completed over a half million soldier mobilizations in support of domestic operations and overseas missions. we currently have 29 the thousand army national guard soldiers mobilized. last year, in fy 11, 45,000 army guardsmen were deployed in support of on going missions around the world. as an operational force, the army national guard provides a cost effective solution to meet the new strategic guidance. for 12.3% of the army's base budget, the army national guard provides 39% of the army's operating forces. our soldiers represent nearly every zip code in the nation. they play a vital role as the department of defense first responder for natural disasters and terrorist attacks on our soil. today's army national guard soldiers continue the pride proud tradition of service to

their states and to our nation. in 2011 alone, it was the citizen soldiers who provided 900,000 duty days of support to communities across our nation. that's the second largest domestic response since 9/11 -- since hurricane katrina. we are attracting skilled soldiers and future leaders. with the nation at war as a backdrop, our year to date enlistment rate for fy 12 is in excess of 95%. but our retention rate exceeds 130%. so we are meeting our authorized end strength of 358,000. >> we're equipping to meet 21st century kalgs through your support of the necessary resourcing for modernization. our 28 brigade combat teams that

include one stryker brigade, our eight combat aviation brigades and two special forces groups are well equipped. we understand our readiness level, however, is dependent on the level of resources that we receive. the overall army national guard equipment on hand for our deemployable units is currently at 88%. an increase of over two years ago when we were at 85%. our critical dual use an equipment on hand is at 95 -- 92%. an increase from 86% two years ago. and a significant increase from the 65% it was during hurricane katrina. from december of 2011 through june, 2013, the army national guard has programmed to receive over 120,000 pieces of equipment

from army procurement funding. army national guard armories are actually the foundation of our readiness. we have facilities in 28099 communities across the 50 state, the territories and the district providing quality facilities, however, is an ongoing challenge. more than 46% of our armories are over 50 years old. many are unable to meet the needs of the 21st century operational force while failing to meet modern building standards and especially in terms of energy efficiency. the army national guard continues to make suicide prevention a top priority. our soldiers are our most precious resource. we are addressing high risk behaviors and suicidal tendencies through preventive measures, comprehensive training, and a range of intervention programs. in addition, we are addressing

sexual harassment and assault response and prevention through an aggressive training program executed at the state level. it's crucial that these behavioral health programs receive funding in our base budget. in closing, i acknowledge the continued support that you've demonstrated through the budget process in program planning for an operational national guard through 2010 p 15. i want to express the army national guard's sincere appreciation of the critical role your committee plays in resourcing and sustaining the most capable national guard that our nation has ever had. i appreciate the privilege of being here and invite your questions. >> thank you very much, general ingram. .general mckinley and general wyatt, as i indicated in my opening remarks, this past parch, the air force announced more structure changes and end strength reduction.

and the greatest reductions were in the air guard. 51 h 5100 lost. my question is, were you involved in reaching this final decision? were you consulted? what was your involvement? >> scenario, i think i'll let bud talk through the tactical process by which the air force works its corporate process and traditionally in the guard the two directors have been totally involved in their services in how the budgets are built and briefed. i will tell you that as chief, i was involved in the final deliberations discussions in the december time frame in which time i expressed certainly our corporate view on behalf of the and utants general on the outcome that the air force was pursuing. and then following the holidays,

a number of meetingsing with both secretary panetta, chairman dempsey, general swartz, and secretary donnelly to continue to work out the end game strategies. i think you've had general swartz and secretary donnelly here to talk about their overall views of the size of the air force, that it's the smallest air force in history. recapitalization is a major issue for our air force. and as general wyatt will tell you and i'm sure general stenner will tell you that our air force and its strength cascades to its reserve component, both air national guard and the air force reserve. so i'll let general wyatt cover account corporate process that you're alluding to with your question and then take any follow-up questions you may have about our involvement. about you. >> general wyatt? >> mr. chairman, the air force decision-making process as we put together budgets is commonly referred to as the air force

corporate process and has several different steps along the way, beginning at the action officer going up to the one star, two star level which is the board level. council level at three star and then recommendations are presented to the chief and the secretary at the four star level. i was able to participate, my staff was able to participate, all along the way. we were encouraged to make our inputs and we did so, in fact, we exercised that encouragement rather vociferously inside the air force corporate process. we did present alternatives to the air force, alternatives to the 13 pb as it officially came out. i think general swartz has accurately described the process when he said that there were very difficult decisions for the air force to make. he encouraged open debate. he engaged openly in that debate. and made my inputs, but in the end, the final decision is left to the chief and the secretary.

