U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

80–192 2013

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–20] 

EQUIPPING, MODERNIZING, AND 

SUSTAINING THE NATIONAL GUARD, 

ARMY RESERVE, AND AIR FORCE 

RESERVE AS AN OPERATIONAL FORCE 

IN A TIME OF BUDGET UNCERTAINTY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL 

AIR AND LAND FORCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 19, 2013 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

JESSE TOLLESON, Professional Staff Member 

DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member 

JULIE HERBERT, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2013 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Equipping, Modernizing, and Sustaining the National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve as an Operational 

Force in a Time of Budget Uncertainty .............................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 ........................................................................................ 11 

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013 

EQUIPPING, MODERNIZING, AND SUSTAINING THE NATIONAL 

GUARD, ARMY RESERVE, AND AIR FORCE RESERVE AS AN OPERATIONAL FORCE IN A TIME OF BUDGET UNCERTAINTY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ...................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Clarke, Lt Gen Stanley E., III, USAF, Director, Air National Guard ................. 2 

Ingram, LTG William E., Jr., USA, Director, Army National Guard ................. 1 

Jackson, Lt Gen James ‘‘JJ,’’ USAF, Chief, U.S. Air Force Reserve ................... 4 

Talley, LTG Jeffrey W., USA, Chief, U.S. Army Reserve ..................................... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Clarke, Lt Gen Stanley E., III ......................................................................... 46 

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California ........................... 17 

Ingram, LTG William E., Jr. ........................................................................... 20 

Jackson, Lt Gen James ‘‘JJ’’ ............................................................................ 67 

Talley, LTG Jeffrey W. ..................................................................................... 59 

Turner, Hon. Michael R. .................................................................................. 15 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................ 85 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Enyart ........................................................................................................ 92 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... 89 

Mr. Runyan ....................................................................................................... 90 

Mrs. Walorski ................................................................................................... 95 

(1) 

EQUIPPING, MODERNIZING, AND SUSTAINING THE NATIONAL GUARD, ARMY RESERVE, AND AIR FORCE RESERVE AS AN OPERATIONAL FORCE IN A TIME OF 

BUDGET UNCERTAINTY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 19, 2013. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

Mr. TURNER. I call to order the hearing of the Air and Land Subcommittee for the purposes of looking at the issue of equipping and 

sustaining challenges of Army National Guard, Air National 

Guard, Army Reserve, and the Air Force Reserve. 

We have votes that are coming up, and so we are going to try 

to quickly convene and give, you know, our guests today, our panel 

members the ability to put on the record their statements and get 

to some questions. The purpose today is really to hear from you to 

get your understanding of the challenges that you are facing, and 

the effects of our budgetary constraints. 

With that, I would like to turn to my ranking member, Mr. 

Garamendi. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner can be found in the Appendix on page 15.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and will submit my statement for the record. I do have a question when the 

time comes. Great. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in the 

Appendix on page 17.] 

Mr. TURNER. We will turn to General Ingram for a 5-minute 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF LTG WILLIAM E. INGRAM, JR., USA, DIRECTOR, 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

General INGRAM. Chairman Turner, Members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. It is my 

honor to represent the 358,000 citizen soldiers of the Army National Guard. 

Thanks to the support of this committee, the daily support of 

families and employers, and the magnificent performance of guard 
2 

soldiers. I am proud to say that today’s Army National Guard is 

the, best manned, best led, best trained, and best equipped and 

most experienced in its 376-year history. 

As everyone is aware, more than a half-million individual soldiers have mobilized since the beginning of the warfight after 2011. 

At the same time, Guard soldiers continue to fulfill their centuriesold obligation to their communities. Last year, in fiscal year 2012, 

the Army National Guard served over 447,000 duty days conducting State missions, which was for us historically a very slow 

year. 

The one message that I would like to leave with you today, is 

this: It would be a terrible waste of energy, effort, and resources 

to let the Army National Guard, a superb operational force, atrophy as a result of across-the-board cuts. Those cuts would fail to 

consider the significant value relative to cost of the Army National 

Guard. It only takes a continued modest investment to maintain an 

operational force when compared to the strategic reserve the Nation had prior to 9/11. 

Our current equipping situation is good, but not without concerns. The Army National Guard UH–60 Black Hawk [utility tactical transport helicopter] fleet is the oldest in the Army. Sequestration has caused the Army to postpone third- and fourth-quarter 

field and depot level maintenance, equipment reset in fiscal year 

2013. Over time, readiness could be significantly degraded. Sequestration also impacts contracts and programs vital to maintaining 

our readiness. Cuts would impact a number of programs that provide our units with collective training, and contractor logistical 

support that maintain some of our equipment. With citizen soldiers 

as our foundation, the Army National Guard presents tremendous 

value to our Nation, our national defense, and America’s communities. We live up to our motto of: ‘‘Always ready, always there.’’ 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and look forward to 

your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Ingram can be found in the 

Appendix on page 20.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Clarke. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN STANLEY E. CLARKE III, USAF, 

DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

General CLARKE. Chairman Turner and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be here before you today. I will keep 

my remarks almost as short as the time that I have actually been 

the director of the Air National Guard. I can’t express what a 

pleasure it is to be here, a week after arriving back in Washington, 

to represent the outstanding men and women of our Nation’s Air 

National Guard. 

Since 2006, I have observed the men and women of the Air National Guard from the outside, first, as a member of the air staff, 

and then as a member of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Turkey. 

Most recently, I was a consumer of Air National Guard capabilities 

as the Commander of the First Air Force and the Commander of 

the Continental Region for NORAD [North American Aerospace 

Defense Command]. 
3 

My conclusion from the outside, and I am sure you will agree, 

is that the men and women of the Air National Guard are the most 

dedicated and professional in our Nation’s history. They have performed both admirably, both overseas and at home. They have 

earned our respect and thanks. 

As the newly appointed Director of the Air National Guard, I 

have set three immediate priorities. First, to minimize the dramatic toll the current budget turmoil has taken on the Air National 

Guard readiness to both its people and its equipment. 

Second, to work with the Air Force Reserve and the Air Force to 

provide an optimum mix of Active, Reserve, and Guard Forces for 

a cost-effective national defense and robust domestic response capability. 

Finally, to ensure that all components of the total Air Force are 

modernized concurrently so that they remain relevant and interoperable between both the air components and the joint forces. 

In closing, thank you for inviting me. Thank you for your service 

to our Nation, and thank you for the support of the Air Force and 

its Reserve Components. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Clarke can be found in the 

Appendix on page 46.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Talley. 

STATEMENT OF LTG JEFFREY W. TALLEY, USA, CHIEF, U.S. 

ARMY RESERVE 

General TALLEY. Chairman Turner, distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. On behalf of the 200,000 Army Reserve soldiers, 12,000 civilian and military technician employees and their 

families, I want to thank the committee for its continued outstanding support to the Army Reserve. I am proud to report that 

America’s Army Reserve is a ready and trained operational force. 

For more than 11 years of war, we have provided critical lifesaving 

and life-sustaining capabilities to all Services and all Components. 

Our soldiers are on duty at home and abroad, continuously engaged 

in missions in support of your Army and the Department of Defense. 

The days of a strategic Army Reserve, a force that was poorly 

resourced and seldom used, are simply gone. Today the Army Reserve is a complementary force for the Active Component, providing 

routine combat support and service support, essential for both combat and contingent mission requirements. The Army Reserve is 

also a great return for the taxpayer on investment. We comprise 

almost 20 percent of the total Army, for just 6 percent of its budget. 

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of our soldiers are traditional reservists; that is, they hold full-time civilian jobs, often in 

the same specialty as their military occupation. By the way, this 

includes our general officers. For example, nearly 60 percent of the 

total Army’s medical units and capabilities are found in the Army 

Reserve. Those Reserve soldiers are doctors and nurses in the private sector, so they keep their technical skills sharp at little or no 

cost to the Defense Department. That civilian experience and out-
4 

look allows the Army Reserve soldiers to bring a unique perspective to complex environments. 

For example, last week, I was in Djibouti, Africa, visiting one of 

my civil affairs teams. One of my soldiers, who also happened to 

be a firefighter in his hometown of Seattle, Washington, was helping set up in a local city a firefighting first response training program. This was in addition to him executing all of the civil affairs 

missions. All I can simply say is, what a great example of America 

doing good in the world. I could share many stories like this, as the 

Army Reserve currently has mobilized and deployed over 12,000 

soldiers serving in 28 countries, with almost half of those in Afghanistan. 

Recently, the Army Reserve’s expanded role in the 2012 National 

Defense Authorization Act was tested, and we deployed pump units 

for dewatering missions in Brooklyn and Queens, New York, in 

support of our fellow citizens devastated by Hurricane Sandy. 

Whatever the needs of the Nation are, the Army Reserve citizen 

soldiers are ready to serve. 

Last June, when I became the Chief of the Army Reserve and the 

Commanding General of the United States Army Reserve Command, I published a document called ‘‘Rally Point.’’ It outlines my 

strategic and operational intent and priorities. In ‘‘Rally Point,’’ I 

emphasized that the Army Reserve must provide trained, readied 

soldiers, leaders, and units in support of the total force. In order 

to accomplish this mission, I ask Congress for support in two areas: 

continued modernization of our equipment and procurement assimilation training systems, both of which I would be happy to 

elaborate on during Q and A. 

In closing, I want to thank the committee and the House for 

passing H.R. 933. This bill provides much-needed funding and increased flexibility to help our Armed Forces deal with the impacts 

of sequestration. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 

the opportunity to testify on behalf of our soldiers and civilians, 

and families of the Army Reserve. We simply have the best Army 

Reserve in history, and with your help, we can keep it that way. 

Twice a citizen, Army strong. 

[The prepared statement of General Talley can be found in the 

Appendix on page 59.] 

Mr. TURNER. General Jackson. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN JAMES ‘‘JJ’’ JACKSON, USAF, CHIEF, 

U.S. AIR FORCE RESERVE 

General JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear 

before you. I am honored to represent the American citizen airmen 

as the chief of the Air Force Reserve and Commander of the Air 

Force Reserve Command. The Air Force Reserve is a combat-ready 

force composed of approximately 71,000 proud reservists, stationed 

locally throughout the United States, and serving globally for every 

combatant command. We provide our Nation’s defense with operational capability, strategic depth, and surge capacity. 

Since 1981, the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation, known as NGREA, has been critical to the Air Force Re-
5 

serve. NGREA has funded the Air Force Reserve to upgrade equipment for better targeting pods, self-protection, and communication 

capability, most recently proving its combat value in Afghanistan 

and in Iraq. NGREA serves as a model for acquisition excellence 

by providing timely combat capability to the warfighter and using 

their direct feedback, which makes NGREA a Department of Defense good-news story; the positive intersection of innovation, modernization, and cost savings. 

The current top three Air Force Reserve procurement priorities 

include defensive systems for our aircraft; data link and secure com 

[communications], for improved battlefield situational awareness; 

and enhanced precision engagement capability. 

The Air Force Reserve also supports limited NGREA authorization for research, development, and test, and evaluation, known as 

RDT&E. Software is the backbone of our advanced military equipment and is required as our legacy aircraft are modernized to today’s combatant commander needs. Software RDT&E will aid in increasing capability and functionality for weapons system enhancements for our aircraft. 

The Air Force Reserve is a proud member of the total force team, 

providing global vigilance, reach, and power and ready to answer 

our Nation’s call. 

I appreciate the enduring support of this committee and all you 

do for America’s citizen airmen. I look forward to working with you 

each to ensure that the Air Force Reserve remains highly capable 

and ready to serve. I stand by ready to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Jackson can be found in the 

Appendix on page 67.] 

Mr. TURNER. Well, thank you, gentlemen. 

As you are aware, as I stated at the beginning of the hearing, 

we are going to try to conclude this total hearing by 2:30 so that, 

for the convenience of our witnesses, they don’t have to return. And 

so we are going to try to truncate this a bit. For Members who are 

here who would like to include an opening statement on the record 

or for questions that we are not able to get to that they would like 

to ask for the record, please submit those within 5 days. 

Similarly, for our witnesses, if you would like to add anything to 

both your opening or any of your answers, feel free, within the next 

5 days, to supply additional text. 

With that, and for expedience, I am only going to ask one question, but I am asking to each of the witnesses, and it is about sequestration and CRs [Continuing Resolutions]. On sequestration, 

as I have told each of you, I voted against this mess, but I think 

we are in a situation where the implementation now is in your 

hands, and we are all very concerned about its effects on your ability to modernize, and how those cuts may be allocated. 

I would like each of you, if you would, to speak for a moment on 

the issue of sequestration and its implementation, your concern on 

your modernization efforts and the impacts, if you wish, that are 

the compounding result of CRs. And then, General Clarke, if you 

would add in your reflections on that, the Rickenbacker Air Guard 

Station in Ohio has been chosen as one of five finalists for the KC– 

46A [air-to-air tanker and strategic airlifter] to replace the KC–135 

[Stratotanker], and certainly, we are concerned about how all of 
6 

this might be affecting that down-select process and any thoughts 

you have on that. 

We will begin with General Ingram. 

General INGRAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Sequestration will affect us in many ways, probably pushing procurement to the right; in some cases significantly, in other cases 

not as much. We will also be affected by our ability to maintain our 

equipment. The furlough of military technicians will impact our 

maintenance programs. The fact that the depots in the Army will 

be severely curtailed, if not closed, during the third and fourth 

quarter of this year will cause a maintenance backlog. Our equipment is returning from theater, will be stacked up awaiting reset, 

which will again affect our equipment on hand. 

And I will leave it at that as far as time, and I would like to answer for the record as well. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 85.] 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

General Clarke. 

General CLARKE. Yes, sir. 

With regards to the continuing resolution and sequestration, obviously, immediate impacts would also lead to furloughs, would be 

the big part of it. The National Guard really rests on the use of 

our full-time force to train and administrate our part-time force but 

also to do operational duties as well. We prioritize to make sure 

that we don’t let any operational missions fall behind, like the 

Aerospace Control Alert. But if you look at any Guard unit with 

all of the drill statisticians out there, if they are unable to drive 

the fuel trucks, people to repair the fuel trucks, take an oil analysis, analyzing it, all of that, if we lose that capability, it starts to 

hurt our readiness to a certain degree. 

As far as modernization, there is a backbone to modernization 

that has to be realized that goes out through all of the people who 

are software engineers and hundreds of thousands, possibly, of civil 

service employees who also support the enterprise that makes modernization come to light. So we would be affected by that, maybe 

possibly a slowdown in modernization efforts. 

Sir, you asked me specifically about Rickenbacker. I can take 

that for the record also, but I will tell you that the Air Force has 

a very specific process, a very codified process for selecting which 

bases will get a KC–46 in the future. Should the opportunity 

present itself, once one is selected, the Air National Guard will always look for the opportunity to do an association with a unit there 

if possible, if not outright select it as a unit-owned, if you will, aircraft at that location. So I can get you more information for the 

record, also, sir. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 85.] 

Mr. TURNER. Okay. 

General Talley. 

General TALLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 

Civilian workforce for the United States Army Reserve is predominantly military technicians, and they do remarkable work 

every day in keeping the doors to our units and centers open for 
7 

business. They represent over 40 percent of my full-time manning, 

which is only authorized at 13 percent. That is going to be the biggest impact on the Army Reserve will be the civilian furloughing. 

Most of these civilians are low-grade employees. Furloughing them 

will provide significant financial stress to them and their families, 

have a severe impact on the Army Reserve in terms of everyday 

functions, like maintenance, pay processing, logistics support, 

training support, and base support operations. 

The second major impact of sequestration will be on medical 

readiness. Right now, the Army Reserves has the highest medical 

readiness in the history of the Army Reserve. Our medical readiness is really three parts. One is our annual physical assessment, 

our dental exams and our shots or immunizations. Right now, we 

are at 76 percent, so that means 76 out of 100 soldiers would have 

met all of the requirements for all three of those. We get that support provided to us by contracts we provide to civilian medical professionals. We will have to reduce those contracts and that will result in over 80,000 less exams and associated medical assessments 

during the rest of 2013, reducing our medical deployability. 

CRA [Continuing Resolution Authority] effects just basically pile 

on to the impacts of sequestration. It will reduce our OMAR [Operation and Maintenance] funding by $70 million. By the way, sequestration requires us $292 million of cuts between now and the 

end of the year. CRA will cause us to reduce OMAR by $70 million 

and will have similar additional impacts beyond those I have already mentioned for sequestration. It will also reduce my RPA [Reserve Personnel, Army] funding by $200 million, which will limit 

all reservists to 14 days statutory annual training, but that will reduce their ability to participate in schools, receive incentives, and 

impact our training. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. General Jackson. 

General JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the 

question. Probably the biggest impact I would like to go ahead and 

join with my colleagues at the table here to say, the Air Reserve 

Technician Program, which is our full-time support, is obviously 

being furloughed along with all of the civilians at this time. That 

is 14,000 members of the Air Force Reserve, which is, unfortunately, our full-time support, and it will be adversely impacted 

every single day because of that. 

In addition to that, when it comes to the aircraft and weapons 

system sustainment, we are in the same opportunity and see the 

same things as my colleagues here at the table. When it comes to 

the impact of sequestration on NGREA, we have approximately 9 

percent cut in that obligation, which means that as we try to go 

ahead and be good stewards of our Air Force and our congressional 

funding stream, we are unable to do that because we are going to 

have broken programs, and broken appropriations that weren’t able 

to be fixed in the future. 

The impact specifically will have to do with trying to purchase 

some targeting pods for the F–16s [Fighting Falcon multirole fighter aircraft] that we are attempting to do, additional vehicle maintenance and vehicle purchases, and in addition to that, some C–130 

[Hercules tactical airlifter] upgrades that we are attempting to do 

this fiscal year. 
8 

Sir, I am standing by to answer any other questions for the 

record. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I do have one question I would like to take up, 

and that has to do with Beale Air Force Base. Last year Congress 

specifically prohibited the Air Force from retiring the Global Hawk 

[RQ–4 unmanned aerial vehicle surveillance aircraft] or even preparing to retire the Global Hawk. Yet it has been announced that 

Beale Air Force Base, that the 13th Reconnaissance Squadron will 

be deactivated. So the question is, how could that be, since those 

are 200 troops that specifically provide support for the Global 

Hawk program? Has there been a formal order? Who signed it? 

How does this fit with the law? And if it was issued, I would like 

an explanation. 

I happen to represent Beale, and I am mightily concerned about 

this, since it is contradictory to what we had intended to have happen. 

General Jackson. 

General JACKSON. Congressman, thank you very much for your 

question. And as you are well aware, we are very proud of the 

940th Wing in the 13th Reconnaissance Squad in Beale. They received their mission about 6 years ago, as we lost our KC–135s, 

and they have done an outstanding job. As you are also aware, 

Congressman, we have not submitted the 2014 budget at this time, 

so any pieces in that 2014 budget we cannot really disclose with 

you at this time, but I am happy to answer your questions in the 

future. 

The publication or the release that you mentioned was in error, 

sir. It is a mea culpa on my part. The unit said that they were 

going to be closing down at the end of 2013. But the 13th RS [Reconnaissance Squad] is fully funded through the end of fiscal year 

2013 and is funded in the program in fiscal year 2014. Sir, I am 

happy to answer any of your questions for the record that you 

would like to have. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. 

