs during the POM process. We review the current distribution of funds in constant dollars, and we look at the resources available. Both the Marine Corps and the Navy take their piece of that and determine their priorities within the resources available.

Mr. MARTIN. Would you be kind enough to provide some type of breakdown analysis of those kinds of figures for the committee so that we can look at those figures from your point of view? Admiral WALSH. Yes, sir.

[The following information was received for the record:]

The allocation of DON resources between Navy and Marine Corps programs based on the fiscal year 1990-1991 President's Budget request is shown below. The allocation based on the fiscal year 1990-1991 Amended President's Budget is not yet available.

Mr. MARTIN. I would like to ask you this question. This is not the first year it has been done that way. As a matter of fact, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, way back, these same kinds of things you are talking about, paying for Marine Corps aviation and those kinds of things, you say came out of the Navy account. Nothing new this year, right?

Admiral WALSH. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARTIN. If I said to you a 1.1-percent increase, for the sake of argument, in O&M for the Navy for this fiscal year and an 8.9 percent cut for the Marine Corps in O&M accounts, isn't that kind of a stark contrast if we are doing it the same way this year as we have done it in past years?

Admiral WALSH. Yes, sir, except that, for example, with the fiscal year 1990/91 program, when the Marine Corps structured their program, they looked at all their priorities. They chose to fund some procurement, military personnel and O&M items. They changed the distribution funds in accordance with their priorities. Funds were moved out of operation and maintenance and into procurement for Marine Corps programs, thus, it appears a shift from the Marine Corps to the Navy when, in fact, the funds stay in Marine Corps programs.

If you examine funding levels on an appropriation basis, there is a shift. If you look at green, i.e., Marine Corps programs, the Marine Corps chose how they wanted to allocate funds within their appropriations.

When we do a budget review, we look at the program that is approved by the Secretary of Defense, and then we do a budget review for executability. We do not try and reverse the decisions either of the Commandant of the Marine Corps or of the Secretary

of the Navy or the Secretary of Defense. We review approved programs and we do a budget review.

Mr. MARTIN. On top of that cut in the training account, whatever it is ultimately going to be, if there is going to be a cut in the O&M account for the Marine Corps, isn't it also true that they take a proportionate share of the cuts in the O&M funds for the CINCs' accounts-training, major exercises? Isn't that true? You cut the training for CINC, major operations and that type of thing; the Marine Corps is going to receive a cut on top of their 8.9 percent for in-house O&M training as part of the major command structure, any of these major unified command exercises.

Admiral WALSH. I am not aware of any reductions to Marine Corps programs as a result of any of those things, sir. To a very large extent, an awful lot of Marine Corps training is joint training done via Navy ships and amphibious warfare. That's the Navy/ Marine Corps team. We have not made any adjustments to the amphibious forces, and we have not made any adjustments to Naval aviation which affect the Marine Corps. I am not aware of any training reductions to the Marine Corps.

Mr. HUTTO. I am sorry, Mr. Martin. We will have another round if you want to pursue that.

General, did you have a comment on that?

General CARSON. I was just going to say that I'm not aware of any cuts, per se. In order to execute and live with our O&M budget, we are making adjustments ourselves in training. We are going to more individual, small unit training, less participation in large exercises, and training closer to home.

Mr. HUTTO. Thank you.

Mr. Dyson.

Mr. DYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start out by saying I want to endorse your remarks and Mr. Ortiz' about that proposed cut in contracting out studies. I think we have all gone through that at various military installations around this country and in my own congressional district, and I really think that some day we are going to come to regret some of those contracting out arrangements that were made.

I have three questions today that concern the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), so I will address them to you, General Finan.

During the last few years, the authorization for the Civil Air Patrol has caused some problems. For example, the fiscal year 1990 O&M budget request contains $5.8 million for the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). The revised budget includes an increase of $5.3 million for CAP Air Force Audit, and the Military Personnel Center. A substantial part of these amounts support Air Force CAP such as civilian pay and TDY for Air Force personnel.

Would you provide the subcommittee with a detailed accounting of the fiscal year 1990 O&M funds requested-in essence, the funds which support Air Force needs and the funds that actually go to the Civil Air Patrol? What I am going to do is ask all three questions. If you can answer them now, fine. I think probably what you are going to have to do is provide that additional material for the record, and I would appreciate that.

My second question is: Would the Air Force have any objections to revising its future budget request to show separately the funding

that goes directly to the Civil Air Patrol and is used directly on that program?

My third question is: I understand that some Air Force officials object to using appropriated funds for full maintenance of Civil Air Patrol aircraft. In view of this, would you provide the subcommittee with the Air Force's position and the reasons for that position. Also, would you please provide the position of the Civil Air Patrol on this matter.

Now if you can in a minute or two address some of those, I would appreciate it, and then, as I said, if there is no objection of the chairman, I would appreciate if they could further elaborate in the record.

General FINAN. Sir, I will be glad to provide some details on the Civil Air Patrol funding for the record. I would like to comment, though, having talked to the commander of the Civil Air Patrol myself, they appear to be adequately funded. He has told me personally he feels the support they are getting is good, and they feel their program is fully funded, and he is happy with the support he is getting.

I know of no objection to outlining separately the Civil Air Patrol funding. I feel we could probably do that if this committee would desire us to do so, and we will provide the exact funding details of how much money we have in the budget for the Civil Air Patrol for the record.

Mr. DYSON. We do desire you to do so.

General FINAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DYSON. So if your budget people would go back-I don't know whether they are in the room or not, but if they would go back and do that, or you could at least relay that message to them. Again, those three questions I identified. I am not probably quite as optimistic about all of this as you are, because we have had to go through this over the years, making sure that the allocations for the Civil Air Patrol were, in fact, allocated to them and where, in fact, they were getting the benefit of that. We have sometimes had to drag you all into this kicking and screaming. I'm glad to see you are not kicking and screaming now, but your optimism is very much appreciated.

[The following information was received for the record:]

CIVIL AIR PATROL

Mr. DYSON. Would you provide the subcommittee with a detailed accounting of the fiscal year 1990 O&M funds requested-in essence, the funds which support Air Force needs and the funds that actually go to the Civil Air Patrol?

ANSWER. The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) program is an Air Force Program funding a private, non-profit corporation and Air Force support personnel who operate in a dual/parallel command structure. Air Force funding provides for administration of the program, while CAP funding supports corporate operations. All O&M funding, Air Force and CAP, directly supports Civil Air Patrol mission. Fiscal year 1990 O&M funding is broken out as follows: