[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S1451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, shortly after Christmas, the New York Times 
printed a very one-sided portrayal of the National Guard. In that 
article, a senior Defense Department official is quoted as saying, 
``There's a lot of the Army National Guard that's just irrelevant to 
our strategy. It's kind of like a welfare program for weekend warriors. 
* * *''
  Aside from being grossly inappropriate, the statement is simply not 
true. Change is inevitable--not just for the Guard but for this 
Nation's military structure as a whole. And, while the Guard is 
prepared to face those new challenges, as we go forward, I'll continue 
to be guided by my unequivocal support for the Guard and by the 
knowledge that the Guard is in no way the problem, but rather the key 
to the solution.
  I can also assure my colleagues that some nameless, faceless 
bureaucrat who equates the Guard--with its stellar performances in the 
Persian Gulf, Somalia, Haiti, the Sinai, and Bosnia--to a handout, will 
not be determining the Guard's fate. Instead, the Guard, sitting down 
as equals with the Army, will determine that future.
  That's the message I delivered a few weeks ago to the Adjutants 
General Conference, that's the message I delivered when the Governors 
met here for their annual meeting, and that's the message I bring to 
you today. Because when representatives of the National Guard sit down 
at the negotiating table with the Army, I intend for both the Governors 
and Congress to be solidly behind them.
  Our common goal has been to maximize the Guard's role both during 
times of war and peace, and to assure the Guard is ready and 
accessible. That goal has not changed. But, we must assure that this 
goal can adapt to the changing global, economic, technological, and 
political environment. I think that the Guard's accomplishments put us 
in an excellent position as we head into this debate, and ask the 
question, ``What are the military needs of this country, and how can we 
best meet them?''
  We've already proven we can conform to the changing global demands 
being placed on our military. In his State of the Union Address, 
President Clinton said, ``We can't be everywhere. We can't do 
everything. But where our interests and our values are at stake--and 
where we can make a difference--America must lead. We must not be 
isolationists or the world's policeman. But we can be its best 
peacemaker.''
  The Guard has proven itself 100 percent as a necessary and vital part 
of America's peacekeeping force. Any discussions about the Guard's 
future must recognize the interdependability of the regular Army and 
the Guard, rather than continuing to see them as having separate 
missions.
  The Air Force and Air Guard are a perfect example of how we can make 
this integration work. Serving anywhere around the globe, there is no 
distinction between these two Air Forces. They fly as one, they work as 
one, and they succeed as one.
  Another issue often mentioned is the changing technology and its 
impact on our military makeup. Again, the Guard is keeping pace with 
the changing demands. I'll use this opportunity to brag on Kentucky a 
bit. Our western Kentucky training facility, in conjunction with the 
high-technology training available at Fort Knox, puts Kentucky and the 
National Guard at the forefront of this country's military training.
  Last year, 16,000 soldiers trained there. But, those numbers 
represent just the beginning in a long line of soldiers who will 
receive the best, state-of-the-art training this country has to offer.
  The Kentucky Guard is certainly not alone in its ability to adapt to 
new high-technology opportunities and demands. And, who better than our 
citizen-soldiers with their added professional skills, to meet the 
high-technology challenges of the future? We've seen how these 
additional skills constantly come into play--a chief of police 
providing the know-how to set up policing operations in Haiti is just 
one example--and we'll see it when the Guard uses its outside expertise 
for the high-technology military of the future.
  In the end, Mr. President, our greatest pleasure comes from budget 
realities and growing fiscal restraints. Last year, we essentially had 
to go in and write the Guard's resource and training needs into the 
budget. But, our hard work paid off and our priority items--Air 
National Guard force structure, military technician manning and the 
Army Guard operating funding--survived.
  This year, things will get even more difficult. And as General Baca 
conceded a few weeks ago, we'll not only have to confront the issue of 
force structure, we'll have to accept change. But, the Guard can be the 
architects of that change.
  In drawing up the plans for that change, I think we should be guided 
by the Adjutants General Association president, General Lawson's words. 
As he said last September, ``We may need less military, but we don't 
need the military less.''
  Assistant Secretary of Defense Deborah Lee is right on target when 
she points out that our units cost 25 to 75 percent of active-duty 
counterparts. ``Making greater use of the reservists makes good sense 
in an area of shrinking budgets. This means that instead of reducing 
the Reserve components in the same direct proportion as the active 
components, more use should be made of reservists to control peacetime 
costs and to minimize the risks associated with active drawdown.''
  And that last point is very important. As the executive officer of a 
Cobra helicopter squadron put it, ``If you dissolve units like this, it 
would take years to rebuild that ability if you ever needed it again.''
  Major General Philbin put it another way: ``Since few conflicts 
evolve as anticipated, where would those reserve component forces be 
found if the Guard combat divisions are deactivated? The Army Reserve? 
Not structured for combat. Another draft? No time, since the Pentagon 
pundits are forecasting, however unrealistically, conflicts that arise 
like lightning bolts and are successfully concluded in a flash.''
  When we go to the table to hammer out a new covenant with the Army, 
we must bring to the table our willingness to see changes to force 
structure. But we shouldn't leave behind our commitment to a relevant, 
viable and ready Guard that maintains a balanced force of combat, 
combat support, and combat service support, along with an equal level 
of command support to maintain balance across the Nation. These items 
will not be negotiable.
  We're at a crucial juncture that will have long-felt repercussions 
for the National Guard and the Nation as a whole. But I hope we've 
reached that juncture, with Congress behind the Guard, with the 
Governors behind the Guard, and most important, with the American 
people behind the Guard.
  That's because the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard find their 
roots in the history of this country, but equally important, in the 
communities of this country.
  If you look behind the words in the Guard's theme--``Capable, 
Accessible, Affordable''--what you'll find are average folks who've 
struggled through some of the worst disasters imaginable.
  They understand that taken together, these three words define with 
simplicity and clarity, the important dual Federal-State function of 
our National Guard, the decisive role they've played in our Nation's 
history, and will play in our Nation's future.
  And taken together, they decree what the Guard has been, what they 
can be, and what they will be.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure 
that the Guard continues to play a major role in this Nation's military 
structure and mission.

                          ____________________