answer was, of course not. They are not looking to get the ceasefire broken or to start anything for the forseeable future. But, nevertheless, there are Scuds and Scud launchers still within the Iraqi inventory. Senator STEVENS. With this Shiite uprising, fundamentalist control of that country would be total anathema to the region, I think. It worries me that they might still have Scuds, Scud launchers, and chemical warheads that we have all had nightmares about. We never did find any, did we? General POWELL. No, sir. Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. You have done a hell of a good job, I will tell you that, General, no question about that. Senator INOUYE. Before we adjourn, I would like to remind all of those on the Senate staff to leave their notes here, leave them with Mary Marshall, because this is a classified hearing. General Powell, I thank you very much for your insights and observations. As always, it has been very helpful. You have given us much to think about in many ways. I hope that we can assist you in leading a military force that can face up to these contingencies that we have just concluded, and I can assure you that we are going to do our best. ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS [CLERK'S NOTE.— Additional questions submitted by subcommittee members, together with the Department's responses, will appear in the appendix portion of the hearings.] SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator INOUYE. Tomorrow we will convene at 9 a.m., in room S 192, at which time we will hear from Secretary Stone and General Carl Vuono, the Army Chief of Staff. Thank you very much. General POWELL. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman. [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., Tuesday, March 5, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 6.] The subcommittee met at 9:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Inouye, Johnston, DeConcini, Bumpers, Lautenberg, Stevens, D'Amato, Rudman, Cochran, and Specter. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY STATEMENTS OF: HON. MICHAEL P.W. STONE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR INOUYE Senator INOUYE. This morning the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, will receive testimony from the Hon. Michael P.W. Stone, the Secretary of the Army, and General Carl E. Vuono, Chief of Staff, on the fiscal year 1992 budget. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Secretary, General Vuono, welcome. It is always a pleasure to have both of you appear before the committee. Mr. Secretary, since your first appearance before this committee last year, we have witnessed many grave and pivotal events which have tempered much of the excitement over the leveling of the Wall and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. War in the Persian Gulf, internal problems in the Soviet Union, the economic and fiscal challenges within our own country, all of these compel us to consider alternative approaches to providing both national and international security and to examine the role the U.S. Army will play in meeting those objectives. Last year Congress approved significant reductions to the Armed Forces as the first step towards significantly reducing total force structure by fiscal year 1995. Your current budget request anticipated a reduced force structure profile by the end of fiscal year 1995. I recognize this drawdown is needed to stay within the limits provided for defense spending in the summit agreement. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the force structure proposed by the Department will seriously impair the ability of our Nation to provide the military presence necessary to avert destabilizing forces from disrupting global relations. If the current budget projections remain in place, greater burdens will be placed on the readiness of the Active Force and on the rapid mobilization capability of our Guard and Reserve forces. The total force concept appears to have experienced some problems during the Operation Desert Storm. It will take several months to determine how the total force strategy has to be modified. Moreover, as the mix of Active and Reserve forces continues to change, we will have to be diligent in ensuring that this restructuring of our military forces does not adversely impact our national and global security responsibilities. So, therefore, Mr. Secretary, I will be very interested in your views concerning Army force structure in the future and how you will reorganize this force to fulfill our world-wide missions. I am also interested to know how Operation Desert Storm requirements will impact your ability to meet scheduled force structure reductions through 1995. The committee is also concerned with the allocation of investment funding for the Army over the 5-year defense plan. And in this context, investment funding is comprised of the R&D and procurement accounts. The budget before us significantly decreases the Army's investment funding to the lowest level in recent history. This reduction translates into a massive shift of investment resources from conventional to strategic forces, which appears to fly in the face of current international security realities. This committee must question the wisdom of these decisions and would like your views on how the Army will cope with this proportionately decreasing levels of investment resources. In other words, how will the Army modernize? The budget proposes the termination of 18 programs. Of note are the M-1A1 Abrams tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle, ground launch tactic Rainbow, and non-line-of-sight missile. These terminations continue the Army decision to reduce procurement and modernization programs while pursuing an ambitious research and development schedule, specifically the LHX and the armored system modernization programs. Mr. Secretary, General, we have reviewed your statements and they will be made part of the permanent record. Secretary Secretary, you may proceed as you wish. OPENING REMARKS OF SECRETARY STONE Secretary STONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be with you and the subcommittee this morning. As I offer a few opening remarks, what I want to say in my appearance today should be cast against a background of several noteworthy factors that I would like to mention to you before the hearing commences. EMERGING REALITIES OF THE WORLD First, General Powell has talked of the emerging and enduring realities of the world and Secretary Cheney, using other words, has described a similar scenario. I will not recapitulate their points except to reiterate that the Army, too, recognizes, first, the sweeping changes that have taken place in the world-one of the emerging factors that the Secretary and the Chairman mentioned. And, second, the further emerging reality that our defense budget and the resources available to us will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. However, those emerging realities have to be viewed from the perspective that the Army has, for the first 5 months of this fiscal year, been involved in reconciling the paradox that exists between those realities and another reality, which has been the predominant need for the Army to do its share of furthering United States policies in the Middle East, something which, I believe, we have done and rather successfully, too. That paradox has involved our adding force structure to the Army and not continuing to reduce it as the emerging realities will require us eventually to do. We have not been able to adhere to our schedule for beginning to make both unit and infrastructure reductions in Germany on the scale that we had wished. We have had to surge the procurement of goods and services. These factors comprise the paradox we encounter as we try to reconcile today's world with those emerging realities. BASIC MILITARY SUPPORTING CAPABILITIES Secretary Cheney and Chairman Powell, in talking of enduring realities, have spoken also of the basic military supporting capabilities needed by the Armed Forces to operate in the world in which those realities endure. The most important of those capabilities, in my opinion, is for the Armed Forces to retain the superb quality that has been built into them during the last decade. Quality, in all its aspects, is the hallmark of readiness and training and also our fundamental ability to defend the country's interests. As such, quality then must be retained as we adjust to these emerging realities. MODERNIZATION I now want to comment briefly on two specific issues: modernization and the Army's Reserve components. In discussing modernization, which you have already addressed in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will not introduce at this stage any specific program, because I believe that your colleagues will have some questions specifically for me. I will merely mention, at this juncture, some figures that to me are stark in their clarity of meaning and grave in their implications for the Army; again, reflecting your own statement of a moment ago. The Army's procurement account in the last few years has reflected the following funding levels: in fiscal year 1990, $14.3 billion; in fiscal year 1991, $9 billion; in fiscal year 1992, $8 billion; and in fiscal year 1993, $7.6 billion. That trend line is alarming. Even though the numbers need minor adjustment to ensure compa |