“The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on the equipment status and requirements of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.  The panel includes Lieutenant General Clyde A. Vaughn, Director of the Army National Guard and Lieutenant General Jack C. Stultz, Chief of the Army Reserve.

 “The purpose of today's hearing is to get a straightforward assessment of the equipment needs of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

 “The witnesses have been asked to clearly lay out what equipment levels their organizations are required to have, and how those requirements have changed, as well as what equipment levels they actually have on hand. They have also been asked to provide their views on the adequacy of the fiscal year 2009 budget request for equipping their elements of the Army.

 “While the most important element of the Army is its people, equipment comes in a very close second.

 “There are many elements the military considers when it judges a unit ‘combat ready,’ and one of those elements is a unit's equipment. Compared to other measures of readiness, equipment readiness is fairly straightforward: either you have the equipment you need, or you don't.

 “Without the right type and amounts of equipment, even the most dedicated and experienced soldier cannot train for combat, or help when there is a domestic emergency.

 “However, for a variety of reasons that today's hearing will explore, the number of units in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve that can report that they are at the highest level of equipment readiness has declined significantly since 2001.

 “While most Guard and Reserve units deployed overseas have all the equipment they require, many of those units don't get all that equipment until just before – and in some cases after – they deploy, which makes training to deploy very difficult.

 “In addition, a large percentage of non-deployed Guard and Reserve units are far below Army standards for equipment on hand.

 “If this situation persists, it could lead to National Guard units that – while very dedicated and willing – are simply not able to adequately respond to domestic emergencies, let alone train for combat.

 “No amount of desire or willpower, however noble, can overcome a lack of transportation, communication, and construction equipment when a National Guard unit is trying to help people hit by a tornado or hurricane.

 “If this situation persists, it could lead to Army Reserve units that cannot train for their combat missions, which could disrupt deployment timelines, were an emergency Army deployment situation to occur in South Korea or elsewhere.

 “Army Reserve units play a critical logistics role in all Army overseas deployments, so if large numbers of them are not able to train to standards or deploy on time, it can imperil the lives of countless other soldiers.

 “The increasing number of units that do not have their required equipment is even more significant today given the ongoing use of the Guard and Reserves as ‘operational reserve forces’ that are routinely called up for service, in comparison to the Cold War ‘strategic reserve’ model that assumed very few mobilizations.

 “This change to an operational reserve has greatly increased the amount of equipment Guard and Reserve units are required to have, yet it appears that the Army's ability to actually provide equipment to meet these new, and appropriately higher, standards has lagged.

 “Thankfully, Congress has not sat idle while the equipment readiness of many Army National Guard and Army Reserve units deteriorated.

 “Since 2003, Congress has provided $10.7 billion in additional funding for Guard and Reserve equipment above what was in the President's budget request. This funding has enjoyed sustained bipartisan support both on this committee and throughout Congress.

 “A major issue I hope to see some light shed on today is: where did all this money go?

 “How much of it was used to provide the additional equipment intended for the Guard and Reserve?

 “Has any of it been siphoned off by the Army to other needs that were deemed more pressing at the time?

 “Why do equipment readiness rates continue to remain very low for many non-deployed units despite this massive infusion of additional funds?

 “And for the 2009 budget, what more needs to be done by Congress to continue to address this problem, either through legislation or funding?

 “Before we begin, I would like to comment briefly on media reports on a recent Department of Defense Inspector General Report on the Army and Marine Corps body armor procurement process. 

 “Previously, we have found that media coverage of Pentagon force protection equipment procurement does not always tell the whole story. 

 “We will sit down with both, the Army and the DOD IG, in the immediate future and seek to establish all the facts.  Our Army acquisition hearing is next week and we will address this issue at that time.

 “Before we begin, I would like to turn to my good friend and colleague from New Jersey, Jim Saxton.”