You mentioned the word when? 

General JACKSON. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. When will you answer the other questions? 

General JACKSON. Well, sir, the other questions, like I said, is 

when the 2014 submission comes forward. You will see exactly that 

the programming does have the 13th RS in there through the end 

of the fiscal year. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, in the last several weeks, this committee has heard testimony 

from several Active Duty commanders that have been very complimentary to the National Guard and the Reserve Forces. In fact, 

the Deputy Commander of Special Operation Forces Command 

talked about North Africa and admitted that he could not do a lot 

of his operations without the support of both Guard and Reserve 

troops and those technicians that are there especially on the aviation side of the house. 
9 

And the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander actually just last week said that the State partnership program and 

those soldiers that participate in that program are ‘‘bang for the 

buck,’’ his words, one of the best things going. And he was echoed 

by European command. The Guard especially has been an operational force. You have developed this force through blood, sweat, 

and tears for the last 10 years. 

I wonder, General Ingram, and General Clarke, if you could 

speak to what minimum end strength, if you have a number in 

mind, of the Army and of the Air Guard Forces that would allow 

you to maintain that operational force to support both domestic 

missions and also Active Duty missions but also at the best bang 

for the buck. You know, we spoke before how the National Guard 

provides operational soldiers at a lower cost than Active Duty soldiers. Is there an end strength that you are looking at or perhaps 

a number of brigade combat teams, that sort of thing, that would 

be ideal to allow us to maintain that operational force, enjoy the 

cost savings as well, but still be able to flex up as needed? 

General INGRAM. Thank you for the question. As far as the Army 

National Guard is concerned, our balance across the 54 States and 

territories today is really very well balanced. In the last 10 years, 

as we have gone to module formations, we have made some tweaks 

in our distribution of force structure so that each State, territory, 

and the District have what we call the essential 10 capabilities 

that assist the States in conducting domestic operations. 

That, coupled with the brigade combat teams that we have in the 

Army National Guard—we currently have 28—and those brigade 

combat teams provide the best structure for domestic operations. 

They are multifunctional. They are organized in squads, platoons, 

companies, and battalions that allow a fight-tonight capability. 

Every soldier in those formations knows the chain of command. 

They know who they report to, and they can be called on very short 

notice to respond immediately to domestic situations. 

The question of balance and force structure ACRC [Active Component/Reserve Component] mix is a question that is being considered at multiple levels. The Guard is in very good shape now the 

way we are readied across the Nation, and I will defer to my colleague. 

General CLARKE. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 

The minimum end strength part of that is, I would say, right about 

now is a sweet spot for us. One of the greatest things the Air Force 

gives the Air National Guard is experienced airmen, and we put 

them to work right away, and we keep them busy. But I would say 

that balance, with 89 wings we have right now, I would say it is 

a good balance. It is healthy. 

With regard to the operational force, though, meeting the same 

standards, taking the same inspections, and then being a part, and 

this is probably one of the most important, is being a part of the 

air expeditionary force, and that is doing the same job that any 

other airman might be, either at home or overseas, is so critical. 

And one thing I would hate to ever see us back out of is not being 

engaged overseas, involved in operations. That puts us on step with 

anyone else, and I would tell you that over the history of the last 

conflicts in Asia and everything, we have done an outstanding job 
10 

of meeting every requirement every time with great airmen, largely 

because the Air Force decided years ago to make sure that the Air 

National Guard members and the Air Force Reserve meet the same 

standards, are inspected, and are part of the Air Expeditionary 

Force. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, General. 

I actually started out my military career in the Army Reserves, 

86th ARCOM [Army Reserve Command], and I have seen over the 

years the value gained from that institutional knowledge. I went 

to Iraq in the National Guard with three Vietnam helicopter pilots 

and the information, that knowledge that was there was critical to 

our success. And I have seen time and again forces who leave Active Duty, come to Reserve Forces, and we don’t lose that information and that experience that was there. So thank you for your testimony today. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ms. Duckworth. 

We are going to conclude. We have 4 minutes on the clock to 

make it to votes. I am going to ask you a question for the record, 

but I am going to give it to you orally so that you see the importance of the question. 

When you look at the National Guard and Reserve Equipment 

Account, the NGREA, Congress has been providing additional funding for the Guard and Reserve Component for equipment and modernization. In 2003, since 2003, it is about $61 billion, includes $9 

billion additional funding that was part of NGREA. We are having 

difficulty tracking the funding to ensure that it is making it to its 

intended use and purposes. So we are working on the issue of the 

challenges of transparency. We are going to ask you to please help 

us explain the process of how that has been working in the funding, and what processes are in place to ensure that when we provide the funding that the funding actually does go to equipment. 

And our staff will work with you on additional specifics for that, 

and we look forward to your answers. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

pages 85–86.] 

Gentlemen, thank you so much for participating in this today, 

and again, please do take the opportunity to extend your comments 

for the record and we apologize, obviously, for the inconvenience of 

votes falling in between this hearing. Thank you. We will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 19, 2013 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 19, 2013 

(15) 

Statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 

Forces 

Hearing on 

Equipping, Modernizing, and Sustaining the National 

Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve as an 

Operational Force in a Time of Budget Uncertainty 

March 19, 2013 

Today the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets to 

receive an assessment of the modernization needs, and the equipping and sustainment challenges of the Army National Guard, Air 

National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve. Right now 

the Pentagon is facing cuts levied by Secretary Gates and President Obama, the Budget Control Act of 2011 and its attached sequester, which I opposed, and the constraints of continuing resolutions. Given the current budget uncertainty we face, and the longterm impacts of sequestration to modernization, we believe it necessary to obtain the current views of National Guard and Reserve 

Component senior leaders. 

We welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses: 

• Lieutenant General William Ingram, Jr., Director, Army National Guard; • Lieutenant General Stanley Clarke, Director, Air National 

Guard; • Lieutenant General Jeffrey Talley, Chief, U.S. Army Reserve; and • Lieutenant General James Jackson, Chief, U.S. Air Force 

Reserve. 

The Department has made progress in providing much-needed 

funding to equip the National Guard and Reserve Components, to 

enhance its role as an operational reserve. The major issue will be 

sustaining this funding given the acute national economic challenges we currently face. Congress has not hesitated in trying to 

address the equipment readiness needs we have noted in many 

Guard and Reserve units over the years. 

National Guard and Reserve Component procurement from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2012 has totaled approximately $60.9 billion, averaging almost $6.7 billion per year. Since 2003, Congress 

has authorized a total of approximately $9.2 billion in additional 

funding above the President’s budget requests in a separate, distinct National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. This funding has enjoyed sustained bipartisan support both on this com-
16 

mittee and throughout Congress. We are now faced with the significant challenge of determining the adequacy of Reserve force 

budgets and equipment status during a time of severe fiscal austerity. The questions we are now being forced to ask are, ‘‘Can we 

afford to equip and sustain the National Guard and Reserve Components as an operational force?’’ and ‘‘What is the risk of not doing 

so?’’ 

The Guard and Reserve Components have proven to be an invaluable asset during Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. These past 12 years 

have justified the need for an operational Reserve Component force 

that must be adequately manned, trained, and equipped, rather 

than the Cold War model of a ‘‘strategic reserve.’’ The National 

Guard also has a dual-role responsibility and has to be mission 

ready to rapidly respond to local, State, and Federal emergencies. 

The Guard and Reserve units in my district and the State of Ohio 

have played an invaluable role in combat operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, as well as humanitarian missions here in the United 

States. The 445th Air Lift Wing at Wright-Patterson Air Force 

Base provides strategic transport of personnel and equipment as 

well as aeromedical evacuation capabilities to the warfighter. Air 

National Guard units at Springfield, Rickenbacker, and Mansfield 

as well as the 37th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Columbus, 

have all been very active in supporting the warfighter over the past 

decade of war. 

Without these units our country would not be able to sustain the 

All-Volunteer Force. I am concerned that these current budgetary 

challenges, to include 10 years of arbitrary across-the-board cuts 

resulting from sequestration, will have negative impacts on the 

current operational status of the Guard and Reserve. 
17 

Opening Statement for Congress'PanG'Hra~e'i1dj 

Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Hearing on Army and Air Force 

Reserve Components 

.. Today's hearing builds on many years of effort by this committee to support 

a better-equipped, more-prepared, Army and Air Force reserve components. 

.. SpecificalJy, this subcommittee has led the way over the past 10 years in 

allocating an additional $9.2 billion for reserve component equipment. 

.. This funding, in addition to what was in the budget each year, has helped 

increase levels of equipment, and in particular modernized equipment, 

available to reserve units of all types. 

.. In particular, this extra funding has helped ensure that "critical dual-use" 

equipment - needed for overseas deployments and domestic response 

activities is at close to 90%. 

.. This "dual use" equipment, while not always attracting a lot of attention, 

ensures that National Guard and Reserve units have what they need when 

called upon to respond to a hurricane, forest fire, flood, or other domestic 

emergency. 

.. In short, a better-equipped reserve force is a true "win-win" for the nation. 

We get an operational reserve to help overseas, and a force that helps state 

and local governments here at home in times of crisis. 

.. Simply put - a better-equipped reserve Jurce saves lives. We should 

remember that as resources decline for the DOD. 

.. Beyond assisting local authorities here at home, the National Guard and 

Reserve have evolved into a true "operational reserve" over the past decade. 

.. Across all components, today there are 53,000 members of the reserve on 

active-duty supporting operations around the world. Since 9/1 I, almost one 

million reservists have been called up for various missions. 
18 

• For example, the 13m Reconnaissance Squadron at BeaJe Air Force Base in 

my district supplies a major share of the manpower needed to operate Global 

Hawk UAVs around the world and they do so at low cost compared to 

having to increase active-duty troop numbers. 

.. There are similar units all over the country providing daily support for 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. 

.. And, even as we drawdown our troops in Afghanistan, we will continue to 

need intelligence assets worldwide, so these missions are not going to go 

a"vay any time soon. 

.. In fact, in peacetime We may need more, not less, intelligence collection in 

order to understand what is going on in the world. 

.. The reserves are now a critical part ofthe military's global intelligence 

structure, and without them we can't maintain the capability we have today 

in this area. 

.. So, it is clear that Reserve forces are an integral and part oftoday's military, 

but what about in the future as budgets drop at DOD? 

.. Left on their own, the Army and Air Force will probably seek to 

dramatically cut reserve forces as budgets get tight. 

.. For example, last year the Air Force wanted to eliminate hundreds of aircraft 

and thousands of reserve troops to meet budget cut targets. 

10 While Congress prevented many of those cuts, we now face sequestration. 

10 A critical question Congress should ask itself, and something I hope we 

learn about at today's hearing, is why we shouldn't increase the size of the 

Guard and Reserve instead? 

10 ffDOD funding is being reduced, and the nation needs to keep military 

capability at a lower cost, then investing in increased reserve forces makes a 

great deal of sense. 
19 

• While il is lrue they take time to mobilize, a larger National Guard and 

Reserve is effectively a "discount" insurance policy for the nation. 

• Relying on the National Guard and Reserve to a greater extent may also 

make future President's think twice about starting a war, something that J 

think is appropriate after what the nation has been through wilh the war in 

Iraq that started 10 years ago today. 

• I thank the witnesses for their decades of service 10 the nation, and look 

forward 10 hearing their testimony. 
20 

STATEMENT BY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM E. INGRAM JR. 

DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR & LAND FORCES 

FIRST SESSION, 113TH CONGRESS 

ON 

EQUIPPING, MODERNIZING, & SUSTAINING THE RESERVE 

COMPONENTS 

MARCH 19,2013 

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION 

UNTIL RELEASED BY 

THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 
21 

Opening Remarks 

Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, members of the 

subcommittee; I am honored to appear before you today, representing 

the nearly 356,000 Soldiers in the Army National Guard. For 376 years 

Citizen Soldiers have been central to how the nation defends itself at 

home and abroad. Through resolve and readiness, Army National Guard 

Soldiers deliver essential value to our nation and its communities. 

The men and women of the Army National Guard contribute 

immeasurably to America's security. They have been an integral part of 

the active Army, supporting the National Military Strategy and Army 

commitments worldwide. In more than a decade of fighting two wars, the 

Army National Guard has demonstrated the capacity to conduct every 

mission assigned. Since September 11, 2001, Guard Soldiers have 

completed more than 514,000 mobilizations in support offederal 

missions. Currently, more than 23,000 members are mobilized at 

multiple locations around the world defending our national interests. 

At the same time, the Army National Guard continues to fulfill its 

centuries-old obligations to the communities in which we live and work. 

Guard Soldiers live in nearly every zip code, playing a vital role as the 

military's first responder. In fiscal year 2012 Army Guard members 

served over 447,000 duty days under the control of the nation's 

governors responding to domestic emergencies - and that was, 

historically, a slow year. This current fiscal year, which began with 
22 

Hurricane Sandy, will likely post far higher numbers. The training and 

equipment used to ready the Guard for overseas service has paid 

dividends here in the U.S.; it is the Guard's preparedness for war that 

has made it so effective in responding to domestic emergencies. 

Whether at home or abroad, the National Guard lives up to its 

motto - Always Ready, Always There. 

The Army National Guard of 2013 is the best-manned, besttrained, best-equipped, best-led and most experienced force in its long 

history. This is a direct result of the resourcing and legal authorities that 

Congress has dedicated to this purpose over the past decade-plus of 

conflict. The Army Guard has used those resources wisely, and is an 

operational force that provides capabilities and strategic depth to meet 

U.S. defense and homeland security requirements. The Army National 

Guard complements the active component, ensuring the Total Force 

remains capable of providing trained and ready forces in support of the 

Nation's security strategy. As an operational force, the Guard is 

resourced, trained, ready, and used on a continual basis, conducting the 

full spectrum of military operations in all environments as a part of the 

Total Force. 

If there is a single message I could deliver to you today, it would be 

this: it would be a terrible waste of effort and resources to let this superb 

operational force, built at great expense in blood, sweat and treasure 

over a decade of conflict, atrophy as a result of across-the-board cuts 

2 
23 

that fail to take into mind the value relative to its cost of the Army 

National Guard in meeting America's national defense and domestic 

response needs. 

It only takes a continued modest investment to maintain an 

operational force when compared to the strategic reserve the nation had 

prior to 9/11. But that investment is more than made up for in the 

added responsiveness, flexibility and readiness resident in a reserve 

component where 84 percent of the personnel serve in a part-time status. 

The past decade of conflict has done much to dispel many of the 

myths associated with the National Guard, its role, capabilities, costs, 

and limitations. As the military enters a period of constrained resources 

and the Services conduct their analysis of the proper mix of active and 

reserve forces needed to accomplish national strategic goals, the Army 

National Guard as an operational force offers an effective and efficient 

solution to a wide variety of mission sets. 

Status of the Force 

One persistent false impression is that the Army National Guard is 

a "tired force" whose Soldiers, families and employers are worn out from 

the strain of more than a decade of conflict. No doubt, there has been 

strain. However, the Guard's Soldiers continue to show a strong appetite 

for service, and the Guard's appeal as a winning team that embodies 

selfless service to both nation and community continues to draw 

3 
24 

America's youth to its ranks. The Army National Guard recruitment rate 

is 102% of goal, while the retention rate stands at 94.6% (as of March 5, 

2013). Every member of the Army Guard has either enlisted or reenlisted since September 11, 2001. This is a key point, as today's Guard 

differs from that of the pre-9/ 11 period in that today's Soldiers anticipate 

being deployed abroad in service to their country. 

Indeed, nearly 50 percent of the Soldiers in the Army Guard today 

are veterans of a deployment, many having served mUltiple tours. 

Retaining this core of experience is critical to maintaining an operational 

force, and this year and the next present a particular challenge as the 

large cohort of enlistees that grew the Army National Guard in 2007-8 

comes due for re-enlistment. While bonuses and incentives play an 

important role in deciding to stay in the Guard, the desire for relevant 

training and utilization at home and abroad drew many of these men and 

women to enlist in the first place, and will playa role in their decisions to 

stay. A key component of the operational reserve is that it is a force that 

sees regular use, through a progressive readiness model- such as Army 

Force Generation - that prepares Soldiers and units for deployment every 

five years. This gives Soldiers, their families and civilian employers the 

predictability they need to plan their civilian lives and careers, while 

developing critical military skills exercised through tough, realistic 

training or operational employment. 

4 
25 

Accessibility 

In the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress 

wisely increased the degree of access that the military services have to 

their reserve components for both domestic emergencies and preplanned 

operations. Because the dual federal-state status of the National Guard 

makes it fully accessible to the states, the additional authority granted in 

Title 10, section 12304a for domestic emergencies will likely not be 

exercised for the Army National Guard. The authority granted in Title 

10, section 12304b, however, increases the ways Services can access the 

reserve components for preplanned and budgeted missions to meet 

combatant commander requirements. This authority removed one 

impediment from maintaining an operational reserve that can be flexibly 

employed by combatant commanders as required. An additional benefit 

to this access is the honing of the operational reserve through continued 

employment. There remain no significant statutory barriers to accessing 

the Army National Guard or any of the other reserve components for 

either domestic or overseas missions. 

While the National Guard takes great pride in its militia heritage 

and the service it renders to local communities while under the 

command of the nation's governors, this dual status has never limited 

the federal government's access to Guard units for any mission. By 

established law, the federal government takes priority over the states 

5 
26 

whenever there is a need for Guard forces. The needs of domestic 

response are assured through the careful apportionment of essential 

capabilities to each of the states. This, coupled with the proliferation of 

Emergency Management Assistance Compacts among the states, assures 

that the nation's governors have access to essential capabilities should 

their own National Guard be deployed or otherwise unable to meet the 

demand for a particular capability during a disaster. By way of example, 

21 states provided National Guard forces to the effected region when 

Hurricane Sandy caused massive damage to coastal New York and New 

Jersey late last year. 

When needed, the Army National Guard has always answered the 

call- both at home and abroad. 

An Operational Force for Domestic and Overseas Missions 

The most immediate advantage of an operational force is its 

readiness to conduct thc full spectrum of missions, overseas and 

domestic, when called upon. The Army National Guard has 

demonstrated this capability in full during the conflicts in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, mobilizing units ranging in size from 2-3 man teams to 

3,500-man Brigade Combat Teams to Division headquarters exercising 

command and control over multiple Brigade Combat Teams and 

supporting forces. Guard BCTs performed every mission in Iraq and 

Afghanistan that their active component counterparts performed, to 

6 
27 

include security force, advising and training of host nation military and 

police forces, and full-spectrum operations in both countries. 

In fiscal year 2012, nearly 25,000 Army National Guard Soldiers 

were deployed in support of a multitude of ongoing missions around the 

world. The vast majority, over 21,000, served in support of Operation 

Enduring Freedom, with others serving in the Horn of Africa; in support 

of Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo; in support of the Multinational 

Force and Observers in the Sinai; in Honduras; the Philippines; and 

mobilized for operational missions within the United States. 

