on this, he and his staff. And I believe we nave always appr defense manpower on a bipartisan basis.

He has not come in with a Republican viewpoint, me Democratic viewpoint, when he was chairman or during th when I have been chairman of this subcommittee. There Democratic or Republican agenda. What we try to do is w right for the defense of this country and what is right for th and women in uniform that we call on to make sacrifices to tain our freedom and that of our allies.

Senator Wilson, any comments you want to make?

Senator WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank y your kind words. It has been a pleasure.

Mr. Chairman, during the past 3 years, as Congress contin insist on reducing the defense budget in real terms, I hav that we would have to decide whether we wanted a smalle tary force that was well paid and well trained or wheth wanted to continue to increase our force structure, while re ing that it would be threatened with becoming hollow beca congressional unwillingness to pay for the people and their ing.

But I did not say these things because I thought that the structure that we had was too large. To the contrary, I be that we needed that force structure and even more to me threat and the commitments that we have assumed througho world.

Nothing has happened anywhere in the world to suggest t can now provide for our defense with 25,000 fewer people on duty than we needed to do that job last year.

Rather, I made these comments because I felt that it was for the United States to have a smaller military force if it have a fully manned, fully equipped, well trained, well paid ing force than to continue to try to maintain a larger force equately when Congress was not willing to pay for it.

Congress' action on the continuing resolution last year brought this matter to a head. In the CR, the Congress esse referred to provide sufficient funds to pay for the pay ra military personnel authorized by this committee and by th committee and authorized by law.

Additionally, Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds for the GI bill and several other entitlements required by t to be paid to military personnel. The refusal by Congress to priate the funds needed for that pay raise and other entitle resulted in the Department of Defense manpower accounts underfunded by almost $1 billion.

At the same time Congress refused to pay for people we ready on our force structure, Congress was able to appropri excess of $5 billion more than were requested for program projects within the defense budget. Therefore, Mr. Chairr have to say that, although I do not believe we should be re our force structure, I congratulate Secretary Carlucci and Ass Secretary for Force Management, Secretary Green, for facing the fact that Congress would simply not pay for a larger structure and for bringing us a request reducing that structu time when budget constraints compel us to choose the les

evils, to try to make a decision as to which are the less u tions.

I reluctantly must concur with him that it is better troops that we have be smaller in number and that the quately trained, adequately compensated, and that they cient equipment and training to be prepared and ready war if in fact they must.

But I want the record to be clear: The request for red structure in fiscal year 1989 is not the result of any dete that we no longer need the force structure that we had The request for reduced force structure in fiscal year 1 the result of the All Volunteer Force's failure to recruit sufficent numbers of the highest quality personnel ever our armed services.

The decision of the Armed Forces to begin early sep thousands of enlisted personnel and the plan to lay off of civilians are not the result of a determination that the nel are not needed. They are not the result of a determin they are not required to perform the missions this Congr ues to ask the services to perform.

Mr. Chairman, we need our large force structure. Th could still recruit and retain all the volunteers we nee tain that structure. Those volunteers would be very hi personnel, and the thousands of enlisted personnel now rated early and the civilian employees being laid of needed to perform military missions, important missions. So Mr. Chairman, all of the difficult decisions that hav tated have been dictated and driven by one fact, and t the Congress is not willing to pay for a robust, fully ma structure.

Now that the administration has faced up to this fact the difficult decisions to reduce the size of our military subcommittee must ensure that the young men and w continue to serve are properly paid, are properly traine aware that we in Congress care about their welfare.

I think it imperative that we work together this yea the authorization and appropriation funds sufficient to requested 4.3 percent pay raise, to retain the level of t housing allowance to that provided, and to overcome exodus of experienced pilots from the Air Force and Nav

If we did not prove by our actions this year that we tr the well-being and the quality of life of our military p fear that by next year it will be too late.

It would be an absolute disgrace if Congress sits by a while the finest military force this Nation perhaps has deteriorates to conditions that existed in 1979. It would more disgraceful because we in Congress know better, should. We should have learned during the past several to avoid those conditions.

I think we have, and we have it in our power to preve tion.

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership committee. You have demonstrated your concern for the

And I look forward to working with you again this year.

I know that you have an intense concern, and I share tha cern. I only hope that we can impress on our colleagues th need to prove this year that we really mean it when we sa the people are the invaluable ingredient and there comes a past which you cannot cut without doing serious damage, no to our readiness but to our credibility.

And having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am here to hear fro witnesses.

Senator GLENN. Thank you very much.

Secretary Green, go ahead with your statement. We wil the others in turn. And we would hope, rather than to rea long prepared statements, we will submit them for the record We assure you we will go through them in detail, and w you can summarize your statement so that we can have the time for discussion this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. GRANT GREEN, ASSISTANT SECRETAI

DEFENSE FOR FORCE MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNE Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Wilson, thank you for portunity to appear before you today. I appreciate your ki marks concerning renewed cooperation. I hope we can live your expectations.

I also hope from this hearing that we may reach some agre and find a common ground from which to manage our sca sources. Together, we must enhance our national defense best use of our total force manpower, and at the same time the personal needs of our military and civilian members.

