DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS AND LOGISTICS) STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE J. KORB, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS AND LOGISTICS) ACCOMPANIED BY: LT. GEN. MAX R. THURMAN, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR PERSONNEL, OFFICE OF THE ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF VICE ADM. LANDO W. ZECH, JR., USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING), CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL LT. GEN. E. J. BRONARS, USMC, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS LT. GEN. ANDREW P. IOSUE, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES Senator STEVENS. Dr. Korb, did you want the uniformed personnel with you at the table? Dr. KORB. My purpose would be not to have them unless you have specific questions. Senator STEVENS. Fine. Mr. Korb, we will place your complete statement in the record and you may summarize your comments. Dr. KORB. I am pleased to appear today, Mr. Chairman. Accompanying me are Capt. William J. Gost, USN, Principal Director, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Military Personnel and Force Management), Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics); Mr. David Dellefield, Deputy Director, Military Personnel, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program/Budget), Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); Lt. Gen. Max R. Thurman, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Office of the Army Chief of Staff; Vice Adm. Lando W. Zech, Jr., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Manpower, Personnel and Training), Chief of Naval Personnel; Lt. Gen. E. J. Bronars, USMC, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps; and Lt. Gen. Andrew P. Iosue, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. SUCCESSES IN ARMED SERVICES DURING 1981 The President has said: Working with the Congress, we have begun to reverse the negative trend of the last few years in the standard of living of our military personnel. We have done this through more competitive pay, increased enlistment and reenlistment bonuses and enhanced educational benefits. Just as important, he said, we have fostered an attitude of increased appreciation and respect for the men and women who wear their country's uniform. There is a new spirit of pride and patriotism alive in the land, and the impressive manpower record of the Armed Forces during fiscal year 1981 reflects this. I should note that our recruiting efforts have continued to be successful in fiscal year 1982. The four services combined reached 103 percent of quota in the first half of the year. We are most encouraged with these results. At the same time, however, we know our recruiting efforts must be intensified if we are to achieve our goals in building a stronger active force this year and into the mid1980's in the face of a declining 18-year-old population. Our country's military manpower goals remain ambitious— 2,110,000 in the Active Forces by the end of fiscal year 1982 and 2,148,000 a year later. For Reserve and National Guard units the targets are 946,000-up 47,000-in fiscal year 1982 and 1 millionup another 54,000-in fiscal year 1983. This is no time to relax in the afterglow of 1981's achievements. If we are to continue to attract and retain the manpower we need to sustain force readiness and meet our national commitments, it is essential that a service enlistment be perceived as an honorable, rewarding career choice. With the increases in military pay and benefits in the last 2 years, I believe we have finally succeeded in correcting military compensation inadequacies and have restored pay to a level which will enable us to recruit and retain a quality military force. Therefore, it is not necessary to recommend extensive additional increases at this time. FUNDING FOR AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT However, the President's budget reflects our concern that continued improvements should be made in PCS cash reimbursement and health-care services. It requests funding to enable us to raise the mileage allowance for military members from 13 to 16 cents per mile, for spouses and and dependent children over 12 years of age from 7 to 10 cents per mile, and for dependent children between ages 2 and 12 from 3.5 to 7 cents per mile. In the health care area a limited dental program for dependents is being considered. BONUS PAYMENTS It is also essential that our bonus authorities be extended into fiscal year 1983, but let me assure you that if we get this authority, we will continue to refine and judiciously apply these bonuses only to skilled areas of our greatest manpower needs. For example, in the past 4 months there has been a net reduction in, or termination of, the bonus multipliers. In addition, we will be able to complete the congressionally mandated test designed to measure the effectiveness of the new bonus authority enacted by Congress last year. Extensive analyses show that lump-sum reenlistment bonus payments yield a greater number of reenlistments and longer average obligated service lengths than the same nominal amount paid in some deferred fashion. Based on these analyses, the Department believes that a return to a lum-sum payment method at the earliest possible time is the most appropriate action to take. We have also requested authority and funds for an IRR reenlistment bonus to increase the size of the IRR. The fiscal year 1983 defense budget assumes an 8 percent military pay raise in October. This was an estimate of the amount needed to match increases in private-sector pay. It may be necessary that we ask our service men and women to sacrifice along with the rest of the country as we attempt to reduce the huge budget deficit. I must state, however, that this administration is committed to maintaining competitive military pay over the long term. If we do not, the improved readiness posture of the Armed Forces gained over the last 2 years may be lost as the state of the economy improves. IMPORTANT ISSUES I would also like to take this opportunity to briefly mention several additional issues before the Congress which are very important to me. One. I believe that it is essential for wartime preparedness that we proceed with the consolidation of the Military Traffic Management Command and the Military Sealife Command. The Senate Armed Services Committee provision which prohibits the consolidation