While this contribution is noteworthy, there is significantly more 

capacity within the Army National Guard should the nation require. By 

way of recent example, at one point during 2005 over 100,000 were 

deployed and eight of fifteen Brigade Combat Teams in Iraq were Army 

National Guard. Later that same year, with 80,000 Soldiers still 

mobilized overseas, the Army Guard surged more than 50,000 Soldiers in 

the space of a week to deploy to the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane 

Katrina. In summary: in the year in which the Army National Guard 

experienced its largest mobilization since the Korean War, it also 

experienced the largest domestic response in its history. This capacity 

and capability continues to reside in today's Army National Guard, with 

the ability to respond with appropriate notice for overseas missions - or 

no notice for domestic emergencies - when it is resourced as an 

operational force. 

7 
28 

Response time is a critical consideration when determining the 

right mix of forces to meet planned or unanticipated contingencies. The 

past dozen years of war has demonstrated that even the largest Guard 

formations can be trained to standard, validated and deployed well 

within the timelines required by Combatant Commanders. The 

experience of deploying, and deploying repeatedly, over the past decade 

has honed this training regimen and reduced post-mobilization training 

time considerably since 2003. Many companies complete their postmobilization training in approximately 30 days; Army National Guard 

BCTs, large units required to achieve a collective training standard on 

more complex tasks, take a little longer, averaging 50-80 days of postmobilization training. Predictability of scheduled deployments is 

preferable for Soldiers, families and civilian employers, and is key to 

maintaining an operational force in the reserve component. The ability of 

the Army National Guard to respond to worldwide contingencies provides 

tremendous flexibility to the nation as we seek to achieve defense goals 

with a constrained budget. 

Domestic Operations 

In the 2012 calendar year, Citizen Soldiers responded to floods, 

wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and snow storms. The biggest storm of 

2012, Super Storm Sandy, devastated communities along the east coast. 

Guard members from 21 states responded and many remained on duty 

8 
29 

for several weeks. Many who responded live in the communities hardest 

hit by the storm. 

Just a few weeks into 2013, National Guard Soldiers were called 

up to help dig out people in the northeast, where up to 40 inches of snow 

fell during a weekend storm. Our Citizen Soldiers were needed to help 

clear roads of snow and tree limbs and to transport people for medical 

treatment. Guard personnel also assisted crews to restore electric service 

to the 650,000 customers who lost power. 

During 2012, the Army National Guard also provided 44,327 dutydays of support to special events. Most notably, the Guard served during 

both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, as well as 

the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit and the NATO Summit. 

The Army National Guard's support of the Southwest Border 

mission was much lower in 2012 than in previous years. Still, their work 

spanned the 1,933-mile border of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and 

Texas. The current Southwest Border support focuses on criminal 

analysis and aerial detection and monitoring. 

Army National Guard aviation was particularly active in the 

domestic arena, flying more than 7,880 hours supporting Customs and 

Border Protection and assisting in 13,780 apprehensions and the seizure 

of 82,471 pounds of marijuana. Throughout 2012, Army Guard 

helicopters flew more than 30,880 hours for domestic operations, 

9 
30 

transported 6,554 personnel, moved 201,731 pounds of cargo, and 

dropped nearly 6 million gallons of water while extinguishing wildfires. 

Support to Security Cooperation and Building Partner Capacity 

In 2012, the Army National Guard provided approximately 18,575 

Soldiers to support 69 military exercises in 104 countries. The Guard's 

dual mission capability, combined with Soldiers that possess a wide 

variety of civilian, professional, and educational experiences along with 

grass-roots community support, ideally positions it to playa significant 

role in global security cooperation. 

Army National Guard partnership capacity-building activities serve 

to deepen and strengthen a foreign nation or region's positive perception 

of the United States as a valued partner, serving to prevent future 

conflicts. Army National Guard's participation in security cooperation 

programs is unique because the relative stability of a Guard Soldier's 

career, in most cases in a single state, allow that Soldier to forge 

enduring relationships with their foreign counterparts over long periods 

of time. In some cases, the crucial bonds have been cultivated and 

maintained for more than two decades. 

In 2012, 4,200 Army National Guard Soldiers participated in the 

National Guard Bureau's State Partnership Program (SPP) that includes 

65 partnerships and two bilateral agreements with a total of 67 partner 

countries. This program promotes security cooperation activities for 

10 
31 

military-to-military training, disaster response, border and port security, 

medical, and peacekeeping operations. 

This year marks the 20th anniversary of this innovative and highly 

beneficial program, which has yielded immense benefits for the United 

States and partner nations. Administered in cooperation with the US 

Department of State and working hand-in-hand with the Air National 

Guard in each state and leveraging funding from other DOD programs, 

SPP is not strictly an Army program. Nevertheless, the Army Guard's 

extensive experience with the State Partnership Program, and the 

worldwide bonds that it has forged, are a vital element of the Army's 

Regional Alignment of Forces concept. 

The commitment of SPP partner countries has been sustained and 

durable throughout the past decade of conflict. Twenty-seven SPP 

partner countries have deployed alongside Guard Soldiers in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. At the close of fiscal year 2012 there were 20 SPP partner 

countries contributing more than 8,500 troops in Afghanistan. 

Guardsmen possess a range of valuable professional skills and 

expertise acquired as civilians. Within the ranks of the Army National 

Guard are first responders (firefighters, law enforcement, emergency 

medical technicians, and analysts), medical professionals, legal 

professionals, engineers, agricultural specialists, educators, mechanics, 

and plumbers. The combination of these skills civilian acquired skills 

with individual and collective military expertise uniquely postures Guard 

11 
32 

formations to accomplish missions requiring smart power skills. A 

prime example is the innovative Agribusiness Development Teams (ADTs) 

currently employed in Afghanistan. 

Agribusiness Development Teams provide training and advice 

aimed at supplementing current Afghan farming practices by introducing 

advanced techniques and new, profitable crops. These teams are making 

significant contributions to Afghanistan's economy and achieving 

sustainable, yearly growth of the nation's economic output. As a result of 

the ADTs, Afghanistan has increased harvests of apples, grapes, 

pomegranates, cherries, almonds, wheat, corn, alfalfa, and saffron. 

Since the ADT program was implemented, 49 teams, consisting of 

2,995 personnel, have contributed to more than 680 agriculture projects 

generating more than $42M for the people of Afghanistan. Currently, 

seven ADTs, are serving in Afghanistan. These teams are comprised of 

Soldiers from Kentucky, Indiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Georgia, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina - all states with large agricultural 

sectors. 

Maintaining the Operational Force: Resourcing 

Resources remain the principal reason why the Army National 

Guard is now an operational force, and will determine whether it stays 

that way. Resources have allowed the Army Guard to reach its 

authorized end strength levels and retain valued experience in the ranks. 

12 
33 

Resources have allowed us to take care of families, promote resiliency, 

and provide post-deployment reintegration services. Resources have 

permitted the Guard to achieve individual and unit proficiency with 

advanced training devices and simulations, attend Army schools, and 

participate in live and constructive exercises at the Army's premier 

training centers. They have allowed the Guard to surge personnel on 

active duty in order to better prepare units for scheduled deployments. 

They have equipped the Guard to a higher level of modernized equipment 

on hand than at any time in its history. 

Quite simply, the Army National Guard can only be as ready as it 

is resourced to be. The Guard will achieve desired levels of 

responsiveness if properly resourced - and it will do so by maximizing 

taxpayers' investment in programs directly contributing to Army National 

Guard readiness and a laser-like focus on proper stewardship of those 

funds. 

Maintaining the Operational Force: Medical Readiness 

Medical Readiness is a crucial requirement to maintaining the 

Army National Guard as an operational force. Every Soldier in the Guard, 

by law, must be assigned to a position in a unit. The Army Guard does 

not have a holding account similar to the active Army's to manage a 

significant volume of non-medically ready Soldiers. Nonetheless, the 

Army National Guard has made great strides in improving medical 

13 
34 

readiness. Fully medically ready Soldiers are the key to ready and 

relevant units. The Army Guard improved from a fully medically ready 

percentage of 41 % in 2007, to 77% by the end of FY 2012. That's the 

highest percentage of medical readiness ever recorded. However, this is 

an area where readiness will rapidly slip as sequestration will make it 

challenging for the Army Guard from performing 115,000 annual health 

assessments this year. 

Maintaining the Operational Force: Support to Soldiers and Families 

Soldiers join the Army National Guard for many reasons. One 

thing they all have in common is the desire to scrvc ... a desire to be part 

of a winning team, a force for good in this world. The National Guard 

represents this. 

Adequate pay, benefits, training and other incentives play an 

important role for those deciding to enlist or reenlist in the Army Guard. 

Important benefits include Tri-Care Reserve Select, educational 

assistance, commissary access, legal assistance, life insurance, Thrift 

Savings Plan, home loans for veterans, and morale programs such as 

recreation facilities and Space Available travel. 

People are the Guard's most precious resource. Nowhere can the 

Guard demonstrate this principle more strongly than in the effort it 

devotes to suicide prevention. This has been a persistent challenge for 

the Army Guard, since leaders typically only see the majority of their 

14 
35 

Soldiers during a single drill weekend each month. This limits a leader's 

ability to intervene in a crisis. That's why the Army Guard is focusing on 

training and programs to increase resilience, reduce risk and increase 

leadership awareness. These programs are intended to enhance coping 

skills in Soldiers, their families, and the civilian work force - skills with 

an application to everyday life as well as the military. 

The Army National Guard established a Master Resilience Trainer 

(MRT) Course at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin in July 2011, later adding a 

second course, in order to quickly increase the number of fully qualified 

MRTs able to serve their fellow Soldiers. By establishing these courses, 

the Army National Guard expects to meet the base requirement of 3,532 

by the end of this fiscal year. This base requirement represents one MRT 

for every company across the Army Guard. Through this program, we 

touch every Soldier and teach fundamental resilience skills to the force. 

The Army National Guard also trained 334 Applied Suicide 

Intervention Skills Training (ASIST) program trainers in FYIl. An 

additional 150 ASIST trainers were trained in FYI2. These trainers will 

train approximately 35,000 gatekeepers in advanced intervention skills. 

In late 2011, the Army National Guard teamed with the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, as well as the Air National 

Guard, to launch a highly successful peer support line, Vets4Warriors. 

The peer support line serves all Army National Guard and Reserve 

Component members nationwide. As the foundation of each Soldier's 

15 
36 

support network, Army National Guard families are being trained to 

assist in identifying high-risk individuals. States have capitalized on 

community-based resources and solutions to provide services outside of 

military installations. 

The Army National Guard has been, and remains, deeply 

concerned with the civilian employment status of its Soldiers. The ability 

of Guard Soldiers to gain and maintain civilian employment is essential 

to the Army National Guard as an operational force. Furthermore, 

employment challenges extend beyond returning mobilized Soldiers; the 

Guard continues to work diligently to find solutions to assist its 

geographically dispersed popUlation. 

The Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 2011 mandates 

the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for all Soldiers separating from 

a Title 10 active duty tour of more than 180 days. The Army National 

Guard is working closely with the Department of the Army and OSD, 

including on the Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force to 

implement the transition mandates set forth in the legislation. The goal 

is to enhance and increase participation of Guard members in an array 

of employment assistance programs made available by the Army and the 

Department of Defense. 

Additionally, the Army National Guard offers several national 

programs to assist the states with their local employment programs. The 

National Guard Employment Network helps states that need resources to 

16 
37 

people find employment, and to help companies hire outstanding 

candidates for success. The Network partners with private companies, 

and also helps Guard Soldiers and family members write resumes, 

develop interview skills and dress for success. 

Similarly, the Job Connection Education Program assists Guard 

Soldiers and family members in researching, obtaining, and retaining 

civilian employment. It provides support services such as job skills 

training, workshops, and job search assistance with positions offered by 

more than 400 established business partners. This started as a pilot 

program in Texas, but has expanded to Iowa, Wisconsin and Tennessee. 

The program has helped 2,100 Army Guard Soldiers or family members 

secure employment, including 55 last month in Texas alone. Many of 

these jobs are in the financial and information technology sectors, and 

offer professional positions that feature good salaries and benefits. 

Maintaining the Operational Force: Equipping the Force 

The Army National Guard has received significant investments in 

its equipment over the last few years, increasing Equipment on Hand 

(EOH), Critical Dual-Use (CDU) equipment, and the overall 

modernization level. 

Army National Guard EOH for Modified Table of Organization units 

is currently at 88 percent, an increase from 85 percent two years ago. 

Overall CDU EOH is 90 percent, an increase from 86 percent two years 

17 
38 

ago and a significant increase from 65 percent at the time of the 

Hurricane Katrina response in 2005. Of the 88 percent EOH, 83 percent 

is currently at home station (not mobilized) and considered available for 

domestic operations. Of the total quantity of equipment authorized, 70 

percent is on-hand and considered modernized, while 18 percent of the 

on-hand equipment is not modern. 

While modernization levels overall are good, and within 1 percent 

of active component levels, there are nevertheless areas of concern. The 

Army Guard's UH-60 Blackhawk fleet is the oldest in the Army. HMMWV 

Recapitalization and general engineering equipment are additional areas 

of concern for modernization. Some of the items under consideration for 

potential purchase with procurement funds include Decontamination 

Trailers and Radiological Protection Kits, Virtual Convoy Operations 

Trainers and Close Combat Tactical Trainers, Hydraulic Excavators and 

fuel systems to extend the range on CH-47 and UH-60 helicopters. 

Equipment reset field and depot level maintenance - is another 

area of concern. Currently, the Department of the Army is developing 

strategies and plans for the way forward as it copes with cuts in 

maintenance due to sequestration. As it currently stands, approximately 

1,000 pieces of Army Guard equipment will not enter Automatic Reset 

Induction during FY13. At this time the Guard has eight brigades and 

450 units expecting reset. The brigades impacted hail from Minnesota, 

Oklahoma, Ohio, Hawaii, New York, Missouri, and two from Texas. The 

18 
39 

Army's reset priorities are driven by the readiness requirements of units 

that are next to deploy, the global response force, and forward-deployed 

units. Since Army Guard units can only fall in the "next to deploy" 

category, there is the potential over time that Guard units would not 

receive reset equipment until it is time to deploy. As fewer units deploy, 

the equipment reset backlog increases over time. 

Maintaining the Operational Force: Aviation 

In the broader category of equipment, sustaining the Army 

National Guard as an Operational Force depends upon having the same 

equipment as the active component, including rotary wing aircraft. The 

Army National Guard currently has 1,277 rotary wing aircraft against an 

authorized fleet of 1,394 aircraft. The inventory includes a mix of the 

most modern capabilities (AH-64D Block II Longbow Apaches, CH-47F 

Chinooks, UHjHH-60M Black Hawks and UH-72A Lakotas), older but 

capable airframes (AH -46D Block I Apaches, CH -4 7D Chinooks, UH60AjL Black Hawks, and OH-58D Kiowa Warriors) and 98 legacy aircraft 

(OH-58AjC Kiowas and AH-64A Apaches). 

Programmed Army procurements will ensure the Army National 

Guard fleets are modernized on pace with the other components, except 

in the case of the Black Hawk fleet. Even in 2020, only 25% of the Army 

National Guard Black Hawk fleet will be equipped with the new UHjHH19 
40 

60M. Rotary wing aircraft remain a Critical Dual-Use asset whether 

mobilizing for the warfight or responding to domestic emergencies. 

Due to the fiscal environment, the Army will accelerate divestiture 

of the C-23 Sherpa by 15 months, with a likely completion in September 

2013. The C-27J was originally scheduled to replace the C-23. In 2009 

the Department of Defense transferred the aircraft and cargo direct 

support mission to the USAF. Subsequently, the Army determined there 

was no longer a requirement for the C-23 and began divesting the 

aircraft in 2011. 

To date the Army Guard has divested 8 of 42 aircraft. This month 

the Army determined that accelerating the divestiture will yield roughly 

$34M in cost savings through 2014 that could then be applied to other 

priorities. Though losing this capability is difficult, recognition of the 

current fiscal environment causes the Army Guard to accept the C-23 

divestiture. 

Maintaining the Operational Force: Installations 

The Army National Guard has facilities in more than 3,000 

communities. In many towns and cities these facilities are the only 

military presence, with the Guard serving as the most visible link 

between hometown America and the nation's armed forces. Providing 

quality facilities across 50 States, three Territories and the District of 

Columbia has been an on-going challenge. While the Army National 

20 
41 

Guard transformed from a strategic reserve to an operational force 

during more than a decade of deployments, many facilities have not been 

updated in several generations. Currently, more than 46 percent of Army 

Guard readiness centers are over 50 years old. Many fail to fully meet the 

needs of a 21st century operational force, cannot easily accommodate 

modern equipment and technology, are poorly situated, and are energy 

inefficient. Facilities are critical to readiness and support unit 

administration, training, equipment maintenance, and storage. They 

serve as platforms for mobilization during times of war as well as 

command centers and shelters during domestic emergencies. 

This wide array of use makes Military Construction and Facilities 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization funding a critical matter 

directly impacting unit readiness and morale, continuity of operations 

and interagency partnership, and community awareness. 

Closing Remarks 

With our nation operating during an era of budgetary pressure, the 

Army National Guard is structured for success in the future. With 

committed Citizen Soldiers as our foundation, the Army National Guard 

presents tremendous value to the nation at large and within American 

communities where we live, work and serve. A flexible force serving our 

citizens for 376 years, the Guard's history shows that it has always 

adapted to change in America and around the world and risen to the 

21 
42 

challenge. The last decade-plus of war has demonstrated these traits in 

full: we are ready; we are accessible; we are capable; we are eager to 

serve. 

We stand ready, as always, to take on any mission. 

22 
43 

National Guard Bureau 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM E. INGRAM, JR. 

Director, Army National Guard 

Lieutenant General William E. Ingram, Jr. is the Director, Army National Guard. He guides the 

formulation, development and implementation of all programs and policies affecting the Army 

National Guard; a force of over 350,000 Soldiers in the 54 States, Territories and the District of 

Columbia. 

