ARMY SHARE OF BUDGET Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Secretary, the total budget considered by this subcommittee is $299 billion. Of that, the Army portion is $76.9 billion, or 25.7 percent. Is this a fair share of the total defense budget given your worldwide responsibilities? Secretary MARSH. Mr. Chairman, in response to that question, I would have to refer to a remark or guidance of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Weinberger has stated that the budget is not apportioned on the basis of either fairness or equity; it is apportioned on the basis of defense missions. I would say to you that the Army could use additional funds. Indeed the budget that has been submitted to you does represent a decrement of what we wanted by, I think, $11 billion. So we feel that additional funds would be helpful in carrying out the missions that we have been assigned, sir. BASE CLOSURES Mr. ADDABBO. We have seen the letter Mr. Weinberger forwarded to Senator Goldwater concerning possible base closures. We understand that this is not a formal base closure request, but I would appreciate your explaining to the committee how the Army happened to choose the Army Material Laboratory in Watertown, Massachusetts, which, like the other base closures, happens to be in or near a district represented by a senior Democratic member? Secretary MARSH. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that was not a criteria. Mr. DICKS. We are delighted to hear that, Mr. Secretary. Secretary MARSH. It was not. It was based on a very careful analysis and evaluation of the function and whether or not savings could be achieved through consolidation. The view was that its function could be more economically handled in another manner, and that its continuance was not that essential to the Army requirement. General WICKHAM. I would add to that, Mr. Chairman, that this is the result of an Army lab structure study we have had under way for a couple of years. It is not arbitrary; it is a result of a long-term study. Mr. ADDABBO. Does the fiscal year 1987 budget contain funds to implement any base closures or realignments and, if so, how much and in what appropriations? Secretary MARSH. I would defer to General McCall. I do not think it does. General MCCALL. There are no specific funds requested for base closures. Mr. ADDABBO. The subject of base closures is much easier to sell to the Congress when the bases being considered are overseas. Have you given any serious consideration to closing down any overseas bases? Secretary MARSH. I would say to you that from time to time our overseas base structure is reviewed. There are adjustments that are made in it and that are considered from time to time. I think our current structure is adequate. General Wickham may want to add to that. General WICKHAM. There are no major base closures planned overseas. That is tied in with our national security interests, but there continue to be realignments of small bases that we have, for example, in Korea or in Germany. There may be some realignments that go on from time to time. I don't know that we have any in the budget here. Mr. ADDABBO. The Military Construction Subcommittee in their report directed that a study be made of the European military bases. Is that study going on? General WICKHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. ADDABBO. Have there been final conclusions made? General WICKHAM. No, but that is why I emphasize the realignment issue. We are trying to move towards consolidation in facilities to avoid building new facilities through military construction. G.I. BILL Mr. ADDABBO. Since July 1985, the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration have been jointly funding and administering a three-year trial program of enhanced educational benefits-the New GI Bill-to aid in recruiting military personnel. The fiscal year 1987 President's budget proposes to end this test program on October 1, 1986, rather than July 1, 1988, as in current law. It is not certain what will replace the New GI Bill. We have heard many good things about the tremendous recruiting and educational potential of the New GI Bill and wonder why the administration chose to eliminate this program. Secretary MARSH. Mr. Chairman, the view of the Army is that, for our recruiting program, you are going to have to have some type of education incentive. We find that it has been enormously effective in bringing young people into the Army. The recent use of the GI Bill has had a very significant impact in recruiting for the Reserve Component, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. We think it has been very helpful in the active force, but we believe that it is really measurable in the Reserve Component. I believe that one of the concerns that led to the present decision relates to jurisdictional questions between the VA-Veteran's Administration-and the DoD-Department of Defense. I think there is a consensus that the GI Bill has been effective, but the underlying reason for it not being included relates to jurisdictional questions on funding between the two agencies. [Slide follows:] General WICKHAM. This slide shows the results from July through December. With about 57,000 active soldiers eligible, we signed up about 68 percent, the highest of all the services. On the Army National Guard and Reserve side, you see that about 7,000 of about 14,000 eligible have