Defense since 1976. Numerous low-cost or no-cost initiatives designed to increase the strength of the Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive National Guard (IRR/ING) have been completed or are on-going. The Department of Defense has developed a comprehensive package of initiatives designed to substantially increase the IRR and ING manpower supply. The long-term correction to the shortage of pretrained individuals would be to increase the length of the military service obligation currently set at 6 years for anyone who joins the Armed Forces. Most individuals now enlist for three or four years of active duty or duty in Selected Reserve units and serve the remainder of their military obligation in the IRR or ING. Our proposed legislation would increase the amount of time served in the IRR or ING by allowing the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to extend the current six-year military service obligation (MSO) to a maximum of eight years. Because this proposal would affect only those who entered the Armed Forces after its enactment, any such extension would not produce an increase in the size of the IRR or ING for six years after its enactment. In the interim, other initiatives and incentives are required to retain current members of the Reserve Components for longer periods of time and to provide new sources of entry. The first of these initiatives is the ING/IRR reenlistment bonus program. During FY 1981 Congress authorized a $600 reenlistment bonus for individuals who had completed their military service obligation and reenlisted in the IRR or ING for three years. The initial results of this program indicated that the amount of the bonus was too small to be effective in increasing strength to the desired degree although the results were positive. The bonus program added 6,618 trained members to the supply of pretrained manpower at a cost of $4.0 million in bonuses. It has been conservatively estimated that had the program not been available and these reenlistees had elected discharge, it would have required at least $7,000 to recruit and train each replacement for a total of over $46 million. A complete report on the results of this program was forwarded to the Congress last December. The bonus authority was not extended and the program ended on 30 September 1981. Currently, the only consequence of membership in the IRR or ING is the possibility of being recalled to active duty, probably for combat service. This is not a great inducement to reenlist. An enhanced Ready Reserve reenlistment bonus program appears to possess the greatest potential for significantly increasing IRR strength. Proposed legislation to reinstitute this bonus was sent to the Congress last month and provides a reenlistment bonus of up to $900 for individuals who agree to reenlist or extend their term of service for three years beyond their service obligation. This program would end after the proposed longer service obligation showed results. During 1979 the concept of direct enlistment was tested and the Army will start a direct enlistment program in FY 1983. Direct enlistment would allow an individual to join the IRR, go on active duty for initial training, and then return to the IRR for the remainder of the military service obligation. After initial training, the individual could also be given the option of remaining on active duty or joining the Selected Reserve. If the choice was to serve out the MSO in the IRR, periodic refresher training would be required. However, to ensure the success of this program, an enlistment bonus may well be necessary to attract a significant number of quality individuals into the combat arms skills that are most needed. This program would remain in effect at least until strength increases from the proposed longer service obligation began to be realized. Guard and Reserve Equipment Historically Guard and Reserve forces have generally operated with equipment that has been replaced as outmoded or declared as excess by the Active Components. This process perpetuates a degree of block obsolescence in some cases to the extent of entire communities or models of hardware "dying" in the Reserve Fores due to aging, lack of spare parts or support equipment, and/or plans for replacement. Other problems associated with such modernization "fall out" to the Reserve Components result in incompatibility of equipment between Active and Reserve forces and, often, in Reserve Component equipment which is not combat serviceable or even deployable. Such shortcomings further denigrate Reserve readiness by inhibiting training, penalizing the combat capability of the units affected, increasing the cost and complexity of maintenance and other logistics aspects and, in some cases, by presenting safety hazards as well. Less obvious is the fact that equipment deficiencies, to include obsolescence, have a negative effect on personnel recruitment and retention. Resolution of these matters would not be easy even in an unconstrained fiscal environment. What has taken years to evolve cannot be reversed over night. The Congress has taken an initial step by requiring an annual report on the status of Guard and Reserve equipment. This report, which was recently submitted to the Congress, not only displays shortfalls of major items but also provides a mechanism for