General Ingram received his commission in 1972 as a Distinguished Graduate through Officer 

Candidate School, North Carolina Military Academy at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He has 

commanded United States, United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in 

Croatia, Macedonia and Kosovo and has taken leading roles in homeland security and disaster 

response at home. General Ingram previously served as Chairman of the Army Reserve Forces 

Policy Committee (ARFPC). He served as The Adjutant General, North Carolina for over nine 

years. General Ingram's most recent assignment was as Special Assistant to the Vice Chief of 

Staff, Army. 
44 

EDUCATION: 

1970 North Carolina State University, Bachelor of Science, Textile Chemistry, Raleigh, North 

Carolina 

1983 United States Air Force Joint Firepower Control Course, United States Air Force Ground 

Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida 

1988 Terrorism in Low Intensity Conflict Course, John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and 

School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina 

1993 Reserve Components National Security Course, National Defense University, Naval Air 

Station, Pensacola, Florida 

1997 United States Army War College, by correspondence 

2002 Black Sea Security Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

2007 Executive Course on National and International Security, George Washington University, 

Washington, District of Columbia 

2010 University of North Carolina, Army Strategic Leadership Development ProgramIntermediate, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 

ASSIGNMENTS: 

1. June 1972 - June 1973, Platoon Leader, Company A, 1 st Battalion, 119th Infantry, Wilson, 

North Carolina 

2. June 1973 - August 1975, Platoon Leader (Mortar), Detachment 2, Company B (-), 1st 

Battalion, 119th Infantry, Woodland, North Carolina 

3. August 1975 - December 1976, Platoon Leader (Rifle), Detachment 2, Company B (-), 1st 

Battalion, 119th Infantry, Woodland, North Carolina 

4. December 1976 - February 1979, Executive Officer, Company B (-), 1st Battalion, 119th 

Infantry, Williamston, North Carolina 

5. February 1979 - November 1982, Commander, Company B (-), 1st Battalion, 119th Infantry, 

Williamston, North Carolina 

6. December 1982 - July 1984, S-3 Air, 1st Battalion, 119th Infantry, Ahoskie, North Carolina 

7. August 1984 - December 1985, S-4, 1st Battalion, 119th Infantry, Ahoskie, North Carolina 

8. January 1986 March 1988, S-3, 1st Battalion, 119th Infantry, Ahoskie, North Carolina 

9. March 1988 - July 1991, Assistant S-3, 30th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized) (Separate), 

Clinton, North Carolina 

10. August 1991 - February 1995, Commander, 1st Battalion, 119th Infantry, Ahoskie, North 

Carolina 

11. February 1995 - April 1997, Rear Operations Officer, 139th Support Detachment, Morrisville, 

North Carolina 

12. May 1997 - August 1997, Commander, 139th Support Detachment, Morrisville, North 

Carolina 

13. August 1997 - February 1998, Commander, Task Force Pershing, Camp Sava North, 

Siavonski Brod, Croatia 

14. February 1998 - July 1998, Commander, 139th Support Detachment, Morrisville, North 

Carolina 

15. August 1998 - February 1999, Commander, 60th Troop Command, Rocky Mount, North 

Carolina 

16. February 1999 - May 1999, Chief of Staff, United Nations Preventative Deployment 

(UNPREDEP), Skopje, Macedonia 

17. May 1999 - August 1999, Commander, Task Force Sabre, Camp Able Sentry, Petrovec, 
45 

Macedonia 

18. August 1999 - October 1999, Commander, 60th Troop Command, Rocky Mount, North 

Carolina 

19. October 1999 - July 2001, State Training Officer, Headquarters, State Area Regional 

Command, Raleigh, North Carolina 

20. July 2001 - September 2010, The Adjutant General, North Carolina, Joint Force 

Headquarters, Raleigh, North Carolina 

21. October 2010 - November 2011, Special Assistant to the Vice Chief of Staff, Army, 

Pentagon, Washington, District of Columbia 

22. November 2011 Present, Director, Army National Guard, Pentagon, Washington, District of 

Columbia 

AWARDS AND DECORATIONS: 

Legion of Merit 

Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters) 

Army Commendation Medal (with 1 Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster) 

Army Achievement Medal 

Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (with 1 Silver and 1 Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster) 

National Defense Service Medal (with Bronze Service Star) 

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 

Kosovo Campaign Medal (with 2 Bronze Service Stars) 

Global War on Terrorism Service Medal 

Armed Forces Service Medal 

Humanitarian Service Medal 

Armed Forces Reserve Medal (with Gold Hourglass and M Device) 

Army Service Ribbon 

Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon (with Numeral 8) 

United Nations Medal (UNPREDEP) 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal (Yugoslavia) (with 1 Bronze Star) 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal (Kosovo) 

The Brotherhood of Arms Award (Republic of Moldova) 

Army Superior Unit Award 

Air Assault Badge 

Army Staff Identification Badge 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION: 

Second Lieutenant ARNG 24 June 1972 

First Lieutenant ARNG 23 June 1975 

Captain ARNG 4 May 1979 

Major ARNG 31 January 1986 

Lieutenant Colonel ARNG 1 August 1991 

Colonel ARNG 2 May 1997 

Brigadier Genera! ARNG 16 July 2001 

Major General ARNG 27 June 2003 

Lieutenant General ARNG 14 November 2011 
46 

STATEMENT BY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL STANLEY E. CLARKE III 

DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR & LAND FORCES 

FIRST SESSION, 113TH CONGRESS 

ON 

EQUIPPING, MODERNIZING, & SUSTAINING THE RESERVE 

COMPONENTS 

MARCH 19, 2013 

NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION 

UNTIL RELEASED BY 

THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITIEE 
47 

Opening Statement 

Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Sanchez, members of the 

subcommittee; I am honored to appear before you today, representing the men 

and women of our nation's Air National Guard. 

I wish to take this opportunity to update you on status of your Air 

National Guard, specifically, the status of the men and women that are the 

foundation of the Air Guard, the condition of their equipment, the impact of 

current fiscal uncertainty, and finally, a look to the future and how the Air 

National Guard can help secure our nation. 

Personnel 

The men and women of the Air National Guard (ANG) continue to prove 

their value to America and remain our top priority together with their families 

and employers. As of last week, the Air Guard had filled over 562,000 Overseas 

Contingency Operation positions since 9/11, with an 87% volunteer rate. 

Currently there are 2,290 Guard Airmen deployed around the globe performing 

a myriad of tasks including Overseas Contingency Operations, counterdrug, 

support to the National Science Foundation expeditions in Antarctica, and 

routine operational missions supporting national security. Even as the war in 

Afghanistan draws down, the men and women of the Air Guard continue to 

volunteer to serve. 

At home, Guard Airmen have responded to countless local and national 

emergencies. Whether helping in local search and rescue operations, securing 

vital state infrastructure, or helping orchestrate the national response to 

Hurricane Sandy, your Guard men and women can be relied upon to bring 

manpower, dedication, professionalism, organization, and resourcefulness to 

any call for help. 

As of 8 March 2013, ANG end-strength was 104,204 - 1,496 under 

authorized. Throughout FY2013, Air Guard recruiters met or exceeded monthly 

enlistment and officer accession goals, but monthly losses were higher than 

expected resulting in the current under-strength. The ANG is implementing a 

number of short-term and long-term resolutions. First, recruiting goals have 

been increased to account for the increased unexpected losses. To assist the 

1 
48 

local recruiters, the ANG has also increased the number of bonus/incentiveeligible career fields and expanded the pre-qualified officer database. Long-term 

initiatives include providing state leadership with local recruiting and retention 

production statistics for accountability, and the introduction of the Career 

Motivation Program for commanders to utilize Unit Career Advisors and periodic 

interviews/surveys to identify loss trends and facilitate retcntion of critical skill 

sets. Overall, I am very confident in our ability to not only meet end-strength 

but to recruit and retain the skill sets necessary to perform at the level the 

nation asks of its Air Guardsmen. 

Unfortunately, the ANG struggles with many of the same personnel 

challenges as the other Services, including the tragedies of suicide and sexual 

assault. The Air Guard family is united in their efforts to overcome these 

challenges. 

Since 2010, the ANG has implemented the ANG Psychological Health 

Program, which places Wing Directors of Psychological Health at 89 wings to 

support wing personnel resiliency efforts, including Comprehensive Airman 

Fitness, suicide prevention, and wingman culture. ANG has implemented the 

ANG Community Action Information Board (CAIB) and integrated Delivery 

System (IDS) to provide a forum for the cross-organizational review and 

resolution of individual, family, installation, and community issues that impact 

the readiness of the force and the quality of life of our Airmen and their 

families. 

The Air National Guard has joined the Air Force in a multifaceted 

campaign of zero tolerance for sexual harassment and assault in the Total Air 

Force. In Deccmber, at the direction of the Secretary of Air Force, the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force conducted a meeting with all Regular Air Force wing 

commanders with the intent of focusing their awareness on creating an 

environment for our Airmen to work in that enables them to accomplish the 

mission "with honor and distinction." This meeting was followed with an 

assessment of all work areas throughout the Air Force to discover, correct and 

deter conditions detrimental to proper standards of readiness and to ensure 

military fitness and good order and discipline. 

In January, the Air National Guard followed suit with its own initiative 

mirrored after the steps taken by the Air Force. The Take A Stand - Make A 

2 
49 

Difference campaign began with bringing in Air National Guard wing 

commanders and refocusing them on changing the culture within the Air 

National Guard. Commanders were made aware of unprofessional behavior and 

workplace environments which, as General Welsh has said, "are leading 

indicators of sexual assault and other behavior and performance issues." The 

January meeting was followed with a request for wing commanders to conduct 

an assessment of their units, similar to the one ordered throughout the Air 

Force. The overall intent of the Air National Guard's Take A Stand Make A 

Difference campaign is to build on the distinctive heritage of the Air National 

Guard versus bringing forward outdated practices of unprofessional behavior 

that have negatively marked its history. The Air National Guard leadership 

views sexual assault to be as detrimental to mission effectiveness as shortfall in 

equipment readiness and modernization 

Air National Guard Equipment 

The preponderance of equipment in the ANG can be used for both state 

domestic missions and support for civil authorities as well as federal missions. 

The Total Force relationship between the Air Force and the Reserve Component 

has resulted in similar equipping levels. Currently, the ANG has 91 percent of 

all authorized equipment. Though there has been a reduction in authorized 

equipment due to mission changes and unit associations, approximately 88 

percent of all the authorized ANG equipment has a valid use in both federal and 

domestic support operations - what is termed "dual-use" equipment. 

The ANG also benefits from the Air Force's general guidelines to use 

mostly active Air Force equipment in support of overseas contingency 

operations (OCO). Currently, 1.6 percent of ANG equipment is deployed in 

support of OCO. Another 0.7 percent of ANG equipment is deployed 

throughout the 54 states, territories and the District of Columbia in support of 

domestic operations. 

The advancing age of some ANG equipment could result in difficulties 

meeting ANG domestic support responsibilities. In addition, greater than 25 

percent of ANG vehicles have exceeded or will soon meet the end of their useful 

economic life, including aircraft maintenance vehicles, refueling trucks, 

firefighting, heavy maintenance and snow removal vehicles. 

3 
50 

There is, however, an important distinction between equipping levels and 

the modernization required in order to remain relevant in today's changing 

environment. Though equipping levels for the federal mission remain high, the 

quality and sustainability of the equipment is rapidly decreasing as the ANG 

possesses the oldest equipment in the Air Force inventory. The Air National 

Guard maintains the oldest "block 30" variant of the F-16 and has the 

preponderance of the C-130H fleet while the active duty is recapitalizing to an 

all C-130J fleet. The ANG also operates unique aircraft such as the RC-26 for 

counterdrug operations. 

Basic ANG equipment requirements are determined through a Total 

Force process to determine standard support equipment requirements for 

federal missions. Once valid requirements have been established, those 

requirements are filled based on the mission priority of the unit and weapon 

system. Most funding comes from the annual Defense budget process, with 

other funding coming from Air Force central agencies for support items that are 

interchangeable across the Air Force enterprise, such as personal protective 

equipment, communications equipment and some vehicles. The ANG has been 

aggressive in seeking other funding sources to replace items that have been 

expended supporting federal and domestic missions, or to modernize equipment 

to ensure its reliability and interoperability. 

The procurement funds that Congress provides have made a significant 

impact on our ability to support both the war fighter and civil authorities. We 

strive to use these funds as efficiently as possible by pursuing lower cost 80 

percent solutions to the immediate needs of our war fighters at about 25 

percent of the cost -- needs that are identified directly by our war fighters and 

first responders out of our weapons and tactics classes. 

The Air Guard used National Guard and Reserve Equipment account 

(NGREA) funding to modernize the Block 30 F-16, the backbone protecting 

America's skies. 

Specialized missions such as Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 

Team (WMD-CST), Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear High Explosive 

(CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP), and the Homeland 

Response Force (HRF) use equipment and other non-dual-use equipment for 

emergencies or response to major disasters. Their funding is based on using a 

4 
51 

combination of Army, Army National Guard, Air Force, and ANG appropriations, 

along with Defense Department appropriations (e.g., the Chemical and 

Biological Defense Program (CBDP) funds. The National Guard Bureau 

continues to work with the Department of Defense to pursue modernization for 

equipment used by domestic response teams as technology evolves. 

For the past three years, the ANG has emphasized modernization, 

upgrades, and procurement in two broad areas, communications and 

firefighting. These efforts were focused in both combat operations and domestic 

operations. In communications, the ANG sought to leverage networks and data 

links to bring current information and data directly to aircraft cockpits and 

Battlefield Airmen Joint Terminal Air Controller/Tactical Air Control 

Party /Parachute jumper (JTACs/TACPs/PJs), improve situational awareness 

for air defense operations, provide a common operational picture for Joint Force 

Headquarters-State, and provide capability to bridge communications between 

military and civil authorities. In firefighting, the ANG brought aboard an 

improved Mobile Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS-2) in time for the 

CY2012 wildfire season and purchased upgraded and newer firefighting 

vehicles, protective equipment, and equipment for rescue operations. 

With the need to fully fund ongoing operations and continued pressure 

on defense budgets, obtaining adequate funding for procuring equipment and 

modernization efforts is a challenge. By supporting annual procurement 

funding requests, the ANG will be able to modernize legacy platforms and 

equipment to remain an equal and effective partner in the Total Force 

Enterprise, as well as allow the ANG to provide support to civil authorities. It 

must also be noted that with ongoing Total Force Integration actions, the overall 

authorizations and on-hand balances continue to shrink, resulting in fewer 

equipment items in the availability ratios for ANG support to civil authorities. 

Despite the shrinking budgets and equipment balances, the ANG will continue 

to strive to adapt and meet the needs of the combatant commanders for combat 

and combat support forces and of our states for support of domestic operations. 

The ANG is fully engaged at all levels in operations in Afghanistan as well as in 

operations Gatekeeper, Hold-the-Line and Safeguard, directly defending our 

homeland. We are ready to respond to any tasking with fully mission-ready 

professionals equipped with capable, yet aging, weapon systems. 

5 
52 

Impact of Budget Uncertainty 

The current budget uncertainties are having a direct negative impact 

upon ANG personnel readiness and equipment readiness and modernization. 

As the Committee is well aware, since 1 October 2012, the Department of 

Defense (DoD) has operated under a Continuing Resolution (CR) scheduled to 

expire on 27 March 2013. The CR distribution of funds is based on FY 2012 

levels and did not account for the ANG's higher than normal Weapons Systems 

Sustainment (WSS) depot-level maintenance inductions in the first two quarters 

of the fiscal year. 

To minimize the effect of the shortfall, the ANG is taking precise, 

measured steps by reducing flying hours, Base Operating Support (BOS) 

funding and rescheduling WSS depot maintenance. Meanwhile, the ANG will 

ensure critical flying missions are funded such as Aerospace Control Alert 

(ACA), Search and Rescue, Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS), 

and Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) pre-deployment activities. 

Separate, but compounding the challenges of the CR, Sequestration will 

have immediate and significant negative impacts on the operational readiness 

and capabilities of ANG forces across all federal and domestic missions. The 

worst case scenario for FY 2013 would be sequestration combined with a 

continuing resolution that extends through the rest of the fiscal year without a 

reallocation of Department of Defense funds to the right accounts. 

Sequestration actions effecting personnel, equipment, training and facilities will 

all factor in a rapid reduction in combat capability, combat ready forces and, by 

extension, reduce capability and capacity for homeland defense, homeland 

security and domestic response. 

The effects of the Continuing Resolution and Sequestration will be felt 

long after the immediate impact. Civilian furloughs reduce manpower available 

at the unit level to maintain equipment, which in turn reduces readiness. The 

impact is more acute in the ANG because Title 32 guardsmen in Technician 

status are civilian employees subject to furlough, unlike their Title 10 Active 

Component counterparts. Modernization will suffer as funding becomes more 

competitive to obtain. Delays in WSS will cause a back-log; a back-log which 

will take a considerable time to resolve given limitation on throughput at the 

6 
53 

depots. Similarly, delays in personnel training, especially formal school 

training, will delay the Air Guard's ability to transition units to new missions for 

years. 

The Future of the Air National Guard 

As we build the Total Air Force of the future, it is essential to build 

capabilities that meet the advanced technologies potential adversaries might 

bring to a conflict. Futurists predict that the proliferation of technology will 

mean that US forces will face a plethora of long-range precision weapons and 

sophisticated air defense networks - the environment in which the B-2, F-22, 

F-35, and the next generation bomber are designed to operate. I believe it is 

equally important, even in a world driven by Moore's Law, that we not forget the 

lessons of the past. History tells us that high technology capabilities are not 

always the sole solution to security challenges. More often, the answer is 

capacity in combination with capability. During the Korean War the USAF 

deployed its newest jet fighters only to learn that what it needed most was large 

numbers of World War II vintage P-51 Mustangs for close air support. 

Similarly, during the first Gulf War, the nation marveled at the capabilities of 

the F-1l7, but it was the B-52, A-lO, F-15, and F-16 that were the workhorses 

of the effort. The principal lesson of the past is that we cannot predict the 

future; the best we can do is to instill versatility and flexibility into our 

planning. 

Do not misunderstand, I believe the capabilities of the latest air, space, 

and cyberspace technology are essential to the future security of the US, but I 

also believe capacity is equally important for it is capacity that permits mUltiple 

simultaneous actions in different parts of the world, and it is capacity that 

allows for extended actions without over stressing the men and women in 

uniform and their families. Recognizing that capacity is often as expensive 

capability, the question becomes, how do we sustain both capability and 

capacity in an era of austerity? The simple answer is investment in the Air 

Reserve Components of the Air Force. 

A recent RAND study by Al Robbert examined the total costs of active 

duty (AD), Air Force Reserve (AFR), and Air National Guard (ANG) F-16 and 

C-130 units. The study, while still in draft, concluded that while the cost of 

7 
54 

employing the three components was similar, the cost per aircraft and the cost 

per flying hour were significantly less in the reserve components (RC). 

C-130 Cost per Flying Cost per PMAI 

Hour 

Active Air Force $18,770,349 $24,179 

Air Force Reserve $9,394,071 $21,365 --

Air National Guard $8,427,894 $20,926 

F-16 

Active Air Force $8,398,198 $29,190 

Air Force Reserve $6,356,380 $22,406 

Air National Guard $4,626,238 $22,296 

There have been two major post-war draw-downs in recent history. The 

first occurred in the 1970's as the Vietnam War was drawing to a close. The 

second was in the 1990s at the end of the Cold War. In 1970, Sccrctary of 

Defense Melvin B. Laird put his faith in the Reserve Components and created 

the Total Force that served the nation through the end of the Cold War. 

In 1990, our Air Force faced challenges not unlike those of today. And, 

the threats to national security and interest had not gone away with the fall of 

the Berlin Wall, in fact, the future looked just as unknown and ominous as it 

does today. First, there was a new strategy shifting focus from the Soviet Union 

to major regional conflicts. There was growing concern about the security 

implications of a possible breakup of the Soviet Union; economic, political, and 

geographic expansion of China; and, new challenges in the Middle East. The 

U.S. was trying to get the budget deficit under control- at that time it was 

sequestration under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and 

Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Faced with significant budget cuts and 

amorphous but growing threats abroad, Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice 

decided to follow Secretary Laird's lead from the 1970s. As Secretary Rice wrote 

in his 1990 Report to Congress: 

"The Air Force Total Force policy, formalized in 1973, has evolved to the 

current policy for a mix of Active and Reserve component forces, using all 

available assets, to ensure that maximum military capability is achieved at 

8 
55 

minimum cost. We intend to allow as much force structure growth in the Air 

Reserve Component (ARC) as possible while maintaining a realistic balance 

between the ability of the Guard and Reserve to absorb that growth and the 

ability of the Active force to meet peacetime and contingency tasking." 1 

It was the Air Force that Secretary Rice built that maintained Northern 

and Southern Watch after operation Desert Storm. This Air Force, built upon 

heavy reliance on the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, also responded 

to the crisis in Bosnia and Kosovo, fought Operation Enduring Freedom and 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Air Guard KC-135s were the first on the scene for 

Operation Odyssey Dawn protecting Libyan civilians. Secretary Rice's Total Air 

Force also responded to numerous humanitarian crises around the world 

including Pakistan, Japan, Haiti, and here at home. 