will curtail our efforts to improve wartime readiness and to achieve economies and efficiencies in transportation management. Two. Our effort to transfer inventory management responsibility of 200,000 consumable items from the services to the Defense Logistics Agency will reduce operating expenses while maintaining a high level of readiness. It is important that the Senate Armed Services Committee overturn the House action in conference. Three. The Senate authorization bill makes ill-advised reductions in bonus money and manpower. Bonuses are essential to maintaining a quality force. End strength reductions, particularly reductions in support personnel, affect the readiness of our fighting forces. Four. I am very concerned about the lack of support for our forward-deployed forces. Five. Elimination of funds for POMCUS sets 5 and 6 will interfere with our ability to field a 10-division D-Day U.S. force in Europe. Six. Reductions in military construction in Europe adversely affect the morale and welfare of our troops stationed there and interfere with their ability to perform their mission. Seven. There is even some talk of disapproval of funds for the host-nation support agreement recently signed by the United States and Germany. This agreement provides us 93,000 German reservists upon mobilization to support U.S. Army and Air Force forces at a cost evenly divided between Germany and the United States. It is a cost-effective solution to a pressing U.S. problem. Eight. There are numerous actions in Congress which will interfere with our ability to contract out work which can more economically and efficiently be performed by private enterprise. Restric tions upon our ability to perform work when it can be most economicaly and efficiently done will adversely affect our readiness and mobilization posture. Nine. I am also concerned that the Congress has not given us relief on the flag- and general-officer ceiling. We have submitted comprehensive legislation to the Congress on flag- and general-officer management. We ask that the Congress allow us to man our general-officer requirements at the fiscal year 1981 level until October 1, 1983, while Congress acts on our comprehensive legislative proposals. Ten. We have requested that the Congress authorize a uniform ration for the Armed Forces and hope that it will be enacted by this Congress. Eleven. I request the support of the Congress in guaranteeing a quality education to our dependents through our overseas schools, section 6 schools and impact aid payments to localities. No service member should have to worry about quality education for his children. We support the Senate action to stop the transfer of the DOD overseas schools to the Department of Education and to fund adequately the section 6 schools in the United States. Twelve. Finally, I would like to state that the Department of Defense does not request or have need for enactment of a new GI bill at this time. The Department, along with the President's Military Manpower Task Force, has concluded that while some type of noncontributory educational program might be beneficial, its costwhich might reach $2 billion annually-could not be justified in the face of recruiting success, the possible adverse effect on retention, resource constraints and the availability of other more costeffective recruiting incentives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator STEVENS. Thank you, Doctor. [The prepared statement of Dr. Korb follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LAWRENCE J. KORB ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS, AND LOGISTICS I. INTRODUCTION Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to present an overview of the Reagan Administration's defense manpower program for FY 1983 and to discuss with you the manpower issues which we feel are of paramount importance. The determination of defense manpower requirements begins with an assessment of our worldwide commitments and the global threat that forces us to strengthen our armed services. From this analysis of our commitments and the threat come our conclusions about the types and numbers of forces the U.S. needs and specific manpower requirements necessary to fill and sustain those forces. The process is further influenced by judgments about the complex interrelationships between peacetime requirements and wartime demands. Our annual Defense Manpower Requirements report summarizes the procedures used by the Services and the Defense Agencies to determine their manpower requirements and describes the relationship between those requirements and the nation's security. This statement will focus on our programs to manage the manpower resources we feel are absolutely necessary. It is obvious that no military force--no matter how sophisticated its equipment--will be any better than its people. Accordingly, President Reagan's program to rebuild our military strength gives top priority to meeting our requirements for an adequate supply of manpower and to the needs of the men and women, military and civilian, who comprise that manpower. This administration is committed to maintain and enhance the recent progress realized in a number of defense manpower areas. Overall, de fense manpower is composed of active duty military, the Reserve Components and civilians. Together these three components constitute our total force. Defense manpower management is concerned with the effective and efficient integration and support of those three. This statement, therefore, will address each of the three in turn and then cite the specific assistance being sought from the Congress to enable us to manage more effectively this most important of national security assets. II. ACTIVE DUTY MANPOWER De fense Manpower Trends As shown in Table 1, FY 1981 active military strength was about 605,000 below the strength levels of 1964, the pre-Vietnam reference year often used in analyses of strength trends. In FY 1982 and FY 1983 the active duty strengths are programmed to increase 28,000 and 66,000 above the FY 1981 levels respectively. Table 1 also shows that Selected Reserve strength bottomed out during 1978 at 788,000 and is now increasing with a goal of 946,000 in FY 1982 and a longer term goal of over 1,000,000 by the mid-1980s. The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) strength for FY 1981 was 419,000. The IRR is a product of the flow-through of the active forces. IRR strength decreased 12 285 Q 29 -32 |