and many of the recommendations and alternatives that we proposed were not adopted but we respect the difficult decisions that the chief and the secretary had to make. once those decisions are made as title 10 officers, we need to recognize that fact and salute and proceed forward. >> but you were able to make an input? >> we made several inputs, sir, several alternatives, different ways of meeting the budget and the operational demands of the air force. some of which were accepted, a lot of which were not. >> thank you very much. general ingram, during calendar year 2011, we have been advised that 98 guardsmen took their own lives. can you tell us what's happenin

happening? >> chairman, any soldier that or any person that takes their own life is a tragic experience. in the case of the army national guard, we're citizen soldiers. and i don't have the exact statistics of how many of the soldiers in the army national guard that committed suicide had never deployed. but there were quite a few. i'm not sure whether the citizen or the soldier committed suicide. in some cases, and we do a very thorough after action look at each case, and in those cases, we take steps to prevent that from happening again. we use that in our training.

we use -- and we've increased the level of training in suicide prevention. but it's an american problem as well as an army problem as well as an army national guard problem. and we're going to great lengths to prevent our soldiers either having suicidal tendencies or actually committing the act. >> i thank you very much. may i call upon senator kaufman? >> mr. chairman, thank you. general mckinley, the air force's restructure plan suggests that reductions in air guard in personnel and aircraft ought to be undertaken. you describe in your testimony the enhanced use of guard forces that would provide capability in overseas missions. looking at our recent experience

in libya, there were air force personnel and aircraft involved in the no-fly zone strategy. tell us what your impressions were of those who were engaged in that operation, what changes, if any, need to be made in terms of support for funding of different activities or equipment acquisition in light of those experiences. >> you rightfully point out, senator cochran, that the air force is uniquely positioned to utilize its reserve component effectively and efficiently for the entire period of time that i've been in the national guard, there's always been a close personal relationship between our active force and its guard and its reserve. that led to the capability that general wyatt may want to discuss a little more intimately involved in the tampger mission and the mission that inspired

the no-fly zone in libya. to rapidly get volunteers in our communities who are associated with the requirement out of their civilian jobs to their units in a voluntary status so we didn't need to mobilize and we got them overseas in record time and they participated in the full unified protector mission as you allude to. and that's been a tradition. it's been a core competency of our air fours, its relationship with its guard and reserve for the last four decades. so i'm very proud of that. i don't think our air force can survive without the close cooperation and collaboration of its reserve component. i've heard both secretary donnelly and general swartz make those statements in public. i'll let general wyatt talk about the numbers, types of equipment that actually deployed -- how quickly they deployed and how effectively they were used by the nato command in the successful

prosecution libyan operation. bud? >> general wyatt. >> senator cochran, i mentioned a little bit about the time frame of the response early on. i will tell you especially in the refueling portion of "odyssey dawn," it was a joint effort with the active component, the guard and the reserve. the guard and reserve actually had over 50% of the refueling capability in theater. the expeditionary wing was commanded by an air guardsman out of pennsylvania. the integration of the three components in the air force i think is a model. primarily because we're trained to the staple standards. we use the same equipment. that's the way we fight. that's the way we train and fight. as we go forward in the future, i think the key for the air force to maintain the capacity and capability and continue reliance upon the reserve component guard and reserve is a

couple of things. number one is the guard and reserve have to be fielded the new equipment at the same time concurrently with the active component and in representative numbers so that we can continue to be an operational force that can be called upon on a moment's notice. i would remind everyone that there was no mobilization authority available for "odyssey dawn" for the libyan no-fly zone. 100% of the guardsmen and reservists that showed up for that engagement were volunteers. the key besides new equipment fielded concurrently and in a balanced fashion, proportional fashion across account reserve components, the other keel is in the baseline budget of the air force there has to be sufficient mpa days to allow the operational use of the guard and the reserve. as al org skiesed trained and equipped organization, i think general stenner would back me up on this, the air force adequately funds us to be able