The future of the Total Air Force is not just about aircraft and other 

equipment; it is about people - our most valuable asset. As the Air Force 

adjusts to post-Afghanistan and fiscal realities, we in the ANG urge Air Force 

leadership to remember that its Reserve Components are not only warehouses 

of combat ready equipment but combat ready personnel as well. We need to 

ensure that as highly educated, trained, experienced men and women leave 

active duty they have somewhere to go; somewhere to continue to serve their 

nation. In FY2011-2012, 777 pilots, most with combat experience and all with 

many years of service ahead of them, separated from active duty. One-third of 

them chose to continue serving their country as Guard Airmen. What if there 

was no place for them to go? What if the ANG and Air Force Reserve had no 

place for those leaving active duty to continue to use their skills in service of the 

nation? 

Closing Remarks 

I believe that working together we can build a Total Air Force equal to all 

the challenges our nation faces. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you, and for 

allowing me the honor to represent the outstanding men and women of your Air 

National Guard. 

I The United Slates Air Force Report to the 101'1 Congress of the United States, Fiscal Year 1991 

9 
56 

BIOGRAPHY 

STA ES .F R 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL STANLEY E. CLARKE III 

Lt Gen. Stanley E. Clarke HI is Commander, 

Continental U.S. North American Aerospace 

Defense Command Region - 1st Air Force (Air 

Forces Northern), Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. His 

command comprises four direct reporting units, 10 

aligned Air National Guard units, and a large 

number of active air defense alert sites--including 

aircraft, air defense artillery, and up to 15,000 

active duty, National Guard, Air Force Reserve 

and civilian personnel. First Air Force falls under 

Air Combat Command and is responsible for the 

operational readiness of assigned and attached 

U.S. Air Force forces. As the Joint Force Air 

Component Commander for North American 

Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern 

Command, General Clarke develops contingency 

plans and conducts full-spectrum U.S. Air Force air 

and space operations in CONUS, Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as over the 

maritime approaches to the U.S. 

General Clarke was commissioned in 1981 as a 

distinguished graduate of the ROTC program at 

the University of Georgia. He has served in various 

operational and staff assignments including duty as an A-10 instructor pilot and F-16 instructor pilot. He has 

commanded a squadron, fighter wing and air expeditionary wing. He has served as the Deputy Director of 

the Air National Guard and as the Assistant Adjutant General for Air, Alabama Air National Guard Prior to his 

current assignment, he was the Senior Defense Official and Defense Attache, Office of Defense Cooperation 

Turkey, U.S. European Command. 

The general is a command pilot with more than 4,000 hours in the A-i0, C-26 and the F-16, including more 

than 100 combat hours. 

EDUCATION 

1981 Bachelor of Science degree, University of Georgia 

1986 Distinguished graduate, USAF Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

1988 Squadron Officer School, by correspondence 

1994 Air Command and Staff College, by correspondence 

1998 Air War College, in residence 

2007 Masters degree in military studies, American Military University 

2007 Capstone General and Flag Officer Course, National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. McNair, 

Washington, D.C. 

2008 Combined Forces Air Component COmmander Course, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

2010 Joint Flag Officer Warfighter Course, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

1. January 1982 - February 1983, student, undergraduate pilot training, Sheppard AFB, Texas 
57 

2. February 1983 - May 1983, student, T-38 pilot trainin9, Holloman AFB, N.M. 

3. May 1983 - September 1983, student, A-10 pilot training, Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz. 

4. September 1983 - April 1986, A-10 aircraft commander, 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Myrtle Beach 

AFB, S.C. 

5. April 1986 - August 1986, student, USAF Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

6. August 1986 - June 1987, Chief, Weapons and Tactics, 356th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Myrtle Beach 

AFB, SC. 

7. June 1987 - March 1989, instructor pilot, USAF Fighter Weapons School, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

8 March 1989 - February 1990, F-16 aircraft commander, 465th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Tinker AFB, 

Okla. 

9. February 1990 - April 1991, Chief, Weapons and Tactics, 507th Tactical Fighter Wing, Tinker AFB, Okla. 

10. April 1991 - June 1994, training officer, 160th Tactical Fighter Wing, Dannelly Field, Montgomery, Ala. 

11. June 1994 - June 1995, Chief, Weapons and Tactics, 160th Fighter Squadron, Dannelly Field, 

Montgomery, Ala. 

12. June 1995 - June 1997, operations officer, 160th Fighter Squadron, Dannelly Field, Montgomery, Ala. 

13. June 1997 - June 1998, student, Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

14. June 1998 - February 2001, Commander, 160th Fighter Squadron, Dannelly Field, Montgomery, Ala. 

15. February 2001 - October 2002, Vice Commander, 187th Fighter Wing, Dannelly Field, Montgomery, Ala. 

(March 2002 - June 2002, Director of Combat Operations, USCENTAF) 

16. October 2002 - December 2005, Commander, 187th Fighter Wing, Dannelly Field, Montgomery, Ala. 

(January 2003 - June 2003, Commander, 410th Air Expeditionary Wing, Operation Iraqi Freedom) 

17. December 2005 - June 2006, Assistant Adjutant General for Air, Headquarters Alabama Air National 

Guard, Montgomery, Ala. 

18. June 2006 - May 2007, Deputy Director Strategic Planning, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and 

Programs (A8), Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. (September 2006 - October 2006, Copresident, Combined Investigation Board, Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan) 

19. May 2007- June 2008, Deputy Director, Air National Guard, Arlington, Va. 

20. June 2008 - July 2009, Military Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategic Plans and Programs, 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

21 July 2009 February 2010, Chief, Office of Defense Cooperation Turkey, U.S. European Command, 

Ankara, Turkey 

22. February 2010 - August 2011, Senior Defense Official and Defense Attache, Office of Defense 

Cooperation Turkey, U.S. European Command, Ankara, Turkey 

23. August 2011 - present, Commander, 1st Air Force (AFNORTH), and Commander, Continental U.S. North 

American Aerospace Defense Command Region, Tyndall AFB, Fla. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

1. July 2009 - February 2010, Chief, Office of Defense Cooperation Turkey, U.S. European Command, 

Ankara, Turkey, as a major general 

2. February 2010 - August 2011, Senior Defense Official and Defense Attache, Office of Defense 

Cooperation Turkey, U.S. European Command, Ankara, Turkey, as a major general 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: Command pilot 

Flight hours: More than 4,000, including more than 100 combat hours 

Aircraft flown: T-38, C-26, A-10 and F-16 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Defense Superior Service Medal 

Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster 

Bronze Star Medal 

Meritorious Service Medal 

Air Medal 

Aerial Achievement Medal 

Joint Service Commendation Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Achievement Medal 

Joint Meritorious Unit Award 

Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with "V" device and silver oak leaf cluster 

Combat Readiness Medal with two silver oak leaf clusters 
58 

National Defense Service Medal with bronze star 

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 

Southwest Asia Service Medal with bronze star 

Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal 

Global War on Terrorism Service Medal 

Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with Gold Border 

Air Force Longevity Service Award with silver and bronze oak leaf clusters 

Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Training Ribbon 

Alabama Faithful Service Ribbon 

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS 

Multiple civilian pilot ratings, including Airline Transport Pilot 

Deputy Chief of Staff for IPT-2, 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant June 13, 1981 

First Lieutenant Sept. 30, 1983 

Captain Sept 30, 1985 

Major March 7, 1991 

Lieutenant Colonel Nov, 4, 1995 

Colonel May 1, 2001 

Brigadier General Dec, 1, 2005 

Major General Nov, 26, 2008 

Lieutenant General Aug, 31,2011 

(Current as of November 2011) 
59 

STATEMENT BY 

LTG JEFFREY W. TALLEY 

CHIEF OF THE U.S. ARMY RESERVE 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES 

FIRST SESSION, 113TH CONGRESS 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNTIL RELEASED BY 

19 MARCH 2013 

THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 
60 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Turner, Ranking member Sanchez, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. It is an honor to 

testify on behalf of more than 200,000 Army Reserve Soldiers. 

America's Army Reserve is a life-saving and life-sustaining force for the nation. We 

have emerged from eleven years of war as an integral and proven component and 

command, leveraging unique capabilities in service to America. 

A GREAT RETURN ON INVESTMENT 

Ready and direct access to a high quality, all-volunteer, operational Army Reserve for 

the Army and joint missions at home and abroad is essential to the Total Force and the 

nation. As the Army's Federal Operational Reserve Force provider, the Army Reserve 

provides a cost effective way to mitigate risk to national security, comprising almost 

20% of the Total Army for only 6% of the current budget. The Army Reserve is a federal 

force under federal control, ready and accessible 24/7 with unique capabilities not found 

in the Regular Army, the Army National Guard, and in some cases, our sister services. 

We are a streamlined force - with the lowest ratio of full-time support to headquarters 

per capita (less than 1%) in the Army. 

The Army reserve is the Army's one-stop shop for assured access to trained specialized 

individuals and units - efficiently managed by a single command - seamlessly 

integrating and generating essential assets and capabilities across the nation and 

globally to complement and enable the total Army and Joint Force. 

The Army Reserve needs continued support from Congress to remain the great return 

on investment for America's Total Force and the American taxpayer. The Army Reserve 

possesses unique skill sets, maintaining key support capabilities, such as logistics, 

transportation, engineer and civil affairs - as well as intelligence and medical assets. 
61 

AN OPERATIONAL FORCE 

In order to maintain our operational proficiency, it is vital to invest in the training and 

readiness of our Army Reserve force. The nation cannot afford to give up the readiness 

gains achieved since the events of September 11th. Since 2001, an annual average of 

24,000 Army Reserve Soldiers have been mobilized and seamlessly integrated to 

support the Total Force. 

The Army Reserve is a complementary force for the Active Army and provides a 

significant portion of the Total Army's capability in combat service and combat service 

support. These enablers are organized into streamlined and deployable units. Its 

Citizen-Soldiers embody the warrior mindset and spirit and are essential to the Army's 

ability to support the Joint Force, both in contingent and combat-effects missions. We 

take great pride in the demonstrated competence and professionalism of Army Reserve 

Soldiers and units, which are globally engaged in multiple campaigns across a full range 

of military operations in support of the Total Force. We are the only Army component 

that is a single command - the United States Army Reserve Command. This structure 

allows for immediate access to - and use of - Army Reserve Soldiers and units for 

missions at home or abroad. 

Since the majority of our Soldiers are traditional drilling reservists, they hold full-time 

civilian employment in the public and private sectors, which keep their technical and 

managerial skills sharp at minimal cost to the defense department. We have a 

worldwide organization of 205,000 Soldiers and 12,600 civilians. As a community-based 

force, the Army Reserve maintains a strong connection to America's industrial base and 

its people. 

The Army Reserve's combat support and combat service support capabilities, which 

include the majority of the Total Army's significant expertise in legal, information 

support, police, human resources, finance, chaplain, and training operations, are 

necessary to enhance and sustain the Army's ability to conduct a full range of military 

missions worldwide in order to Prevent, Shape and Win. 
62 

By aligning Army Reserve Theater Commands with Army Corps, Army Service 

Component Commands and Combatant Commands as part of the Army's Regionally 

Aligned Forces, Army Reserve Soldiers and leaders are executing critical planning and 

implementation to ensure the Department of Defense's global requirements are fully 

supported. This alignment will provide critical staff planning and support, ensuring the 

unique capabilities of the Army Reserve are maintained and used. 

The way ahead for maintaining an operational reserve will involve progressive 

readiness for the Army Reserve, which means having the right level of readiness at the 

right time. The Army's force generation model offers a balanced, cost-effective 

approach to training and mobilization that allows for the predictability that our Soldiers, 

Families and their civilian employers need and deserve. 

MODERNIZATION AND EQUIPMENT 

In partnership with the Army, the Army Reserve has made great strides in filling its 

equipment shortages since 2001, increasing its equipment on hand from 75% in 2001 to 

86% today. In addition we now have 88% of our Critical Dual Use (CDU) equipment on 

hand. This is equipment that is used for both the Warfight and domestic support 

operations. 

In regard to equipment modernization, however, the current uncertain fiscal 

environment significantly challenges our ability to modernize our equipment for unit 

training and employment as a part of the operational force. Our equipment 

modernization level currently stands at 65% and fiscal constraints that impede our 

ability to improve this will adversely impact Army Reserve readiness. 

The Army Reserve is now an operational force supporting planned and contingency 

operations at home and abroad. This requires investment in equipment, training, and 

sustainment. However, we face a major challenge in modernizing our equipment for 

unit training and employment as a part of the operational force which impacts the Army 

Reserve's readiness. 
63 

As of December 2012, the Army Reserve has 86% of its needed equipment, but only 

65% has been modernized (brought to the current standard of design). To maintain our 

readiness, we need to improve modernization levels for critical equipment. We received 

$285M in National Guard and Reserve Equipment account (NGREA) funding during FY 

2011 and FY 2012. Priority should remain on resourcing the Army Reserve with 

modernized equipment for unit training and employment as a part of the operational 

force, and to fully equip the Army Reserve to meet the needs of the Army. 

SIMULATIONS 

In a new modernization initiative, the Army Reserve is using more simulation technology 

to save time and money. The Army Reserve funds simulations to meet the requirements 

of the Army Reserve Training Strategy (ARTS). Related costs include: 

• Combat Simulations - $6M: purchases war gaming suites at the 

Company/Detachment level for Virtual Battlespace Training 2 (VBS2); 

• Constructive - $36M: purchases distributive simulation capability equipment to 

support multi-echelon and geographically-dispersed training; 

• Live - $23M: purchases Home-Station Instrumentation Training Systems (HITS) and 

supporting radio systems for Combat Support Training Exercise and Warrior 

Exercise execution on Army Reserve funded installations; and 

• Virtual- $17M: purchases portable weapons systems training capability. 

DISASTER RESPONSE 

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 recently expanded the Army Reserve's 

role as part of the Federal Force, giving us the flexibility to provide specialized 

capabilities for domestic disaster relief including critical lifesaving, property preservation 

and damage mitigation support. The new mobilization authority for Defense Support of 

Civil Authority (DSCA) allowed us to activate specialized capabilities to assist in the 

Hurricane Sandy relief effort by providing three tactical water distribution units, which 

operated six 600-gallon-per-minute water pumps to help alleviate flooding. The core 

competency of the Army Reserve lends itself readily to such missions. The Army 

Reserve is also part of the Defense Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear 
64 

(CBRN) Response Force, maintaining mission-ready Soldiers and equipment available 

for deployment in the event of a national emergency or disaster. 

THE PROJECTED IMPACT OF FUNDING REDUCTIONS 

Under an extension of the current continuing resolution (CR) and "Sequestration", the 

Army, and by extension, the Army Reserve, will be forced to make dramatic cuts to its 

personnel, its readiness, and its modernization programs, This will negatively impact 

Operational Tempo, Medical Readiness, Equipment Readiness, Depot Maintenance 

and Sustainment, and Restoration and Modernization, 

Disruptions to the cyclic progression of training, which were developed for the Army 

Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model, will jeopardize the Army Reserve's ability to 

produce validated, technically and tactically proficient Soldiers who are available for 

missions, If there is no change in the CR and sequestration is not turned off, it will be 

challenging for us to perform annual health exams and dental readiness treatments for 

non-deploying soldiers, 

Depot Maintenance will suffer, as it will be difficult to afford to maintain more than 40% 

of ARFORGEN-critical equipment Disaster Relief and Homeland Defense missions will 

be negatively impacted as already aged equipment continues to age unattended, 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) will be degraded, causing 

subsystem failures to impact facility readiness in support of Soldier training, Reductions 

will also cause the deferment of other repairs that will lead to less-functional operating 

environments, 

Sequestration will complicate the FY 2013 Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR) 

program because reductions will force project delays and deferment of other projects, 

Sequestration and the CR will also have a long-term impact on the out-year Military 

Construction, Cascading projects from FY13 ($305M) will force reprogramming over the 

next 3-4 fiscal years, 
65 

A full-year Continuing Resolution that does not reallocate funds where they are needed 

would reduce and delay contract support necessary to perform daily operations, 

exercises, and other services contracts. It would potentially defer or reduce accessions, 

and cause the AGR personnel end-strength objectives to drop below 16,261, adversely 

affecting unit readiness. Moreover, a full-year CR would make it challenging for Troop 

Program Unit (TPU-part-time) Soldiers to meet statutory Annual Training requirements, 

and perform the obligatory amount of Battle Training Assemblies. High priority 

programs such as "Strong Bonds" will be cut back. 

CLOSING 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee: Thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

and for your continued support to our Army Reserve Soldiers. Complex demands for 

the future at home and abroad require continued reliance on the Reserve component. 

The global fiscal environment brings growing security challenges to our nation and our 

coalition partners, necessitating a balance between identifying efficiencies and the 

continued engagement of a ready, agile and adaptable force. We need Congress' 

support to preserve the hard-earned skills of our battle-tested Soldiers as we continue 

to make strides toward Army Reserve Vision 2020. The Army Reserve remains a great 

return on investment for America, providing an indispensable and versatile mix of 

enabling capabilities to Army 2020 and Joint Force 2020. 

We have the best Army Reserve in history. With your help we can keep it that way as 

we protect and serve America. Twice the Citizen, Army Strong! 
66 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JEFFREY W. 

TALLEY CHIEF OF ARMY RESERVE, COMMANDING GENERAL USARC 

On 9 June 2012, Jeffrey W. Talley was promoted to Lieutenant General and became the 32nd Chief of Army Reserve 

and the 7th Commanding General, United States Army Reserve Command. Lt Gen. Talley is the principal staff 

adviser to the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff on all Army Reserve Affairs. He develops Army 

Reserve budgets, training programs and policy decisions; manages the Army Reserve troop program units, individual 

mobilization augmentees, and the active guard/reserve program; and serves as the appropriation director of all Army 

Reserve funds. He also commands all Army Reserve troop program units worldwide, with total end strength of 

205,000 Soldiers and 12,600 civilians, and an operating budget of over $8 billion, with responsibility for over 1200 

facilities and 6 military installations. 