auditing the procurement-through-distribution process. This audit will support the Defense policy that the units to fight first, Active or Reserve, are to be equipped first. As you will hear in the succeeding statements by the Guard and Reserve witnesses, the equipment situation is improving. Some examples are: Thirty-eight modernization systems planned for introduction into the Army National Guard during FY 1984 through FY 1988 which is double the number planned last year; thirteen new equipment systems being introduced into Army Reserve units in FY 1983 including M60A3 and UH-60 helicopters; the expansion of the Naval Reserve Frigate program to a level of six FF-1052 class Frigates by the end of FY 1983; the planned reduction of Marine Corps Reserve equipment deficiencies from $531 million at the end of FY 1982 to $135 million at the end of FY 1987; the recent and continuing conversion and modernization of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve with F-4's, A-10's C-130's and, in the case of the Air National Guard, one squadron of F-16's programmed for FY 1983. I do not intend to gloss over our equipment deficiencies. There is a critical need for more equipment and more modern equipment for each of our Reserve Components. It is a problem in which the Secretary of Defense has taken a personal interest and has directed that it receive priority attention. We are making some progress and I believe that with the assistance of this Committee, we will continue to reduce the level of Guard and Reserve equipment deficiencies. In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my belief that there is some outer boundary, some upper limit on size, number and resources, beyond which the Reserve concept as we know and practice it in this country, becomes unwieldy, unmanageable and inefficient. I do not know where that boundary lies but I am certain that we have not yet reached, are not even approaching, the outer limits of utility. The Guard and Reserve is, militarily and economically, a marvelous buy for the United States. I wish to express my appreciation for the generous support of the Reserve Components of this Committee and that of the Congress in general. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH EDWARD J. PHILBIN Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs) Nominated by President Reagan on June 5, 1981, to become the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs), and confirmed by the Senate on June 15, 19812, Dr. Edward J. Philbin is the highest ranking appointee in the Department of Defense with specific staff responsibility for the management of the nation's Reserve Components. The scope of his duties includes providing direction to all of the Reserve Components, and representing their needs and capabilities within the Executive Branch and before appropriate Committees of Congress. Dr. Philbin's appointment is the culmination of a 31-year Reserve career, which began in 1949 with 5 years of service as an enlisted Naval Air Reservist. Dr. Philbin credits the experience of those years with providing him a realistic perspective of and sensitivity to the motivations and needs of the junior enlisted reservist. Commissioned from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps at San Diego State University, he then served two years on actie duty with the Air Force as a navigator and bombardier. His subsequent continuous hours, duty in Vietnam and, after being designated a Distinguished Graduate of the Class of 1978, selection as the first Reserve Officer appointed to the faculty of the Air War College. Dr. Philbin has served numerous regular and special tours of active Reserve duty, most recently as staff officer and Director of Research for the Secretary of Defense Reserve Forces Policy Board where, during 1980, he coathored a major study entitled "The Reserve Forces in the 1990's." Dr. Philbin was promoted to Colonel in the Air Force Reserve in June 1980 and, in accordance with the policy of screening key personnel from the Selected Reserve, was transferred to the Standby Reserve upon appointment to his present position. His military awards include the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, and the Navy and Air Force Commendation Medals. Born in New York City in 1932, he was awarded a Bachelor of Science in Mechancial Engineering from San Diego State University in 1957, and in 1965 received his Juris Doctorate, summa cum laude, from the University of San Diego School of Law. Dr. Philbin entered the practice of law in 1966 from a career of engineering and physics in the field of aircraft and space systems design and weapons research. He became a partner in a law firm in San Diego, specializing in civil litigation. He joined the University of San Diego School of Law faculty in 1970, served as an Assistant Dean, and became a tenured Professor of Law in 1973. He is the author of over two dozen articles and studies in the fields of engineering, physics, law, and military affairs. The recipient of numerous academic, civic, professional and military awards, he received the National Geographic Society's General Orvil A. Anderson Award for excellence in political-military thought for his research study at the Air War College in 1978. Dr. Philbin married the former Irene Marie Hall of San Diego in 1958. They are permanent residents of San Diego, currently residing in Burke, Virginia. 