to train and equip but to use us in operational missions around the world, the air force needs to budget mps days so we can continue to be the force available on a moment's call. >> does the dollar amount requested for this committee's approval meet those requirements? >>. >> easiest,yes, sir, i think it in pb 13 for the title 10 fight. i'm a little bit concerned when i take a look at some of the domestic requirements for the air national guard. there is, you know, some pressures. obviously as the air force tries to do its part in reducing the deficit, i think the key is that as we go forward and we look at the number of required mpa days that would allow the air guard and the reserve to continue functioning, that we take a no look at what are the requirements and the demands they're telling us would be

forward and then adequately budget for that rather than just pick an arbitrary number and try to cut. >> general ingram, camp shelby, mississippi, at hattiesburg has been a site for army guardsmen, reservists, others to mobilize and be deployed to areas of need. what is your impression of the funding requests for that facilitiful there is money in there for any activities and programs there? and what needs exist that should be brought to our attention if they're not requested? >> senator cochran, camp shelby has been a very viable force provection platform for most of the war fight. there's been some improvements that been made there. the army funds those

improvements out of the base budget. and as we continue down the road, i think the appropriate needs will be met by the army budget for camp shelby and several other predominantly army national guard post camps and stations that are used as power projection platforms. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator alexander? >> thanks, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i want to ask about the announcement in february about replacing the c-5 as with c-17s, which was part of the comprehensive reorganization of air force resources. the house defense authorization bill includes a provision that would put that restructuring plan on hold for a year.

so i understand. and i wanted to try to understand from you, general wyatt, if i can, what the consequences of that are. specifically, i mean, the idea as you went through these difficult budget decisions was to replace the c-5 as which are expensive to maintain and which are not -- which aren't mission ready much of the time with c 17s. the idea would be that would save a lot of money and produce a more efficient operation. now, what does -- what happens to the -- what does this one-year delay do? what does it do in terms of the cost of maintenance, for example, of these c-5 as that you know you're going to get rid of? what does it do to the schedule

for retraining personnel? what does it do to the guard's mission readiness? >> sir, those are the -- those are great questions. they're what we're wrestling with right now. the transition at memphis out of c-5s into c-17s was actually an fy 12 action, that is supposed to begin, but it continues into fy 13 as we retire c-5 as out of memphis, the c-17s come in. that requires training, dollars to be spent to make the conversion and you're correct, the reason that -- and a plaud that move on baffle of the air force because it does bring the air national guard more into the relevant aircraft of the future. it's something we've been pushing for for quite a long time in the air national guard. >> we know, don't we, we're going to get rid of the c5 as, aren't we? >> yes we are. >> why would we delay it a year?

>> i hope we don't. but that particular movement is one of the things in pb 13 that i think is in the best interests of the country and certainly the air force and the air national guard that we continue with that part of it. if the prohibition is to spend any any fy-13 funds on fy-12 actions that need to be completed in fy-13, then the dilemma is as exactly as you have expressed. it would cause us to go back and take a look at what is the cost of maintaining the c5-as, if there are appropriations to do so, if that's where we're going, and it does cause us some uncertainty going forward. >> so when the dollars are short or tight, and many of your recommendations weren't able to be accepted, but you're saluting them, maybe we need a title ten salute in the united states senate. we might get things done a little more quickly than we did.

but so you're going to have to spend money maintaining planes that you know you're going to get rid of when you could be spending it on retraining guard personnel. you could be spending it on other aspects of mission readiness. is that not correct? >> yes, sir. the situation at memphis is exactly as you have described it. that's one of the inputs in the air force corporate process that the air national guard made that was accepted by the united states air force. and i applauded that because it made a whole lot of sense. still does make a whole lot of sense. but the dilemma that we're in now is how do you make that transition that we start this year in fy-12 with the prohibitions on spending moneys in '13 to complete those actions. >> i hope as we move through the process and we're trying to respect you're stewardship of scarce dollars, that we see what that delay would do is really waste money or take money for planes that we know we're going

to get rid of to maintain them and money that could be used in other places. in the same light, in nashville, the guard is preparing for a new unmanned aerial vehicle mission, which i understand the air force needs for that facility to assume. now, how will this one-year delay affect the capabilities in the time line for moving uavs into nashville? >> very similar situation. again, this was an fy-12 action d that is beginning. part of it involves the movement of c-130s from puerto rico to the air national guard, which is losing c-130e. so there's a ripple effect that we're facing. i have to applaud general hasten, the adjutant general from tennessee, very forward looking, volunteered early on to transition into the rpa mission,