Lt. Gen. Talley graduated from Louisiana State University in 1981 with a Regular Army commission in the Corps of 

Engineers. During more than 30 years of active and reserve service, he has commanded units at every echelon, from 

platoon to division-level, with duty in Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, and the United States. In February 2003, he mobilized and 

deployed in support of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM/OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM as Chief of Operations, 

416th Engineer Command, Coalition Joint Forces Land Component Command. Upon return from theater, he served 

in the Pentagon as a strategic planner in the Deputy Directorate for the War on Terrorism, Strategic Plans & Policy 

Directorate (J-5), Joint Chiefs of Staff. In January 2008, he mobilized again, deploying in support of OPERATION 

IRAQI FREEDOM where he was the Commander, 926th Engineer Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National 

Division-Baghdad and the Baghdad Provincial Engineer. From June 2009 to April 2012 he served as Commanding 

General, 84th Training Command at Ft. Knox, KY where he was responsible for assessing the readiness of Army 

Reserve units through Combat Training Center-like exercises. He also served on the Secretary of Defense's Reserve 

Forces Policy Board from 2009 to 2012. 

Lt. Gen. Talley holds a PhD. in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University and an 

Executive M.BA from the University of Oxford in England. He also holds multiple master's degrees in strategic 

studies, environmental engineering and science, liberal arts (history and philosophy), and religious studies. He is a 

graduate of the Army War College. He is also a registered Professional Engineer, a Board Certified Environmental 

Engineer in Environmental Sustainability. and a Diplomate, Water Resources Engineer. 

Lt. Gen. Talley's awards and decorations include the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit Medal, 

three Bronze Star Medals, the USACE Silver De Fleury Medal, four Meritorious Service Medals, the Joint Service 

Commendation Medal, two Army Commendation Medals, four Army Achievement Medals, Parachutist and Air 

Assault Badges, Ranger Tab, Joint Staff and Office of the Secretary of Defense Identification Badges. 

Prior to his return to active military service, Lt. Gen. Talley was President & CEO and Co-Founder & Lead Investor of 

EnvironmentafTechnology Solutions (ETS Partners); and also; an Adjunct Professor at The Johns Hopkins 

University. He has over 30 years of experience in multiple academic, design, consulting, and military positions 

involving hundreds of environmental and business projects throughout the United States and abroad. Prior to his 

appointments at ETS and Johns Hopkins, he was a tenured teaching and research faculty member at Southern 

Methodist UniverSity and the University of Notre Dame. 

Lt. Gen. Talley and his wife, Linda, have four grown children: Christopher, Joshua, Matthew, and Ashley; and a 

Labrador named Baxter and a mutt named Roxy. Their youngest son, Army 1st Lieutenant Matthew Talley, is a 

combat veteran. 
67 

United States Air Force 

Testimony 

Before the House Armed Services 

Committee, Subcommittee on Tactical Air 

and Land Forces 

Hearing on Equipping, 

Modernizing, and Sustaining 

the National Guard and 

Reserve Components as an 

Operational Force in a Time 

of Budget Uncertainty 

Statement of 

Lieutenant General James F. Jackson, 

Chief of Air Force Reserve 

March 19,2013 
68 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you. I'm honored to represent America's Citizen Airmen as the 

Chief of Air Force Reserve and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC). The Air 

Force Reserve (AFR) is a combat-ready force, composed of approximately 71,000 proud 

Reservists, stationed locally throughout the United States, serving globally for every Combatant 

Command. We provide our nation with operational capability, strategic depth and the capacity 

to surge quickly when America.needs us. We are an integrated Total Force partner in every 

mission and all five Air Force enduring contributions: 

• Air and space superiority 

• Global strike 

• Rapid global mobility 

• Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 

• Command and control. 

The majority of our Citizen Airmen serve part time, making us a highly efficient force 

with effective capability. In times of crisis, we can call upon an additional 790,000 Airmen from 

the Individual Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, Retired Reserve and Retired Active Duty. Over 

the last two decades, we've supported sustained combat and humanitarian operations throughout 

the world, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Japan, Mali and the Hom of 

Africa. When natural disasters strike here at home, the Air Force Reserve delivers capability and 

expertise, providing relief to our fellow Americans, most recently in response to Superstorm 

Sandy. Domestically or globally, America's Citizen Airmen are always ready to answer our 

nation's call-anytime, anywhere. 

Today, I want to share with you my vision for the Air Force Reserve based on three focus 

areas: Remember the Fight - Today's and Tomorrow's, Adapt the Force and Develop the Team. 
69 

Remember the Fight - Today's 

My top focus area is to "Remember the Fight" and our nation's men and women who are 

serving today in harm's way. The Total Force team remains in high demand, supporting the joint 

fight around the world by projecting military power through air, space and cyberspace. On any 

given day, over 2,000 of America's Citizen Airmen are deployed, serving in every Area of 

Responsibility, with an additional 4,000 men and women on active duty status supporting 

Combatant Command (COCOM) requirements. As a Federal Title 10 Force, more than 8,000 

Individual Reserve members are assigned throughout the Department of Defense (DoD), 

including the staffs of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, COCOMs, Air 

Force Major Commands, Intelligence Agencies and others. Integrating individual reservists 

throughout the DoD provides valuable experience and continuity. Further, this enables the Air 

Force Reserve to collectively support the decision-makers, the joint warfighters, and the force 

providers at the tactical, operational and strategic levels of conflict. 

The majority of your Air Force Reserve serves alongside our Active Duty counterparts in 

association constructs. The synergistic benefits derived from associations add to the Air Force's 

strength. In Total Force Integration (TFI) associations the Active Duty and Reserve Component 

share equipment, facilities and resources, including aircraft, crews and maintenance, to carry out 

a common mission.! TFI associations represent tremendous value to the taxpayer, both in cost 

savings, as well as improved mission effectiveness. TFI fosters communication between 

components by sharing day-to-day responsibilities, resulting in more effective utilization of 

1 Three association types: Classic, Active and Air Reserve Component. In a "Classic" Association, the Active Duty 

is the host unit, retaining weapon system responsibility, while sharing the mission with a Reserve or Guard tenant 

unit. For "Active," the Reserve or Guard unit is host, with an Active Duty tenant. The "Air Reserve Component" 

pairs a Reserve unit with a Guard unit, with either component acting as the host and the other as the tenant unit. 

2 
70 

combined resources. As sequestration takes hold, associations will likely provide even more 

value, as we find ways to attempt to get the mission. done by using the combined resources at our 

disposal. Currently, the Air Force has 121 TFI associations and the Air Force Reserve is adding 

five more in Fiscal Year (FY) 13 in the growing areas of cyber and intelligence. 

Authorized by the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Reserve 

Component can now be mobilized to respond to national security needs here at home (commonly 

known as 12304a). Air Force Reserve capabilities of weather reconnaissance, aerial firefighting 

and aerial spray are critical to the nation when catastrophe strikes. Dual-use capabilities such as 

airlift, aeromedical evacuation and personnel recovery are equally valuable, both in-theater and 

for homeland support. America's Citizen Airmen demonstrated their worth before and after 

SUperstorm Sandy sttuck the nation's most populous region. The famous "Hurricane Hunters" 

of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron flew inside the massive storm, relaying lifesaving 

data to National Weather Service forecasters on the ground, who provided track updates to first 

responders and communities. Additionally, the team at Westover Air Reserve Base in 

Massachusetts supported the Federal Emergency Management Agency by hosting relief 

operations. Finally, March Air Reserve Base in California served as the West Coast response 

huh. From this location, Total Force C-S and C-17 cargo aircraft delivered 1,200 short tons of 

supplies, 356 passengers and 134 utility vehicles to the East Coast. America's Citizen Ainnen 

also once again exhibited their willingness to serve through volunteerism. While the new Air 

Force Reserve mobility authority was not used by the Secretary of the Air Force, its construct 

was practiced in real time as our dedicated Citizen Airmen assisted the national effort restoring 

critical infrastructure. 

3 
71 

Remember the Fight ~ Tomorrow's 

As you know, in 2012 the Department of Defense released strategic guidance, Sustaining 

U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 2Ft Century Defense, in which the Secretary of Defense 

wrote the "country is at a strategic turning point after a decade of war." Over the last decade, the 

Air Force Reserve has transformed our organizational structure and processes to be an 

operational force with strategic depth and surge eapacity. One example of this is the 

establishment of the Force Generation Center (FGC) in 2010. The FGC is the "one-stop-shop" 

offering access to Air Force Reserve forces to fulfill Combatant Commander requirements. The 

FGC processes requests for capability from force providers, monitors current Combatant 

Commander support, and assists the individuals and units who volunteer or are mobilized. The 

FGC has simplified and streamlined access to Title 10 Air Force Reserve forces and benefited 

our individual members, as we carefully monitor the mobilization-to-dwell ratios, especially 

those in our stressed career fields and units. The FGC is a foundational piece of your Air Force 

Reserve as we look to the next decade and supporting tomorrow's joint fight. 

Continually transforming the Reserve Component through modernization is critical to 

ensuring we are an effective and combat-ready partner across the spectrum of conflict. Since 

1981, National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) has funded the Air Force 

Reserve to upgrade equipment for better targeting, self-protection and communication 

capabilities, proving their combat value in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 20 years of sustained 

conflict has taken its toll, making procurement funding for the Air Force Reserve critically 

important. 

When answers are sought on improving acquisition and procurement in the 000, the 

modernization of the Guard and Reserve component is a model for delivering significant 

4 
72 

warfighter capability for relatively few dollars. Using a "bottom-up" approach, warfighter needs 

are discussed and prioritized within the Air Force Reserve during the annual Numbered Air 

Force Combat Planning Conncils (CPCs). CPC requirements are then vetted, consolidated and 

prioritized by AFRC. Subsequent Air Reserve Component (ARC) integration of weapon system 

modernization programs occur at the annual ARC Weapons and Tactics Conference, hosted at 

the Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test Center (AATC), our modernization 

focal point. AATC conducts operational testing for Reserve and Guard weapon system 

improvements, delivering improved capability back to warfighter hands in minimal time. 

The good news story will, however, be disrupted by sequestration and, if none is passed, 

the lack of an FY13 Defense Appropriation. The impacts of interrupting current and planned 

weapons system modernization programs will be widespread and enduring. Significant effort 

will be required to restart suspended programs, cost increases will likely occur, contract options 

will expire or production windows will be missed. Long-term obligation rate improvement 

efforts will be jeopardized and relationships with our acquisition partners may be damaged. 

With interrupted funding, LITENING Pod integration may be difficult to complete. We are 

planning to procure 12 LITENING pods to achieve a one-to-one ratio between combat-coded 

Combat Air Force aircraft and pods. With funding loss, procuring LITENING pods after 

December 2013 will be extremely difficult, with the production line possibly shutting down. 

Finally, under the current Continuing Resolution and sequestration, the System Program Offices 

(SPOs) have experienced significant cuts in Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding for 

support contractors and travel, limiting their ability to adequately support Active Duty programs 

and Air Reserve Component modernization efforts. 

The current top three Air Force Reserve procurement priorities are: 

5 
73 

1. Defensive Systems 

AFR aircraft require self-protection suites that are effective against modem anti-aircraft 

missile systems. Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM), Aircraft Defensive 

Systems (ADS) and Missile Warning Systems (MWS) are needed to provide adequate infrared 

missile protection for combat operations. 

2. Data Link and Secure Communications (Battlefield Situational Awareness) 

AFR modernization efforts stress aircraft defense, safety, and data link communications. 

The information demands of modem warfare require a fully integrated data-link network. A 

robust, persistent airborne gateway system and secure line-of-sight (SLOS) / beyond line-of-sight 

(BLOS) voice and data communications support that integrated data-link requirement. 

SLOSIBLOS communications are currently being installed in all combat coded aircraft with 

NGREA funding. 

3. Precision Engagement Capability 

Programs increasing warfighter capability include Precision Engagement modemization 

systems like the LITENlNG targeting pod, the F-16/A-IO Center Display, and the F-16/A-IO 

Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting. These systems allow for the addition of future 

capabilities at low cost and are critical for close air support and communication with the ground 

forces. 

Military Construction (MILCON) is also a critical component in the Air Force Reserve's 

ability to be combat ready for tomorrow's fight. The Air Force Reserve is a tenant at over 50 

installations, where we maximize taxpayer value by sharing facilities whenever possible. 

Nevertheless, the Air Force Reserve is in need of MIL CON to modernize and consolidate 

6 
74 

existing infrastructure, as well as to accommodate growth into new mission areas. We currently 

face a validated $1.4B backlog of unfunded MILCON requirements. The backlog increased in 

FYl3 as the Air Force took a deliberate pause to ensure resource availability in other areas. For 

FY13, the only AFR MILCON project is a regional C-130H Flight Simulator Facility at Niagara 

Air Reserve Station, which will enable localized pilot and crew qualification training for Active 

Duty, Guard and Reserve and provide increased simulator training - a Total Force benefit. In 

light of sequestration and decreased flying hours, simulator training dependence will only 

increase. The Air Force Reserve, like the Active Duty, is counterbalancing some risk in 

MILCON through O&M Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization funding. We are 

recapitalizing aging facilities, promoting consolidation, and demolishing urmecessary, resourcedraining facilities to make the best use of our facility footprint. 

Adapt the Force 

. "Adapt the Force" is my second focus area. The Priorities for 21" Century Defense calls 

for an examination of "the mix of Active Component (AC) and Reserve Component (RC) 

elements best suited to the strategy" and the appropriate "level of Reserve Component readiness" 

based on "the expected pace of operations over the next decade." This consists of determining 

the appropriate active/reserve force mix as well as the mission sets best suited for the Air Force 

Reserve as your Federal Title 10 combat force. All three components are addressing this very 

subject through the Air Force's Total Force Task Force. 

Speed, range and flexibility are the hallmarks of airpower, giving our military versatility. 

As the Department of Defense makes the "rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region," while 

maintaining a Middle East presence, the Air Force Reserve's operational capability, strategic 

depth and surge capacity are critical to our nation's defense. Furthermore, the Reserve 

7 
75 

Component has served under a partial mobilization since 2001. Congressional authority given in 

the FY12 NDAA (known as 12304b) to mobilize up to 60,000 members of the reserve 

components for preplanned and budgeted missions in support of Combatant Commands will be 

an important factor in how your Air Force Reserve will. continue to support our nation's defense. 

Obviously sequestration and funding by a string of continuing resolutions is not optimal. 

The Air Force Reserve is proud to be an always-ready federal force, able to respond within 72 

hours anywhere the nation needs us. Yet in a complex world with ever-increasing and evolving 

threats, our ability to effectively respond with a ready and capable force is increasingly 

threatened by fiscal realities caused by sequestration and constant funding uncertainty. As the 

majority of our funding is devoted to O&M, reducing the O&M account directly impacts the 

readiness of the Air Force Reserve. Further, with over 3/4 of our full-time persounel serving as 

dual-status Air Reserve Technicians, civilian furloughs translate to an even greater negative 

impact to the mission readiness of our units. We need Congress to enact an alternative to 

sequestration if the Air Force Reserve is to continue to be a reliable force provider and take care 

of our Citizen Airmen, otherwise the valuable operational expertise gained by our reservists 

since 9/11 and available to our nation will be at riske 

As we analyze the right Active/GuardlReserve force mix, the Air Force Reserve will be 

mindful of our strengths. Perhaps our greatest strength is we retain "Airmen For Life," 

preserving the considerable investments and expertise of our Airmen, beyond their Active Duty 

service. In the past, retaining pilot experience may have been a focus, but today's Air Force 

Reserve is a force of combat-tested warriors, across many disciplines and career fields. Keeping 

this operational experience enables the Air Force Reserve to be a combat-ready force. 

8 
76 

Determining the cost of a Reservist versus an Active Duty member has always been 

difficult. I wish to highlight to the committec the Reserve Forces Policy Board's Cost 

Methodology report entitled "Eliminating Major Gaps in DoD Data on the Fully-Burdened and 

Life-Cycle Cost of Military Personnel: Cost Elements Should be Mandated by Policy. /I Being 

aware of this report helps us better engage in a conversation using tangible information on the 

cost of our manpower in the Air Force. This report can help inform the discussion in regard to 

the mix of Active, Guard and Reserve roles and missions, organizational structures and the best 

use of our defense dollars. 

A second strength of the Air Force Reserve is we leverage our Citizen Airmen's civilian 

expertise from private industry, especially in fields where intellectual capital is at a premium. 

For instance, the Air Force Reserve found beneficial value in standing up a Space Operations 

Group in 1997 (later becoming the 31 Oth Space Wing), to take advantage of the technical 

civilian/military synergies our Citizen Airmen possess, for space programs like GPS, missile 

warning and weather monitoring. On March 3, 2013, the Air Force Reserve activated the 960th 

Cyber Operations Group. We are using our lessons learned from the past to grow the cyber 

mission area for the future. Cyber is a man-made domain where staying on the technical cuttingedge makes all the difference. Once we train our Air Force cyber personnel, we need to retain 

them when they depart active duty. The DoD should also leverage the civilian cyber experience 

of our Citizen Airmen who are non-prior service, who can translate the latest industry knowledge 

and skills into the defensive needs of the nation. In my opinion, we need to treat this important 

and perishable skill set similar to those of our physicians and medical personnel. 

A final hallmark of the Air Force Reserve is we provide continuity and depth of 

experience. Since 9/11, there is no question that special operations forces delivered a retum on 

9 
77 

investment for our nation. For the Air Force Reserve, this continuity and experience has resided 

for over 30 years in the 919th Special Operations Wing at Duke Field, Florida. This year the 

newly-created Air Force Special Operations Air Warfare Center stood up at Duke, commanded 

by an Air Force Reserve Brigadier General, will bring together more than 500 Active Duty and 

Reserve Airmen for the special operations forces mission. The expected synergistic benefit of 

this new organization will pay huge dividends for our nation and will serve as another valuable 

example of integrating the Total Force. 

Develop the Team 

"Develop the Team" is my third focus area, which refers to developing leaders for our 

nation, and helping America's Citizen Airmen keep a healthy "reserve-work-life balance." By 

investing in these areas today, we ensure a quality Air Force Reserve is prepared to serve the 

nation now and in the future. Professional force development, in both officer and senior enlisted 

ranks, is vital to growing leaders for the Air Force and our Department of Defense. We are 

putting into place options for those seeking to be considered as potential senior leaders, while 

preserving the Citizen Airmen culture of being stationed locally and serving globally. Second, 

we ask America's Citizen Airmen to maintain a unique reserve-work-Iife balance between their 

Air Force duties, their civilian employer and their families. Maintaining this balance can 

sometimes be difficult for Citizen Airmen. Programs such as the Employer Support of the Guard 

and Reserve (ESGR) and "Hero2Hired.jobs" are critical in helping our Airmen deal with lifechanging events such as deploying and transitioning to/from the civilian workforce. The 

importance of the YeHow Ribbon Program for our deploying members was demonstrated last 

fiscal year as 2,640 Air Force Reserve members attended 78 events with 4,661 family members. 

10 
78 

This equates to 77% of eligible members who attended this volunteer opportunity, a testament to 

the value ofthe Yellow Ribbon Program. 

Additionally, the Air Force Reserve is leveraging today's technology to further support 

our reserve-work-life balance by offering the Wingman Toolkit. I encourage the Committee 

members and staffers to visit the website at httpJ/afrc.wingmantoolkit.org/. If you like, 

download the Wingman Toolkit mobile phone app. The Wingman Toolkit is our online resource 

to support comprehensive fitness in the four areas of physical, mental, spiritual and social wellbeing. The Wingman Toolkit is one of many efforts to address member issues, such as suicide 

prevention, by building a strong Wingman culture who proactively take care of themselves and 

each other. 