As Secretary Carlucci has stated repeatedly, people are ou important asset. The number one priority for the Departm Defense are budget proposals for the compensation and qua life initiatives required to attract and retain the best people.

Through the partnership of the Department of Defense a Congress, we have built a highly motivated military force ma of individuals of unprecedented quality, skill, and motivation your support of our manpower programs in this budget, v continue this success.

As I look to the most important and difficult tasks th ahead, I see two jobs that we, working as partners in a bipa way, must accomplish: first, we must maintain the quality volunteer force in the face of declining budgets. To do th must provide adequate compensation and quality of life me for our defense family.

Second, we must ensure that manpower matches the force ture requirements and fits within fiscal constraints.

In my prepared statement which you have been provided, cuss how we can accomplish these tasks and briefly describe of the challenges we face. These include determining manpow quirements, managing the force (including how to handle joi cers), compensating our personnel (including pay raises), pays and bonuses, and dealing with some special issues, su

women in the military, our efforts in the war against d family issues.

Since we will discuss many of these areas when I come next week, I will limit my oral remarks today primaril management and manpower requirements issues.

First of all-end strength. In order to avoid the hollow you mentioned and maintain readiness while fully suppo forces, DOD was required to cut force structure and ma our adjusted fiscal year 1989 budget request.

We currently plan for 2.1 million Active personnel, 1 Selected Reserve forces, and 1.1 million civilians. Each numbers represent reductions from the levels we reques President's fiscal year 1988-1989 biannual request last ye

For fiscal year 1989, this is a total reduction of 109,000 Because of the speed at which the services had to ad budgets, not all the manpower reductions are yet ident specific programs. That will occur during the developm 1990 through 1994 POM.

The first specific area I would like to discuss briefly i force mix. As a result of some of the things we discove our efforts on the Officer Requirements Study, we are tal steps to improve OSD oversight of the total requiremer for military personnel and for civilians.

Frank Carlucci has already instructed the services and to do certain things, such as institutionalize future ma views based on the requirements study methodology, m power management systems to align program budget with program execution, and align officer manning leve results of the study.

In the near term, OSD will more carefully examine t quirements submitted during the budget development pr ther, we will look at the consistency that requirements the force structure and with OSD and service policy ar quacy of justifications for growth based on such thing structure, doctrine, emerging technology, joint activitie shortfall, et cetera.

As a start, the fiscal year 1989 defense manpower re report will incorporate officer type analyses similar t ducted during the Officer Requirements Study which yo received.

For the longer term, we will institute a comprehensiv that revises OSD manpower policy guidance, as well as I ration instructions and sets up service baseline files t depict manpower in relation to force structure.

Providing a better oversight process is the Departme priority, and I intend to augment my staff to the point can exercise proper oversight.

During the next year, we intend to focus major attent force policies to ensure that we in OSD perform our job the services can accomplish their missions in an effici sive, and effective way. I am aware of what DOD's ro be-that is to monitor progress and evaluate results.

For these reasons, I have undertaken a Total Force want OSD to fully understand and concur with the crite

sions. In that regard, we will look at past decisions that were in the mix of Active Reserve and civilian personnel.

This will include reviewing the processes and data used services when they made these decisions. In looking at how decisions were-and are-made and adjusting where necessa can minimize some of the inconsistencies between what w and what we need.

In the final analysis, I want to make sure that the manpow justments are closely linked to force structure and that ou power requests meet our mission requirements and in the our civilian work force, funded work loads.

I have requested that the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Sta Military Services, and other OSD offices such as Health and Reserve Affairs cooperate with me on this effort.

The next area I want to cover briefly are general and fla cers. As you are aware, since 1982 we have submitted to th gress legislation that would establish a permanent basis for mining GFO levels. Recognizing that we needed a better ra basis on which to base our requests, we commissioned a gr validate all DOD general and flag officer requirements.

The study will be completed soon, followed by internal rev the joint staff and the services. We do not expect to reque change in the overall numbers of general flag officers unt review is completed.

That study, however, will provide to the Congress a zer validation of requirements for general and flag officers and a odology and framework for the services to uniformly validat requirements in the future. In addition, it will provide OS oversight methodology that it has long needed.

Defense agency manpower is next. Secretary Carlucci earli month directed Defense agencies and DOD field activities to military and civilian end strengths, as required by the Reor tion Act of 1986. The services have moved out in their hea ters reduction and reorganizations as required by that act, a predict that they will be pretty much completed by the end o year 1988.

Despite the conclusions, however, of five independent that Defense agencies were well run, performed essential mi and in some cases needed more manpower, the Secretary v quired by the law to reduce the affected agencies and activi 5 percent from the fiscal year 1986 manpower level. This am to a reduction of about 5,000 people.

However, he has expressed serious misgivings to the Co over the adverse impacts of these cuts on readiness levels. Th over and above the workload reductions already effected 1989 budget and therefore cut into operational muscle.

We have submitted legislative language which would fore additional reductions in fiscal year 1989. I request your sup this proposal.

Finally, let me address what may be the most important today-that is officer reductions. In the conference report fiscal year 1988-1989 Defense Authorization Act, Congress di that the Secretary of Defense report the results of a compreh