In FY 87 and projects additional deliveries of $1.8 billion in FY 88, we continue to have shortfalls. Our equipment is getting more use in the extensive training environment and due to its age, requires more and more maintenance. We have gained much but still there are needs. The most limiting readiness factor in the ANG is equipment, especially the need for modern equipment. We appreciate the pronounced interest Congress has taken over the past several years in supporting the Guard and Reserve forces by providing additional procurement funding. Through this specifically approved funding the Air Guard has been able to buy new C-130s, new operational support aircraft, and, in FY 88, new MH-60 helicopters for our rescue and recovery units. Miscellaneous equipment monies have provided the Air Guard with more modern communications. equipment, needed medical equipment, safety equipment, and training devices such as the Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation.

Shortages in major items of weapons, support equipment, and communications equipment degrade equipment-on-hand readiness and capabilities of units in the ARNG. Although the distribution of equipment from Army procurement and Congressionally dedicated procurement funding has continually grown, growth in force structure requirements often offset these gains. Some examples of remaining critical ARNG equipment shortages are: personnel carriers, 5-ton trucks, tactical FM radios, and M198 Howitzers just to mention a few.

The total value of ARNG mobilization equipment requirements at the beginning of FY 88 is 31 billion dollars. Receipt of equipment in FY 87 improved the mobilization equipment fill rate to 72 percent, compared to 66 percent in the previous year.

OUR NEEDS

Peacetime demands upon our members are unparalled, and each of our soldiers and airmen must consider the additional demands of job, family, home responsibilities and educational requirements. Limited time is an important factor we must consider; fully-trained and experienced full-time support (FTS) personnel are our way of compensating for guardmembers' limited time availability. The request I present to you in the President's Budget for military technicians and Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) growth has been pared down to meet the constrained resource levels mandated to balance the budget. In order to meet the reductions allocated to the Army and Air Force and, therefore, to the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, I am unable to fund any growth in end-strengths for technicians or AGRS in the Army Guard and only 112 AGR for the Air Guard. Full-time manning continues to be our highest priority and is urgently needed for us to carry out the training and operational missions we have been asked to accept. While the FTS on the Army side remains constant, requirements based on new activations have increased by almost 2,500 spaces. When faced with the choice of ensuring the units we have are effectively trained and manned or to expand to additional units and strength, our first responsibility must be to the total force we now have.

The National Guard needs continued support and emphasis on benefits to make National Guard service attractive. Incentive Programs are a must. The Army Continuing Education System (ACES) provides various educational opportunities to enlisted soldiers and commissioned officers who attend school part-time (e.g., high school completion and part-time post-secondary school) and are not covered by the Montgomery GI Bill. Commissioned officers incur a four year Selected Reserve service obligation following the last ACES supported class.

The Montgomery GI Bill is a most valuable entitlement and provides

benefits to our soldiers and airmen who are attending undergraduate college on a half-time or more basis. Presently, the ARNG has over 92,000 members and the ANG has over 40,000 members who meet basic entitlement requirements. The Veterans Administration reports 32,000 ARNG members and 11,000 ANG members are receiving benefits to date. participation is expected to increase.

Our

ACES provides tuition assistance to soldiers who attend college on a less than half-time basis as well as many low-cost high-impact educational opportunities that the Montgomery GI Bill doesn't cover (e.g., high school completion, college credit by examination, and college credit by evaluation). These two programs complement each other in covering the educational spectrum and are very useful. We continue to need them.

In addition to the MGIB, the ANG offers incentives in the bonus and student loan repayment programs. These programs provide cash incentives and assistance in repaying qualified, federally insured student loans to members who enlist or reenlist in identified critical skills. Other benefits, such as the Community College of the Air Force and free College Level Examination Program (CLEP) and Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Educational Support (DANTES) testing, are also available. These programs have proven to be effective tools for recruiting ANG members. As retention tools, these programs save the government substantial funds by reducing training costs associated with bringing new and untrained personnel into the Air Guard. Collectively, the entitlements and incentives promote recruitment and retention of trained and experienced ANG members and must be continued.

The Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) provides enlistment bonuses that may be either a $2,000 critical skill or $1,500 unit bonus. Additionally, the program offers the retention bonus, affiliation bonus, the Student Loan Repayment Program, and the Health Professionals Loan Repayment Program. Current authority expires September 1990.

To support the Air National Guard training needs, we must look to the professional military training schools and technical training schools. These two separate areas provide training in our wartime tasks, Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) qualifications and in the area of Professional Military Education, leadership training, and advanced management courses. The Air National Guard receives formal technical training for wartime skills, through a combination of Air Force formal schools and unit on-the-job training. This combination provides a well-rounded, trained individual who can rapidly be mobilized and deployed. Our limiting factors are the availability of the traditional guardsman, and the military personne resources (currently costing more than $60 million annually) that provide the school days. We must constantly prioritize the level of trai ing available for the new missions and equipment due to limited resources Along with the technical training there is a need for Professional Miliary Education. This provides for the development of leadership skills and increases the management capabilities of the Air National Guard of icers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs). We need to maintain the current level of funding in the military personnel training accounts to pay for these school days. Unfortunately, to meet our required FY 89 budget reductions, the ANG had to significantly reduce the funds that support our training.

Budgetary con traints have reduced the number of hours available in the ARNG FY 88/89 Flying Hours Program (FHP).. Funding will support 360,000 hours in FY 88 and 341,000 in FY 89. Modernization and force structure changes are the most significant variables in the FHP. The FY 89 budget falls short of funding the 365,000 hours needed to meet aircrew training minimum requirements. Under these circumstances, aviation units

will experience reduced training readiness because of a shortage in flying hours.