On a final note, last year the Air Force Reserve published Turning Point 9.11: Air Force 

Reserve in the 21st Century, 2001-2011. This book describes our history, emphasizing the story 

of America's Citizen Airmen since September 11, 2001. I encourage the Committee members 

and staffers to visit the Air Force Reserve Command homepage (www.afrc.af.mil) to download 

the electronic version. 

Conclusion 

The Air Force Reserve is a proud member of the Total Force team as a component to our 

nation's defense. I sincerely appreciate the enduring support ofthis Committee and all you do 

for America's Citizen Airmen. I look forward to working with each of you to ensure that your 

Air Force Reserve remains postured and ready to serve. 

11 
79 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES "J]" JACKSON 

BIOGRAPHY 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES "JJ" JACKSON 

Lt. Gen. James "JJ" Jackson is the chief of Air 

Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

Washington, D.C., and commander, Air Force 

Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. 

As chief of Air Force Reserve, he serves as 

principal adviser on reserve matters to the 

secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief 

of Staff. As commander of Air Force Reserve 

Command, he has full responsibility for the 

supervision of all U.S. Air Force Reserve units 

around the world. 

The general is a 1978 9raduate of the U.S. Air 

Force Academy. He completed 14 years on active 

duty, including fiying tours in Europe and the 

Pacific, before joining the Air Force Reserve in 

1992. General Jackson has held numerous wing 

leadership and command positions, as well as staff 

assignments at Eighth Air Force and Headquarters 

U.S. Strategic Command, Headquarters PacifIC Air 

Forces, Headquarters U.S. Pacific Command and 

Headquarters U.S. Air Force. 

A career instructor pilot and evaluator, the general 

Page 1 of3 

is a command pilot with more than 3,600 hours in the F-4 Phantom 11, F-16 Fighting Falcon and KC-135R 

Stratotanker. 

EDUCATION 

1978 Bachelor of Science degree in human factors engineering, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, 

Colo. 

1984 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. 

1986 Air Command and Staff College, by correspondence 

1990 Master of Science degree in aeronautical sciences, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 

1999 Air War College, by correspondence 

2004 Reserve Component National Security Course, National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. McNair, 

Washington, D.C. 

2005 Senior Information Warfare Applications Course, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

2007 Dual Status Title 10/32 Joint Task Force Commander Course, Northern Command, Peterson AFB, 

Colo. 

2009 Program for Senior Executives in National and International Security, John F. Kennedy School of 

Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

2009 Senior Executive National Security Studies Program and Defense Policy Seminar, Elliott School of 

International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

1. October 1978 - September 1979, student, undergraduate pilot training, Reese AFB, Texas 

2.0ctober 1979 - January 1980, student, T-38B fighter lead-in training, Holloman AFB, N.M. 
80 

.LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES "JJ" JACKSON Page 2 of3 

3. February 1980 - August 1980, F-40 pilot, 306th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, Homestead AFB, Fla. 

4. September 1980, January 1984, F-4E instructor pilot, 336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Seymour-Johnson 

AFB, N.C. 

5. February 1984 - January 1985, assistant Chief of Weapons and Tactics, 526th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 

Ramstein Air Base, West Germany 

6. February 1985 - July 1987, F-4E and F-16C standardization and evaluation flight examiner, 86th Tactical 

Fighter Wing, Ramstein Air Base, West Germany 

7. August 1987 - May 1988, chief, Standardization and Evaluation, 80th Tactical Fighter Squadron, Kunsan 

Air Base, South Korea 

8. June 1988 - December 1988, wing weapons and tactics officer, 8th Tactical Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air 

Base, South Korea 

9. January 1989 - M"rch 1991, chief, Surface Attack Inspection Branch, Inspector General, Headquarters 

Pacific Air Forces, Hickam AFB, Hawaii 

10. April 1991 - August 1992, fighter force structure manager, Plans and Programs, Headquarters PACAF, 

Hickam AFB, Hawaii 

11. September 1992 - August 1993, joint air operations staff officer, Pacific Command Operations 

Directorate, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii 

12. September 1993 - June 1994, Chief, Scheduling and Training Branch, 465th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 

Tinker AFB, Okla. 

13. July 1994 - June 1997, assistant operations officer, 465th Air Refueling Squadron, Tinker AFB, Okla. 

14. July 1997 - October 2000, commander, 465th Air Refueling Squadron, Tinker AFB, Okla.· 

15. November 2000 - March 2003, assistant to the Director, Operational Plans Directorate, Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Air and Space Operations, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

16. April 2003 October 2003, Chief, Concept Development and Strategy Division, Operational Plans and 

Joint Matters Directorate, Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

Washington, D.C. 

17. October 2003 - October 2006, mobilization assistant to the Commander, Air Force Doctrine Center, 

Maxwell AFB, Ala. (March 2006 - June 2006, Commander, Air Force Doctrine Center, Maxwell AFB, Ala.) 

18. November 2006 - November 2007, mobilization assistant to the Commander, Air Force District of 

Washington, Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C. 

19. November 2007 - May 2009, mobilization assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and 

Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

20. June 2009 - May 2010, mobilization assistant to the Commander, 8th Air Force, Barksdale AFB, La., and 

Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, 

Neb. 

21. May 2010 - July 2012, Deputy to the Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, 

Washington, D.C. 

22. July 2012 - present, Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C., and 

Commander of Air Force Reserve Command, Robins AFB, Ga. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

1. September 1992 - August 1993, joint air operations staff officer, Pacific Command Operations Directorate, 

Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii, as a major 

2. June 2009 - May 2010, mobilization assistant to the Commander, 8th Air Force, Barksdale AFB, La., and 

Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike, U.S. StrategiC Command, Offutt AFB, 

Neb., as a major general 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: Command pilot 

Flight hours: More than 3,600 hours 

Aircraft flown: T-37/38, T-38B, F-4D/E, F-16A1B/C/D and KC-135R 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster 

Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Aerial Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Commendation Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 
81 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES "JJ" JACKSON 

Second Lieutenant May 31, 1978 

First Lieutenant June 1, 1980 

Captain June 1, 1982 

Major Feb. 28, 1989 

Lieutenant Colonel June 13, 1996 

Colonel July 1, 2000 

Brigadier General Jan. 1, 2006 

Major General Feb. 3, 2009 

Lieutenant General July 30, 2012 

(Current as of February 2013) 

Page 3 of3 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 19, 2013 

(85) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER 

General INGRAM. The ARNG currently has 3 BCTs (45th IBCT, OK, 1/34th HBCT, 

MN, and 37th IBCT, OH) and 366 Separate Reporting Units (non BCTs) at different 

stages of the equipment reset process. The same units are currently executing Field 

Level Equipment Reset in 48 States, Territories and District of Columbia. The 

ARNG Field Level Reset FY13 requirement is $62.3M. The program is funded 

$42.4M, a shortfall of $20M to complete the Field Reset of these units. These units 

also have equipment in the Sustainment Level Equipment Reset at Army Materiel 

Command (AMC) Depots. If AMC cancels 3rd and 4th quarter Depot Maintenance 

work, this would impact the approximately 1000 pieces of equipment from ARNG 

Units. If no further funding is received, or unit equipment is not repaired at the 

Depots, unit equipment will not get completed within the Reset window of the 

ARFORGEN cycle. This could negatively affect these Units’ ability to conduct their 

ARFORGEN Train/Ready year-one (TR1) training. [See page 6.] 

General CLARKE. Yes, Rickenbacker AGS, OH was chosen as a basing candidate 

for the newest tanker, the KC–46A. Although ultimately dependent on future budgetary constraints, sequestration should have no immediate impact to the KC–46A 

selection process. As I have mentioned previously, the Air Force has an in-depth internal, collaborative process for choosing the best basing location based on many factors, to include environmental impacts, current logistical support, cost-saving measures and many others. 

Site surveys have been concluded at all candidate locations to include Rickenbacker AGS and are now being vetted through the Air Force Strategic Basing Process. Preferred and Reasonable Alternative selections by the SecAF/CSAF are expected in the middle of May of this year. The basing decision will be considered final 

at the conclusion of necessary environmental studies which are expected in the 

Spring of 2014. [See page 6.] 

General INGRAM. Once the NGREA Spend Plan is approved, purchase requests 

are processed with a Line of Accounting (LOA) established. This LOA is specific to 

ARNG NGREA. Contracts are developed to procure the items with application of the 

LOA to be used and when/where the items are scheduled to be delivered to the 

ARNG units. Distribution plans are developed by the ARNG based on ARNG G3 priorities and are provided as part of a formal HQDA G8 fielding plan or as an addendum to the contract with the PM/Vendor. The systems procured with NGREA are 

fielded/delivered using a Material Fielding Plan (MFP) and the processes outlined 

in AR 700–142. 

Currently there are no processes fully in place that allow the ARNG to systematically validate the actual delivery of a specific piece of equipment and tie it back to 

the appropriation used to procure that item in an easily auditable manner. The intent is to simplify the transparency process and to achieve improved Transparency 

through the incorporation of Item Unique Identification (IUID) as part of Global 

Combat Support System–Army (GCSS–Army), which is projected to reach full interoperability in FY17. The Army has made tremendous progress in resolving this 

issue and continues to diligently work towards achieving transparency and 

traceability of procurement-funded equipment from the President’s budget request 

to delivery at the unit level. [See page 10.] 

General CLARKE. Transparency of Equipment Deliveries: Current accounting and 

tracking systems do not correlate expenditure of particular funds regardless of 

source to deliveries of specific equipment items. Progress on this issue is reported 

annually through the Equipment Management Briefing (EMB) as well as in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report (NGRER). The Equipment Transparency Report (ETR) is prepared by SAF/AQX, forwarded to OSD/RA and subsequently sent to Congress for review. The portion prepared by SAF/AQX includes the 

specific report for equipment transparency. 

The execution and obligation of NGREA funds for the Air National Guard are 

managed by NGB/A5 and can be accurately correlated with specific equipment and 

modifications. Improvements need to be made to include delivery in the current accounting and tracking systems at System Program Offices (SPO). NGB/A5 prepares 
86 

an annual spending plan for the NGREA for each fiscal year and submits it to Congress through OSD/RA for approval. NGB/A5 tracks funds from obligation via a contract to expenditure of funds through a program office for delivery to a unit. [See 

page 10.] 

General TALLEY. The National Guard and Reserve Appropriations are invaluable 

and improves equipment modernization and readiness throughout our forces. Between 2003 and 2013, the Army Reserve has received $1.01B of NGREA. NGREA 

appropriations are sent directly to the Reserve Components from Department of Defense. AR executes all financial controls and management with DOD oversight. The 

Army Reserve coordinates directly with DOD Program Managers for pricing which 

allows us to track equipment delivery to a particular NGREA appropriation. The 

current DOD NGREA process requires the Army Reserve to submit semi-annual 

funding execution updates. Furthermore, Army Reserve must adhere to DOD obligation rate targets of 80% in year 1, 90% in year 2, and 100% in year 3. This provides 

visibility and transparency for Army Reserve and OSD leaders. As future Army 

budgets decrease, the Army Reserve must continuously support the Joint, Interagency, and Multination missions at home and abroad while maximize resources in 

a fiscally constrained environment. [See page 10.] 

General JACKSON. NGREA has been crucial for modernizing the AFR legacy aircraft fleet; buying vehicles, support equipment, and communications equipment that 

is needed to keep our airmen and facilities safe. The AFR makes sure its NGREA 

funding goes toward the purchase of equipment that meets the intended use of 3010 

and 3080 appropriations. To that end, it works closely with SAF and OSD to make 

all spending as transparent as possible. The AFRC modification Book is published 

annually to provide insight to Congress and industry on prospective programs which 

are anticipated to be technically executable within the next year. FY NGREA Procurement Plans are submitted to Congress after funds are appropriated to identify 

which programs will be executed and outline what will be procured with the allocated funding. All programs are thoroughly vetted by AFRC, the AF/RE staff; SAF/ 

MR and OSD/RA to assure that programs meet the intent of equipping the AFR. 

Funding is aligned within the procurement plans to projects based on requirement 

prioritization and program executability considerations. After approval of each FY 

Procurement plan, any re-alignment packages must be approved by OSD when moving funding between projects on the approved procurement plan, and reallocation 

packages go to Congress when any new projects are added to the procurement plan. 

Any changes to NGREA procurement plans undergo a vigorous and thorough accounting at several levels to assure correctness and transparency. Re-alignment and 

reallocation are typically caused by real world events impacting funding 

executability, such as late funding, acquisition delays, program re-phasing, new 

emergent needs, prioritization changes and estimate errors or by redistributing cost 

savings resulting from contracts negotiations, technical efficiencies, emergence of a 

lower cost technical solution or seizing an opportunity to gain cost efficiencies by 

combining acquisition projects with those of other organizations. Each realignment 

and reallocation package includes justification for each funding move to ensure 

transparency and to identify any issues that might require initiation of planning 

and/or process improvement efforts. [See page 10.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 19, 2013 

(89) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MAFFEI 

Mr. MAFFEI. What is the National Guard and Reserve doing to provide dual-use 

force protection equipment for both operations in their respective States and overseas? Specifically, how do we ensure service members have proper force protection 

equipment at locations such as entry control points especially at forward operating 

bases and readiness centers at home? 

General INGRAM and General CLARKE. Currently, the Air National Guard Security 

Forces are utilizing the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) 

to field multiple platforms and equipment items that can provide dual-use force protection in both home station as well as deployed locations. Items include but are not 

limited to: hand-held explosive detection devices that fill a capability gap at Air National Guard installations in addition to Less-Than-Lethal Domestic Operations Kits 

that are comprised of neuromuscular incapacitation devices (TASER) and full body 

riot control protective equipment amongst other items. Both of these programs are 

planned to be fully funded using FY13 appropriations of the NGREA and provided 

two of each, the explosive detection equipment and the Less-Than-Lethal Kits to all 

Air National Guard installations. 

Army National Guard (ARNG) soldiers are issued the Army’s finest personal protective equipment for deployment to theater and are thus protected exactly like Active Component soldiers in all tactical scenarios. As most ARNG soldiers have deployed and retained the equipment, the personal protective equipment available for 

domestic response scenarios is quite good. One exception is the body armor, which 

is withdrawn from our soldiers when they return from theater. The ARNG has a 

limited amount of suitable body armor for the most hazardous domestic response 

situations. ARNG organizations designated for response in each State also have access to the standard crowd control equipment and non-lethal equipment that is increasingly more sophisticated. Additional stocks of this type equipment can be provided to the State for forecasted or unforecasted requirements. 

Mr. MAFFEI. I represent Hancock Field Air National Guard Base located in Syracuse, NY. I am interested in your explanation of how the Air National Guard plans 

to fully integrate remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) into the National Airspace System. How do you envision RPAs being integrated into the National Airspace System 

in order to execute Defense Support of Civil Authority (DSCA) and Homeland Security missions? 

General CLARKE. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 will provide for 

the safe integration of RPAs, and other Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), into the 

national airspace system not later than September 30, 2015. The Air National 

Guard rated pilots, based out of Hancock Field and all around the CONUS flying 

MQ–1/9 aircraft would be able to ‘‘file and fly’’ just like any other manned aircraft. 

Several agencies are working on sense and avoid (SAA) technologies and the ANG 

is looking for Joint opportunities in SAA to allow ANG RPAs to fly fully integrated 

with manned flight operations. Currently, Syracuse must have its RPA Launch and 

Recovery Element (LRE) at Fort Drum’s Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield due to its adjacency to restricted airspace. This limits total sortie time due to time spent driving 

to and from the Fort. Initiatives by the 174ATKW to operate the LRE out of Hancock Field will decrease cost and increase sortie times by over 20%. However, until 

RPAs are fully integrated within the national airspace system, any MQ–9 operations 

out of Hancock Field will still require costly observers to escort the RPA into restricted airspace. 

DSCA operations, including support to Federal, State, local, and tribal government require SecDef approval IAW DOD 3025.18 as well as an FAA Certificate of 

Authorization or Waiver (COA). The FAA’s COA process is cumbersome and limits 

the NY ANG’s ability to support DSCA due to time required for approval and limited location of LRE. Once ANG RPA rated pilots are able to file flight plans and 

operate in the NAS in the same manner as manned aircraft, the MQ–9s in NY will 

be much more efficient when supporting DSCA operations. 

Mr. MAFFEI. What is the National Guard and Reserve doing to provide dual-use 

force protection equipment for both operations in their respective States and over-
90 

seas? Specifically, how do we ensure service members have proper force protection 

equipment at locations such as entry control points especially at forward operating 

bases and readiness centers at home? 

General TALLEY. Critical Dual Use (CDU) is equipment that is required for each 

unit to perform their designed mission, and is also suitable for potential Defense 

Support to Civilian Authorities (DSCA) and other CONUS contingency missions. 

The HQDA G3 approves the Army CDU equipment list. The Army goal is to fill the 

CDU equipment requirements to at least 80% to ensure the units are properly 

equipped. 

Mr. MAFFEI. What is the National Guard and Reserve doing to provide dual-use 

force protection equipment for both operations in their respective States and overseas? Specifically, how do we ensure service members have proper force protection 

equipment at locations such as entry control points especially at forward operating 

bases and readiness centers at home? 

General JACKSON. Since 2008 AFRC has obligated $4.1M from National Guard 

Reserve Equipment Appropriations (NGREA) to purchase modern weapon suites for 

our deployable airmen. These purchases have included M–4 carbines, M–9 handguns, M–320 Grenade launchers, M–24 rifles, and state-of-the-art thermal sights to 

enable precision engagement in all environments. Some of these weapons are also 

dually used in stateside base defense missions. In addition to these equipment purchases, we invest an average of $1.5M per year from our annual O&M appropriations for acquisition and sustainment of force protection equipment including tents, 

generators, handheld thermal imagers, mobility containers, tactical harnesses, helmets and accessories, first aid kits, night vision equipment, sensors, modular camera systems for vehicle inspections and tactical operations, level IV ballistic vests, 

concealed vests, TASERs, and sim-munitions for active shooter training, and mobile 

defensive fighting positions for all nine Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) installations. We also spend an average of $1.8M (O&M) annually to maintain and extend 

the life cycle of our intrusion detection systems, ground-based radar systems and 

upgrade/modernize these system at all of our bases. AFRC ensures the adequacy of 

force protection at our installations annually through the AFRC Vulnerability Assessment Program administered by our Security Forces division and overseas 

through ensuring our Citizen Airmen are fully equipped to Total Force integrated 

defense standards. Finally, we have leveraged our facility modernization account to 

proactively upgrade our installation Entry Control Points to meet modern force protection criteria including automatic vehicle barrier systems, over-watch capability, 

and large vehicle inspection capability. Our FY14 President’s Budget MILCON request contains a project to modernize and relocate the entry control point at Homestead Air Reserve Base. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. RUNYAN 

Mr. RUNYAN. In this time of fiscal uncertainty and imminently shrinking budgets, 

what are the National Guard and Reserve doing to increase competition amongst 

vendors in an effort to decrease the costs related to purchases? My concern is that 

the program of record is prohibiting potentially lower cost, commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS) products from reaching our warfighters. 