applied for benefits. So it has been of very great value to us in recruiting quality in the Reserve Component and on the active side. Mr. ADDABBO. How did the new GI Bill affect your ability to meet your recruiting goals? Secretary MARSH. Mr. Chairman, I go back to my original statement. We have found, based on experience, that some form of education benefits are necessary to bring into the force individuals that meet the criteria or are above the criteria that are prescribed by law on high school diploma graduates and armed forces test basis. We strongly support a program of education benefits and have had a very satisfactory experience with the GI Bill. Mr. ADDABBO. Won't the cancellation of the GI Bill actually worsen your chances to recruit quality people? Secretary MARSH. I would have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, it would be impossible to predict just what would occur because I believe the decisions were also predicated on the retention of the Veterans Education Assistance program. You are going to have to have some type of education assistance, in my view, for an effective recruiting program. Mr. ADDABBO. Is there any other GI Bill intended to be used to replace the present New GI Bill? Secretary MARSH. I believe the plan at Defense is to continue the Veterans Educational Assistance Program to which the Army also adds certain special benefits to encourage enlistment for certain skills and terms of service. It is also my understanding that the GI Bill that was introduced and passed by the Congress was based on a three-year test, Mr. Chairman. I think you will find that the Defense decision is based on a program of continued assistance under the former Veterans Educational Assistance Program, which I believe would have to be enacted by the Congress. I may be wrong about whether that is still in being or not. Mr. ADDABBO. If you cancel out the new GI Bill, can you continue some of the benefits by administrative direction or must there be other legislation? Secretary MARSH. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you would have to have legislation to reestablish the Veterans Education Assistance Program. ANTI-ARMOR MASTER PLAN Mr. ADDABBO. Last year we discussed with you the development of an anti-armor master plan. The Committee's position has been that the development and annual update of that plan should be viewed as a continuous process. What is your assessment of the progress which has been made in developing an anti-armor master plan? Secretary MARSH. Mr. Chairman, I am going to defer to General Wickham on that question. I believe a report is due this summer. General WICKHAM. That is right. We are updating the old antiarmor master plan that was done in 1985. Basically it will have three components: the AT-4, which is a Swedish light anti-tank system that we are now procuring. There are funds in the 1987 budget to procure about 136,000 rounds of this very modestly priced munition. It costs less than a thousand dollars a round and is very capable. The second element deals with a medium anti-tank system to replace the Dragon. We are planning to proceed with a non-developmental approach with industry to see what is available that could be acquired to replace the Dragon. In the meantime, we are product improving the Dragon. We are also looking at a longer range capability to replace the TOW-tube launched, optically tracked, wire command-link guided, or what we call the Army anti-armor system heavy. That is a longer range program requiring research and development. Mr. ADDABBO. Are you satisfied that the antiarmor master plan is providing a mechanism to actually avoid duplication and to increase cost effectiveness of anti-armor weapons? General WICKHAM. Yes, sir, I believe the way I have outlined our plan that we must submit to the Congress shows we must replace the Dragon, and the TOW. The threat grows and the technology grows. That is what is behind all of this. Obviously, we would look to competition. If we do look to overseas procurement, we would try to get as much onshore procurement as possible. The way we are procuring the AT4, serves as an example. Production and procurement must come on shore after the initial purchase from the Swedes. Mr. ADDABBO. Thank you very much. Mr. McDade? DEPOT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Mr. McDADE. I want to extend my personal welcome to the Secretary and General Wickham. We are delighted to have you with us today. Mr. Secretary, the Committee is getting reports that the proposed budget for fiscal year 1987 does not fully fund the depot maintenance program and that there will be a financial backlog of work to be performed. Secretary MARSH. Mr. McDade, I think that is correct, but I believe the amount of unfunded requirement there is probably about 5 percent. I think 95 percent of it would be funded. Funding will be concentrated on the new systems and the more modern systems coming into the inventory. We will defer some of the maintenance on the older systems. The reason that you have a slight underfunding there is really budgetary in nature caused by the lack of adequate resources on a total Army-wide scheme or view. Mr. McDADE. You do have new and improved equipment, more complicated equipment- Secretary MARSH. That is correct. We are trying to concentrate on that equipment when it comes into the depot because of the reasons that you cite, sir. |