MOS Qualification in the ARNG is another area of concern. A significant number of prior service personnel, interstate transfers, and individuals transferring between units do not have a MOS match in the positions to which assigned. We have a number of programs designed to qualify our soldiers in their job skills as soon as practical. Whether gained through resident service schools, non-resident schools using courses tailored to our training environment, or absent either of these, supervised-on-the-job-training, MOS qualification is a major challenge the Guard faces. The challenge to MOS qualify our personnel is resource intensive and we must have the funds required to insure that our soldiers are sufficiently prepared to serve effectively.

SUMMARY

The National Guard has proven to be an integral part of the Total Force. We exist to support U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives, while providing a State militia uniquely qualified for local disaster and public safety needs. Our responsibilities are truly global, national and local. Each offers its own set of challenges for the present and the future. We are ready to meet these challenges. The capability of our soldiers and airmen to respond to the most demanding wartime missions is a matter of record. The Secretary of the Army, the Honorable John 0. Marsh, has said, "Our Reserve and National Guard components, upon which we rely so heavily, prove their readiness daily in challenging assignments around the world."

Placing additional force structure and missions in the National Guard is economically sound, but it must be done carefully as the commensurate levels of support, including manpower and equipment, are required as the missions are transferred. We appreciate the continuing strong support and confidence of the Congress. Your support has permitted the National Guard to continue modernization and to make significant progress toward our goal of strength through readiness.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL HERBERT R. TEMPLE, JR.

CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

General Temple began his military career as a private in the 160th Infantry Regiment (Los Angeles' Own), 40th Infantry Division, California National Guard, on June 2, 1947. he was called to active duty in September 1950 and served in Korea as a non-commissioned officer with Company B, 5th Regimental Combat Team, 24th Infantry Division. After his return to the United States, he was discharged from the Army on May 23, 1952, and subsequently rejoined the 160th Infantry Regiment. On October 20, 1952, he received a direct appointment as a second lieutenant in the California Army National Guard and was assigned as a Platoon Leader in the 160th Infantry Regiment. From April 1953 to June 1954, he commanded Company C of the regiment. Subsequent assignment were as Liaison Officer and Combat Command Motor Officer until October 1955, when he was assigned as Company Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Combat Command A, 40th Armc.ed Division. He was assigned as Headquarters Commandant of the division in November 1959. He then served as Assistant G-1 (Personnel) and Arting G-1, 40th Armored Division and S-1

(Personnel) of the 40th Division Support Command until his assignment in September 1966 as Commander of the 40th Supply and Transportation Battalion. In September 1961, he became Commander of 3d Battalion, 160th Infantry, 40th Infantry Brigade (Separate).

He attended the United States Army War College from July 1974 to May 1975. After receiving his Masters Degree in public administration, he reported to the National Guard Bureau in September 1975 as the Chief, Office of Mobilization Readiness until June 1976 when he became Chief, Office of Policy and Congressional Liaison. On October 1, 1978, he was promoted to brigadier general and named Deputy Director, Army National Guard. He was appointed as the Director, Army National Guard, and federally recogaized as a major general on August 19, 1982. Four years later he was appointed as the Chief, National Guard Bureau and promoted to lieutenant general.

General Temple is the former Vice President and part owner of V. B. Morgan Trucking Company of Long Beach, California. From 1971 to 1974, he served on the Staff of the Governor of California, as the Director of the California Office of Emergency Services, with responsibility for statewide emergency planning, coordination, and communications.

His awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal Army and Air Force Commendation Medals, Good Conduct Medal, Korean Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star, Combat Infantryman Badge, Army Staff Identification Badge, and numerous other decorations.

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. DONALD BURDICK, DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

COMMENDATION TO SENATOR STENNIS

Senator JOHNSTON. General Burdick?

General BURDICK. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am Major General Donald Burdick, Director of the Army National Guard. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the programs of our Army National Guard, and wish to express to you, Mr. Chairman, and particularly to Senator Stennis, the sincere thanks of some 452,000 Army National Guardsmen and women for the support that this committee and the Chairman, Senator Stennis, have provided to the Army National Guard over the years.

Certainly without your support-and it has been outstanding support-we could not have attained the combat ready situation that we are in today in the Army National Guard.

So on behalf of all our soldiers, men and women, I would like to thank you and the Chairman.

I have a statement I wish to submit for the record, and with your permission, I would like to comment briefly on certain aspects of that statement.

COMBAT READY GUARD

As I mentioned, because of the concern of this committee and your providing increased support over the years, the role of the Army National Guard in our Nation's defense has taken on new meaning.

The Guard is not the Guard it was several years ago, a Guard that required months to equip and train before being judged combat ready. Today's Army National Guard is a combat ready Guard, an army on call. However, it appears that just as we were beginning to become a really cost-effective deterrent, the Guard may now be required to take on new direction toward accomplishing this vital mission, a direction driven by an atmosphere of constrained resources.

CURRENT STRENGTH OF NATIONAL GUARD

I would like to point out to you some of my concerns that I have for the Guard's ability to function in such a constrained environment. The strength of our Army National Guard has grown from some 367,000 in fiscal year 1980 to 457,000 in fiscal year 1988. This increase in strength has paralleled the increase in new missions given to the Guard as the Guard's role in our Nation's defense has also increased. However, in fis