For example, a small business producing simulation training solutions for Guard 

training facilities with a cost-effective, state-of-the-art simulation training product, 

is unable to provide new systems to National Guard units that have requested them 

because the product is not on an approved program of record list. Thank you for 

your service and consideration of this question. 

General INGRAM and General CLARKE. The Air National Guard (ANG) has a long 

history of purchasing lower cost alternatives to Air Force programs of record (POR). 

For example, the ANG is purchasing KC–135 Boom Operator Simulation Systems 

(BOSS) in lieu of the Boom Operator Weapon System Trainer (BOWST), the AF 

POR. The BOSS is approximately half the cost of the BOWST, and will meet or exceed the capabilities of the BOWST for training boom operators. The BOSS fits in 

existing ANG facilities whereas the size of the BOWST drives an additional 

MILCON bill. Another example is the ANG working with the Air Force to hold a 

competition for the Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting (HMIT) system to equip 

F–16 block 30 and A–10 aircraft. The HMIT system meets or exceeds all of the capabilities of the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), the POR. The HMIT 

competition was structured to promote small business participation to encourage innovative solutions. HMIT is approximately 25% the cost of JHMCS. The ANG will 

continue to pursue similar opportunities within the bounds of the Defense Acquisition System to ensure limited NGREA funds are used as efficiently as possible. 
91 

The Army National Guard (ARNG) has procured COTS simulation training products in the past, and anticipates continuing to do so when appropriate. However, 

there are several factors that must be taken into consideration when making these 

kinds of purchase decisions. 

First, a State’s request, reflective of an emerging requirement or training capability gap, must be validated. The ARNG has recently chartered an Equipment Requirements Validation (ERV) Council of Colonels and Integrated Process Team (IPT) 

to consider requests for equipment and to prevent procurement of redundant and 

excess capabilities. 

Second, the capabilities of a requested simulation training system must provide 

appropriate training value, must accurately simulate the weapon or system being 

trained, must represent Army doctrine, and must be safe to operate. Therefore, each 

COTS product must be evaluated for content, safety, and performance by Army and 

ARNG proponents to ensure the product safely provides expected training capabilities. Third, before procuring a COTS simulation training system, consideration must 

be given to determine how the system will be supported throughout its life-cycle. 

For instance, simulators are highly technical, and require: periodic technical refresh 

to address obsolescence; occasional modernization to maintain currency; and upgrades when additional capabilities are desired. When the ARNG procures COTS 

simulation training systems, there is risk that life-cycle sustainment will not be adequately provided. The ARNG hopes to avoid investing in systems that may not be 

properly supported or require re-allocation of programmed ARNG funds. 

Mr. RUNYAN. In this time of fiscal uncertainty and imminently shrinking budgets, 

what are the National Guard and Reserve doing to increase competition amongst 

vendors in an effort to decrease the costs related to purchases? My concern is that 

the program of record is prohibiting potentially lower cost, commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS) products from reaching our warfighters. 

For example, a small business producing simulation training solutions for Guard 

training facilities with a cost-effective, state-of-the-art simulation training product, 

is unable to provide new systems to National Guard units that have requested them 

because the product is not on an approved program of record list. Thank you for 

your service and consideration of this question. 

General TALLEY. The Army Reserve’s equipment procurement budget is nested 

within the Army’s total budget. The Army uses the Defense Acquisition System to 

maximize vendor competition and quantity discounts. The Army Reserve also uses 

the Defense Acquisition System for National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation (NGREA) purchases for equipment. This flexibility allows the Army Reserve 

to get best price for its purchases. As future Army budgets decrease, the Army Reserve must continuously support the Joint, Interagency, and Multination missions 

at home and abroad while maximize resources in a fiscally constrained environment. 

Mr. RUNYAN. In this time of fiscal uncertainty and imminently shrinking budgets, 

what are the National Guard and Reserve doing to increase competition amongst 

vendors in an effort to decrease the costs related to purchases? My concern is that 

the program of record is prohibiting potentially lower cost, commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS) products from reaching our warfighters. 

For example, a small business producing simulation training solutions for Guard 

training facilities with a cost-effective, state-of-the-art simulation training product, 

is unable to provide new systems to National Guard units that have requested them 

because the product is not on an approved program of record list. Thank you for 

your service and consideration of this question. 

General JACKSON. Our program of record for National Guard Reserve Equipment 

Appropriations (NGREA) procurement is developed by staff that continually monitors requirements, commercial offerings, and best industry practices. Programs of 

record are established through a formal requirements and acquisition process that 

identifies, validates, and prioritizes competing requirements submitted by the 

warfighters. Initial identification of technical requirements and proposed solutions 

is completed at the installation level and then prioritized at the Command for resource allocation. Acquisition action is initiated based on the established priorities 

when funding becomes available and ensures that competitive procedures are followed. The command acquisition process gives preference to both commercial-off-theshelf (COTS) products and small business entities while balancing immediate procurement costs with follow-on sustainment costs. The Reserve Command continues 

its efforts to increase competition by developing additional sources for services, supplies and construction projects through providing timely advance information to industry, by issuing draft solicitations, and conducting industry days for new and follow-on contract requirements. The command closely reviews and challenges requests 
92 

for ‘‘Sole source’’ requirements with the result that such requests are frequently subject to competitive solicitation based on comprehensive market research. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ENYART 

Mr. ENYART. With the Army’s divestment of C–23, what will replace its capabilities? The C–27J has similar capabilities, does it not? 

General INGRAM. The Army is developing a plan to implement Public Law 113– 

6 and not divesting the C–23 aircraft with FY 13 appropriated funds. The C–27J 

was originally scheduled to replace the C–23 however SECDEF in 2009 transferred 

the fixed wing cargo mission and aircraft to the U.S. Air Force. If the C–23 is divested, the ARNG and other organizations supported by the C–23 will have to seek 

other support options. The C–27 is a larger, more modern and capable aircraft than 

the C–23. 

Mr. ENYART. If both the C–23 divested and C–27J were cancelled, won’t we be 

lacking a critical capability for both the warfight and HLS? 

General INGRAM, General CLARKE, and General JACKSON. The Army does not have 

a requirement for the C–23. The Memorandum of Agreement signed by CSA and 

CSAF states that the USAF will support the Army’s cargo time sensitive requirements. To date the Army believes the requirements are being met and will continue 

to be met by the USAF. The Services establish requirements and there is no service 

recognized HLS requirement for the C–23. If the C–23 is divested, organizations 

currently supported by the C–23, to include the ARNG, will turn to the ANG and 

USAF for airlift requirements or will utilize other alternatives. 

Any reduction in fleet and troop strength has a direct impact on mission readiness 

and response capabilities for both domestic and contingency operations. The loss of 

both the C–23 and C–27J will mean transferring more burdens onto the Army’s rotary wing fleet and/or more work onto the Air Force’s C–130 fleet. For the Air Force, 

this will require a conscious and concerted effort to support the warfighter’s requirements and enable our domestic mission. Further, while the Air National Guard has 

realized a growth in its C–130H fleet size as a result of the revised 2013 Fiscal Year 

total force projection, prudent steps must be taken to sustain this aging fleet and 

ensure there is no loss of mission capability over time. 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force indicates that sufficient A–10s will remain available 

to meet the requirements of the new strategic guidance. 

a) What is that number? 

b) What influence, if any, did the Army have in determining the appropriate number? 

c) Where will they be stationed? 

d) What will the ratio be for Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve? 

e) How many A–10s will be retired? 

f) The Air Force is pulling A–10s out of Europe. Where will they go? 

g) How was the appropriate number determined? 

h) What is the multirole platform the Air Force intends to use to replace A–10s? 

i) What is the antiarmor, loiter, and refueling capability of the new platform? 

General CLARKE. a) A total of 283 A–10C will remain in service as a result of 

NDAA; the breakout is: Active Duty—142, AFMC Test—1, ANG—85, AFRC—55. 

b) Operational Plans, which form the basis for USAF combat force structure, are 

developed in cooperation with the Joint Staff. The U.S. Army participates in determining Close Air Support requirements to which the A–10 fleet size is tied as part 

of the Joint Operational Planning Process. 

c) • Active Duty (143): PACAF–OSAN AB Republic of Korea—24, Active Duty 

Moody AFB, GA—49, Davis Monthan AFB AZ—57 (one AFMC aircraft assigned to AATC in Tucson AZ), Nellis AFB Nevada—13. 

• Reserves (55): Whiteman—28, DM—27. 

• Air National Guard (85): Martin State—22, Boise—21, Fort Wayne—21, 

and Selfridge—21. 

d) 30% ANG, 19% AFR, 50% Active Duty. 

e) 61 A–10Cs will be retired. 

f) A–10Cs from Spangdalhem will transfer to 354th Fighter Squadron at Davis 

Monthan. 

g) The number was determined by matching the tactical air requirements from 

Operational Plans with fiscal guidance. Increasing budget constraints place a premium on multirole fighters like the F–16 vs. mission-specific aircraft such as the 

A–10C. 

h) The F–35 Lightning II is the intended replacement for the A–10. 
93 

i) The F–35 will be equipped to carry radar and heat-seeking air to air missiles, 

as well as precision-guided and free-fall unguided air to ground weapons. In addition, it will be armed with a four-barrel GAU–22/A 25mm cannon capable of firing 

high explosive incendiary/armor piercing ammunition. The F–35 is capable of air refueling and possesses advanced stealth and electronic countermeasures that improve 

its ability to survive and operate in an anti-access area denial environment. Its loiter time is dependent upon mission and configuration; however it is assessed to be 

comparable to or greater than current 4th Generation Air Force strike aircraft. 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force desires to retire the 65 oldest C–130s. Will this have 

a more profound impact on the Reserve than Active Duty? 

General CLARKE. There is risk in the Guard and Reserve possessing all C–130H 

aircraft in the Air Force. No clear path to modernizing the C–130H exists. The C– 

130H requires modernization to comply with 2020 national and international Communication, Navigation, Surveillance and Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) 

standards. Currently, none of the C–130Hs are scheduled to be compliant by 2020— 

resulting in reduced operational capability. In addition to making force structure 

changes within the C–130 feet, the FY13 NDAA also introduced language stating 

that a congressionally directed study needed to be completed before the Air Force 

can cancel the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) ultimately placing funding 

solution in limbo. Lastly, because the Guard and Reserve possess all of the C–130H 

fleet, we will be susceptible to single fleet risks (e.g., unexpected maintenance 

issues, future fleet cuts, etc.) 

[Note: 2013 NDAA temporarily reduced the retirement of C–130H, the oldest C– 

130s in the fleet. Ultimately the ANG is growing 13% in C–130H aircraft through 

the FYDP as the C–27J divests. The 2013 NDAA also shifts all C–130H aircraft to 

the Guard and Reserve by FY17. Active Duty stands down two operational C–130H 

units at Little Rock AFB; the last remaining Active Duty C–130H unit (Yokota AB, 

Japan) converts to C–130J in FY17. The ANG adds three new C–130H units (Montana, Connecticut and Ohio)]. 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force recommends retiring 20 KC–135s. Will those be the 

oldest models? Where will those come from? Will this have outsized impact on the 

Air National Guard and U.S. Air Force Reserve? 

General CLARKE. Though the Air Force, through the FY13PB, originally recommended retiring 20 KC–135s, per the AF Total Force Proposal (TFP) Air Force 

ultimately decided to retire 16 aircraft via the 2013 National Defense Authorization 

Act (NDAA). 

These aircraft were divided amongst the Major Commands and resulted in the Air 

National Guard (ANG) earning eight retirement slots. The affected States and units 

were: • one from Arizona (161ARW—Air Refueling Wing) • one from Iowa (185ARW) 

• six from Ohio (121ARW) 

However, 

• eight KC–135s were added to Mississippi (186ARW)—four of which are internal ANG transfers from Tennessee (134ARW) and Wisconsin (128ARW)—four 

of which are sourced from the Active Duty Air Force. 

All aircraft were chosen using a computer model developed by the System Program Office (SPO) that takes multiple variables into account to include age, flight 

hours, severity of usage, fuel cell score, trend data . . . etc. to calculate and overall 

aircraft composite score. As the ANG fleet of KC–135 aircraft is now at a total 176 

(down from 180 aircraft with the implementation of FY–13 NDAA) the impact on 

mission accomplishment is negligible. 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force claims it can achieve savings by substituting C–130s 

for C–27J. What is the cost per flying hour for C130s vs. C–27J? What is the cost 

to procure C130s vs. C–27J? What cost have already been expended to procure C– 

27J? What are the cancellation costs if any? Can the C–27J perform HLS missions 

at a lower cost than C130s? 

General CLARKE and General JACKSON. The Air Force annually publishes, in Air 

Force Instruction 65–503, Table A15–1, an operating and support cost for each 

weapon system. For FY13, the Table identifies the Department of Defense cost for 

the C–27J as $2,231 per flying hour. The C–130H cost is $7,975 while the C–130J 

cost is $4,716 per flying hour. 

The C–27J’s average aircraft procurement cost was $28.5 million. The C–27Js cost 

was based on a firm-fixed price contract which has now expired. The cost to procure 

a new C–130J is approximately $70 million. 

The Air National Guard does not manage the procurement or divestment costs for 

the C–27J program. That responsibility rests with the Air Force Material Command’s C–27J Systems Program Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and 
94 

with the Secretary of the Air Force’s Acquisition Office. They can provide the procurement costs to date as well as the respective cancellation costs associated with 

the proposed program divestment. 

The C–27J and C–130 perform the same relative mission, delivering critical personnel and assets to forward or austere locations. The relative cost difference to perform such a mission is dependent on the amount of cargo or personnel that must 

be moved, and the relative distance involved in each movement. The C–27J would 

be more efficient when moving small response teams or critical payloads between 

nearby States, while the C–130 and even the C–17 would be more efficient in the 

movement of larger response teams and supplies across the country. 

Mr. ENYART. With the Army’s divestment of C–23, what will replace its capabilities? The C–27J has similar capabilities, does it not? 

General TALLEY. The Army Reserve does not own any C–23s and so hadn’t 

planned on getting any C–27Js in the Army Reserve. This is all ARNG. 

Mr. ENYART. If both the C–23 divested and C–27J were cancelled, won’t we be 

lacking a critical capability for both the warfight and HLS? 

General TALLEY. The Army Reserve does not own any C–23s and so hadn’t 

planned on getting any C–27Js in the Army Reserve. This is all ARNG. 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force indicates that sufficient A–10s will remain available 

to meet the requirements of the new strategic guidance. 

a) What is that number? 

b) What influence, if any, did the Army have in determining the appropriate number? 

c) Where will they be stationed? 

d) What will the ratio be for Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve? 

e) How many A–10s will be retired? 

f) The Air Force is pulling A–10s out of Europe. Where will they go? 

g) How was the appropriate number determined? 

h) What is the multirole platform the Air Force intends to use to replace A–10s? 

What is the antiarmor, loiter, and refueling capability of the new platform? 

General JACKSON. a) The Air Force will retain 283 TAI per the FY13 NDAA to 

meet a requirement of 242 TAI. 

b) The Army has no direct influence nor is it involved in internal deliberations 

regarding Force Structure. Army input is captured through development of Joint Requirements as it relates to war plans. 

c) Moody, GA: 2 x Active Duty Squadrons; Davis-Monthan, AZ: 2 x Active Duty 

Squadrons, 1 x Reserve Squadron (the 357th converts from AD to AFRC); Nellis, 

NV: 13 TAI assigned as components of the USAFWS (66WPS) and 422 TES; OSAN, 

ROK: 1 Active Duty Squadron; Eglin, FL: 2 Developmental/Test A–10s; Whiteman, 

MO: 1 Reserve Squadron; Selfridge, MI: 1 ANG Squadron; Boise, ID: 1 ANG Squadron; Martin State, MD: 1 ANG Squadron; Fort Wayne, IN: 1 ANG Squadron. 

d) The AD/ANG/AFR mix is 143/85/55 or 51%/30%/19%. 

e) The FY 13 NDAA authorizes the retirement of A–10s from Spangdahlem, AB, 

Germany (Active Duty), Ft Smith, AR (ANG) and Barksdale, LA (AFRC). This is a 

total reduction from 344 TAI to 283 TAI (-61). 

f) The A–10s removed from Spangdahlem, GE will be redistributed across the remaining fleet to maximize the USAF’s ability to preserve aircraft with the most capability/remaining service life. This kind of fleet management is a routine function 

handled by Air Combat Command. 

g) The appropriate number of Air Force A–10s was an enterprise-wide assessment 

of aircraft inventory and availability relative to COCOM requirements. 

h) The F–35 will ultimately replace the A–10. The F–35 is fully air-refuelable in 

the same vein of the F–15/F–16 and F–22. It will be able to employ a wide range 

of precision ordnance. It will have neither the loiter endurance of the A–10 nor the 

anti-armor of the A–10’s 30mm cannon, but it will bring additional capabilities to 

the mission. 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force desires to retire the 65 oldest C–130s. Will this have 

a more profound impact on the Reserve than Active Duty? 

General JACKSON. Retiring the 65 oldest C–130s would have a more profound impact on the Air Force Reserve than the RegAF. RegAF aircraft are being recapitalized with C–130Js leaving manpower and bases without impact. The FY13 PB C– 

130 retirements would have left Maxwell AFB, Pittsburgh ARS, and Minneapolis 

ARS without an Air Force Reserve flying mission. Much of this iron has been retained through FY14 (Keesler is losing its combat coded C–130Js that are moving 

to Pope), although in some instances without adequate manpower and O&M funding 

required to operate them. 
95 

Mr. ENYART. The Air Force recommends retiring 20 KC–135s. Will those be the 

oldest models? Where will those come from? Will this have outsized impact on the 

Air National Guard and U.S. Air Force Reserve? 

General JACKSON. The aircraft will likely be the oldest as was stated in the Mar 

2012 document: ‘‘USAF Force Structure Changes: Sustaining Readiness and Modernizing the Total Force.’’ Sometimes the oldest aircraft are not in the worst condition—decisions will be a result of AFRC and AMC in coordination with engineering 

advice from the AFMC system program manager. For AFRC, 4 aircraft will come 

from Tinker and 1 from March ARB. The retirements do not have an outsized impact on the AF Reserve, though the 4 Primary Assigned Aircraft from Tinker have 

commensurate reductions in manpower, flying hours and depot maintenance funding. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. WALORSKI 

Mrs. WALORSKI. GEN Ingram, last year 16 Adjutants General requested funding 

to modernize the aging HMMWV. In response, the Appropriations Committee honored this request and provided $100M to begin a multiyear effort to field new model 

HMMWVs in Guard units across the country. I believe new production HMMWVs 

should be prioritized as you seek the most cost-effective modernization strategy. Can 

you please provide the committee with a sense of what the Bureau and Army has 

done to execute this critical program and of your plans for the near term? 

General INGRAM. We are currently examining all the data in order to make an 

informed decision with respect to our HMMWV fleet. We are working in concert 

with the Army and are using the recently released Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Study 

to determine what our current and future requirements are for ARNG HMMWVs. 

As the Army Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program matures and is eventually fielded, this new vehicle will replace Army and Army Guard HMMWVs. We are moving 

forward with our Army partners to ensure our tactical wheeled vehicle fleet will 

meet the current and future Operational Force requirements. 

Æ