Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. I would again like to take this opportunity to thank you, and the Members of the Committee, for your continued support of the National Guard and Reserves. I am prepared to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Mr. HEFNER. Thank you. We appreciate your statement. [The statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to once again appear before this committee to present our views on the full-time support program within the National Guard. I would also like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks for your continued support. My testimony will address the drawdown of the active and reserve forces and also a continued area of concern the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program.

In this time of economic budget constraints, and the proposed reduction in defense spending, the Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) program must be examined more carefully than ever before. We should also look at the military drawdown to determine if it is wise to reduce both the active forces and the reserves. Many of the missions now assigned to the active-duty military can be shifted to the reserves at a great savings to the American taxpayers.

I will begin with the AGR program which has consistently proven to be exceptionally costly and definitely mismanaged. It will be necessary that I review aspects of my previous testimony before this committee. The seed for the AGR program was planted in 1975 when Congress directed DOD to use the least costly form of manpower in the DOD Appropriations Act of 1975, Public Law 93-365. The Defense Manpower Commission, in its report to the President and Congress in 1976, concluded that $ 270 million could be saved annually by replacing all Army and Air Force reserve component technicians with Guardsmen and Reservists on active duty. In 1977 a comprehensive review of the Full-Time support program was conducted by Major General Francis Gerard, former Adjutant General for New Jersey. The "Gerard Study" recommended that the civilian technician program be retained but a test AGR program was still put into effect the AGR "monster" was born.

It wasn't long before it was determined that the AGR program would not save any money. In November 1980, Management Consulting and Research Inc., in a report to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, stated there would be no significant cost savings in converting technicians to AGR status. The MCR report also cited additional costs due to benefit differentials; lower military manpower availability; no measurable change to unit readiness; and no significant difference between dual status civilian technicians and full-time military personnel.

This was the first of several reports that found the AGR program to be very costly.

In 1983 the Surveys and Investigative Staff of the House Appropriations Committee reported that the National Guard Bureau's "four sergeants per unit" plan would cost approximately $ 115,000 annually per unit. Formerly, two technicians did the job at an approximate cost of $ 42,000. This S & I Report also found too many management and supervisory positions were being filled by AGRS.

In 1985 the General Accounting Office technician force

said an all civilian

would be less costly than an all AGR force. In November of the same year the Congressional Budget Office reported that the average pay rate for AGR personnel was estimated to be $ 42,000 and that annual AGR costs would rise by over $ 1.5 billion between 1986 and 1990.

Negative reports continued to flow. In 1988 the GAO still found management and morale problems due to two full-time support programs technician and AGR performing similar duties with different personnel procedures and different pay and benefits. In 1990 the GAO again found the AGR program to be mismanaged; technicians to be the less costly of the two personnel categories; that AGR Unit Staffing Guides were established without sound justification; and that there were continued morale problems.

Full-time support for the National Guard and Reserves is provided by both civilian technicians and AGRS. The AGR costs the taxpayer much more than the civilian technician. AGRS receive active duty pay and benefits without active duty hardships and 28% of an AGR's income is tax free. Over $ 600 million could be saved annually by replacing AGRS with civilian technicians, according to a 1985 Congressional Budget Office report. The savings would be considerably higher today. It was once planned to phase out the technician program to save $ 270 million. Why not phase out the AGR program to save $ 600 million?

In February of 1990 the General Accounting Office again found no improvement in the AGR program. The GAO said the program is so mismanaged that the requirement for 120,000 full-time personnel lacked sound justification. Unit staffing guides were established without work-load analyses; in most units four AGR sergeants replaced two civilian technicians; and a comparison of the two systems again found the technicians to be less costly.

The additional costs of AGRs over technicians is not due to basic pay and tax breaks alone; it is also due to the exceptional benefits that the program offers. AGRS immediately receive thirty days leave per year. The most a technician can earn is twenty-six days and that is after fifteen years of service. AGRS receive unlimited sick leave; technicians accumulate thirteen days per year. AGRS receive three day passes and time off for physical training.

Under "Quality of Life" AGRS receive time off following attendance at weekend drill assemblies. The technician has to show up for work on Monday. Obviously, AGRs provide a much lower manhour availability. We must not overlook the difference in the retirement and health plans. Technicians contribute to their health insurance and retirement plans... AGRS do not. AGRs can retire after twenty years of service; technicians can retire at age 55 with thirty years of service.

The AGR program has seriously affected upward mobility in the civilian technician program. AGRS are moving into most of the supervisory positions. More and more high ranking officer and enlisted grades are being made available to AGRS. One report said there are "too many chiefs" in the AGR program. Technician positions are still being lost to the AGR program.

The National Guard technician program has to be the most restrictive employment in the Federal government. Senior technicians, with years of experience, are terminated under the military twenty year retention system. Due to compatibility requirements, technicians are either prevented from advancement in their civilian employment because of their military assignments or they are limited in military promotions due to their technician positions. Technicians who suffer adverse actions can only appeal the decisions to the individual who took the original actions the Adjutant General of the State.

A new Air National Guard policy will further restrict the technician positions that can be occupied by National Guard enlisted personnel. Technician position descriptions that formerly were available to either officer or enlisted personnel are being phased out. New position descriptions will state that the positions can only be held by officers or by enlisted personnel. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine the end result of this change. The policy also states that if there is a position that can be held by either an officer or an enlisted person, the position will be graded lower if assigned to an enlisted individual.

Another new National Guard directive states that National Guard M-Day soldiers, when applying for full-time technician positions, will be given credit for a full year of qualification in their military job specialty for each year of Guard service. Guardsmen meet one weekend a month and only a small portion of that time is actually spent in performance of their MOS or AFSC specialties. Yet, a full year of qualification will be credited for this minimal experience. If this experience is credited for initial applications, it will also be credited for future merit promotion actions. A technician with 14 years Guard service and one year of technician service could be rated more qualified than a technician who has worked full time for ten years.