1 December 1981 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY NATIONAL GUARD STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. EMMETT H. WALKER, JR., DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS Senator STEVENS. General Walker, do you have a statement? Since you say you have a copy of my statement and it will be made part of the record, I would like to make a very brief oral statement. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to announce that we now have achieved a strength of over 404,000 and are well on the way of achieving an end strength of officer and enlisted of over 410,000 by the end of September. With these gains certainly now my No. 1 priority is equipping my unit. At the present time I have a shortfall of over 30 percent of the required wartime strength, and much of that is not compatible, but I will report a little later to you we are making progress. The additional funding that you, the Congress, gave us has really helped our readiness, and we cannot say enough how much we appreciate it. I am confident, sir, that the Army and the Department of Defense are very conscious of the vital need to equip the Army National Guard because today we have missions that are as high a priority as many of the Army units and in many cases higher. Equipment priorities-the way we are receiving equipment, of course-are based on the missions and the deployment sequence of our units, regardless of whether the unit is active or Reserve. Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by saying that we have made great progress in our strength, and I see improvements in our equipment steps. I see schedules of equipment due to come to us in the upcoming years. Of course, it is not coming fast enough as far as I am concerned, but I also realize the great competition for resources in the Department of Defense and the entire Government. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of being here this morning, and I appreciate the support of the Congress, and I am ready to answer your questions. Thank you, sir. Senator STEVENS. Thank you, very much. [The prepared statement of Maj. Gen. Emmett H. Walker, Jr., follows:] (357) PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. EMMETT H. WALKER, JR. DIRECTOR ARMY NATIONAL GUARD INTRODUCTION As part of the Total Army, the Army National Guard (ARNG) is a key element in the defense of the United States. The citizensoldier of the ARNG willingly provides his time and effort to be ready should mobilization come. He must have training, equipment, and leadership necessary to help prepare him for whatever his mission may be. The resources provided to the ARNG are applied to this end and this statement will provide an insight as to what has been done in the past and what is necessary this year and in the future. At the onset, it is important to understand that the ARNG must be ready to go to war--today and tomorrow. All ARNG units have valid Total Army mobilization missions and the number of ARNG high priority units is increasing. These units provide essential combat and logistical support needed early in the deployment process. The following sections of this statement will describe the ARNG in the mission areas of organizing, manning, equipping, training, and mobilizing the force--the Army National Guard. ORGANIZING THE FORCE On a unit basis, the ARNG provides 33 percent of the combat divisions, nearly 50 percent of the infantry, armor, and field artillery battalions, 57 percent of the armored cavalry regiments, and 25 percent of the combat service support units in the Total Army. Further, the Army National Guard represents approximately 60 percent of the total strength of the Army Reserve Components. There is a continual review of missions and resources within the ARNG to ensure that these resources are organized in the most effective manner. This past year was characterized by organizational changes to selected elements of the ARNG force structure to meet Total Army requirements. Among the most significant was the activation of an additional armor brigade in the Kentucky Army National Guard. This brigade was formed by a consolidation of existing combat and combat support elements, permiting the Army to add combat power at minimum cost and with minimal personnel turbulence. In addition, nuclear, biological, and chemical defense (NBC) companies were added to the 50th Armored Division in New Jersey and the 49th Armored Division in Texas. A combat support aviation company was activated in Hawaii as part of the 29th Infantry Brigade, which is a roundout to the 25th Division. Other activations in the ARNG took place which increased the capability of the Total Army by a medical group headquarters and medical detachment, two ordnance battalion headquarters and eight ordnance companies or detachments, a signal battalion headquarters and two signal companies, six transportation companies and detachments, and four maintenance companies. In FY 82, the ARNG will continue its structure efforts consistent with Total Army requirements and resource availability. Significant force structure actions programed for FY 82 are the activation of an air traffic control headquarters, a medical battalion headquarters, and an ammunition battalion headquarters |