[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 150 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S11542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the past few days, the Senate has 
been considering the conference report to accompany the Department of 
Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1998. While there are 
several areas of controversy, I would like to highlight one area that I 
believe has not been given sufficient consideration: funding for the 
National Guard.
  This bill contains a couple of disturbing provisions, not so much for 
their immediate impact, but for their long-term consequences. First, 
the proposal to add a representative for the Guard and Reserves on the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, which I strongly support, has been watered down 
to call for two two-star advisors to the Chairman of the JCS. Mr. 
President, this is essentially the same role that the head of the 
National Guard Bureau has today. I do not see this as an enhancement of 
the Guard's status in the highest circles of decisionmaking. And I'm 
told that in the Pentagon, two two-stars don't equal a four. I am 
afraid that the current pattern of decisionmaking is responsible for 
the shortfall in resources for the National Guard that we see in the 
legislation before us, and if it is not altered in a significant 
manner, the National Guard is likely to have greater problems in the 
future.
  The other provision that I would like to draw my colleagues attention 
to is the cut in Army National Guard personnel endstrength of 5,000. 
Mr. President, we all understand that over the next few years, 
endstrengths will come down for all the services. But what this bill 
does is to pick out one component of the military and require it to 
make a significant cut without calling on other components to begin 
their agreed-upon reductions. In fact, this bill forces reductions in 
the only part of the U.S. Army to actually meet its endstrength 
requirements. I am not sure that all my colleagues realize that because 
the Army National Guard is actually over its required endstrength by 
about 2,000 people, the legislation will force the layoff of more than 
5,000 young men and women who are currently serving their country. 
Whereas if similar cuts were to come in the active component, the cuts 
would be implemented in large part by eliminating unfilled positions. 
This does not seem to me to be the way to maintain a dedicated cadre of 
military professionals.
  Finally, I speak out today because I am concerned that this 
legislation may be taken as a sign by some as a change in Congress' 
attitude toward the National Guard. I very strongly believe that the 
future of the U.S. Armed Forces must include a greater role for the 
Guard and Reserves, not a diminished one. As defense resources shrink, 
as the nature of our employment structures change, and as we develop 
better tools for keeping our weekend warriors up to speed as top 
quality practioners of their military arts, we must put more of our 
faith in that part of the U.S. military that is closest to the people--
the National Guard.
  For too long, Congress has been seen as the primary bastion of 
support for the Guard and Reserves--not the Pentagon. An example of 
this is the administration's request for no new procurement funds for 
fiscal year 1998 for the Army Guard and Air Guard, out of a total 
procurement budget request of $42,883,000,000. This is not only 
unrealistic--it is dangerous. And until the administration sends up a 
more balanced request, Congress will have to continue its vigilance on 
behalf of the Guard. But this is not the way it should be, Mr. 
President, and I am disappointed that the bill before us today did not 
take advantage of the opportunity to change this situation.
  It is my impression that a great debate continues to rage on the 
future structure of our military forces. I trust that this bill will 
not be taken as Congress' comments on that discussion, and that renewed 
energy will go into finding a better solution to these dilemmas in the 
coming years.

                          ____________________