which we see as a sunrise mission in the air national gua guard, one that will be around and keep the tennessee air guard relevant well into the future. but we face the same challenges there. we need to continue down the path of transition. delays do make the transition a little bit smoother -- i mean a little bit more difficult and costly. >> and costly. >> and costly. you know, the cost of maintaining those air would move to puerto rico. but if we're required to hold the puerto rico divestiture models, c-130s, then we could have the divestiture that we would not normally have. >> i don't have much time left. if i could ask the general. towards the end of president bush's administration, national guardsmen were deployed to assist with immigration issues. you made a slight reference to

that, i believe. i wondered if you could tell me how successful that was, whether that's still going on or not in terms of our border control activities. i think it was in support of the -- those whose job it is to secure the border. >> senator, you are correct. it's in support of the customs and border patrol. that mission has changed slightly. this year that mission changed from 1,200 people to 300 people. and it moved from a grand mission to an aerial mission where we're using 300 soldiers flying 19 helicopters and one fixed-wing aircraft along with analysts on the ground that help interpret the data for the border patrol from the information it's gained from the aircraft. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator kotz.

>> mr. chairman, thank you. i just want to follow up on senator alexander's question relative to the a-10. i mean, it's really a similar situation here where a decision has been made to retire a certain model of aircraft and replace it with others. i know there have been negotiations going on between the guard and the air force. and then referencing the action that the house recently took to delay all this for a year. if you could apply that now back down to the a-10 situation, what is the -- what is the status of those negotiations? is this a done deal? has a final decision been made? is there more consideration to be undertaken? general, do you want to -- >> very similar situation to tennessee. as with all the states.

but a little bit different -- well, significantly different input from the air national guard. our input in the corporate process was to suggest alternative ways to meet the emerging strategy with a-10s, which as you know play a crucial role in close air support, iraq an afghanistan. in fact, we have a-10s in theater right now as we speak. but some of those suggestions were not accepted by the air force as we went forward. alternative missions were proposed for the unit at ft. wayne, indiana, and those are included in pb-13. the status of the negotiations between the council of governors and secretary panetta i think have concluded. although at any point in time

obviously the secretary has the progress twif the counselor of governors die look to reengage. but i think that a counterproposal was made. it did not include anything related to the indiana air guard or the a-10s. and my understanding is the council of governors have respectfully declined the offer of secretary panetta to reach a compromise. so we're waiting to see what happens with pb-13. but in the meantime, as i indicated, we need to start moving toward at least taking a look at implementing the pb as it has been proposed, unless we're told something different by congress. >> well, again to follow on senator alexander's question, but the house pass becomes law, what do you anticipate the status of current a-10 fleets being? i mean, are they going to be hanger queens and just sit there in the cost of maintenance but

no mission for them, just waiting out the year? what's your take on what will happen? >> my take is if that happens we hope there would be sufficient funds to continue operating because it's a great unit in ft. wayne. they're already trained. as i've said, they've rendered great support to the operation in iraq and afghanistan. and our contention would be to continue with the training and keeping that operational for as long as possible. we may have to dial back or dial down the level of continuation training, which would be very difficult to do and maintain our combat status ready to go. it would be a difficult thing to do, but we'd give it our best shot depending on the level of funding that came along with the house proposal. >> but, again, that's something that's going to have to be decided by the secretary and the chief of the air force. so i guess there's a possibility that they wouldn't be

operational during that one-year holding period. that would be my concern. >> that is a possibility, sir. >> and then what effect would that have on the the planned follow-on, the isr aircraft? >> it would be obviously delayed. the part that i'm concerned about is the people, because as i go out and visit units, the thing that i'm hearing is concern about an indefinite future about, you know, what is the future of my unit, what is the future of my job, is it going to be the same, is it going to be different, is it going to be here at all? i mentioned about the volunteerism we have in the air national guard. our recruiting and retention continues to be strong even in spite of pb-13 and the operations tempo. but where i'm starting to see some stress on my folks is our retention numbers.