recent cuts in spending and I have proposed cuts in excess of those set forth by the President, as have many of my colleagues in the Guard Caucus. Cutting the Guard, however, would be penny-wise and pound foolish. Maintaining our reserve forces is not protecting pork, it is ensuring the survival of the backbone of our Nation's military.

So I join the senior Senator from Kentucky in urging this committee to reject the proposed cuts and to continue your efforts to maintain Guard forces at a reasonable level.

Senator GLENN. Thank you, Senator Bond. Senator Boren.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID L. BOREN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator BOREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly am proud to join with my colleagues today, Senator Ford and Senator Bond, who chair the National Guard Caucus. They have already articulated very well the ramifications the National Guard cuts will have for our Nation's defense and its military personnel.

No one doubts that America is facing a budgetary crisis. We all understand that. We must drastically reduce government spending to keep the United States strong and a competitive nation. Our military is, of course, a logical and legitimate area for consideration where reductions can be made. But while we must act quickly and decisively, we cannot indiscriminately slash military budgets without regard to the consequences of those cuts. Military cuts must be made with meticulous precision in order to best serve all Americans, both those in the military and those of us that they protect.

Everyone present understands that the Army National Guard took an inordinate amount of reductions in the Department of Defense March 26 proposal. In fact, nearly 90 percent of the cuts Secretary Cheney announced were made to the Army Guard and Reserve. What is perhaps less understandable is the rationale behind these deep reductions. As has already been indicated, the Guard and Reserve units provide us the best bargain in the military service at about 25 percent of the cost of the regular forces.

So, if our principal concern is to save the taxpayers money, clearly that was not the basis on which this decision was made. If we want to save the taxpayers money, we will stretch our dollars further by having maximum preparedness and readiness at the lowest possible cost, and that can be done by distributing fewer of the cuts against Guard and Reserve units.

It is clearly not an issue of preparedness or effectiveness. The National Guard's record in Desert Storm is clear. All units arrived within 72 hours of federalization. One hundred percent of the soldiers reported for active duty. Ninety-seven percent of the units were at or above deployability criteria when they were federalized. Sixty-seven percent deployed within 45 days, and the time could have been shorter. Delays were generally caused by a lack of sea and airlift capability.

Not only is the overall picture one that is very curious in terms of cost effectiveness, in terms of having the maximum degree of readiness at the lowest cost, but the way in which these cuts were distributed among the States and among the units was certainly also illogical and pernicious. It is very difficult to understand.

My home State of Oklahoma, despite the role that it has played in other conflicts in terms of National Guard and Reserve forces, took more than its fair share of reductions. If all of the proposed cuts take place, Oklahoma will lose 55.5 percent of its Army Guard from fiscal year 1991 through 1995, 5,300 spaces out of 9,700. At the same time DOD is cutting all personnel by only 25 percent. So, Mr. Chairman, I think if we are going to talk about fairness, we are willing. I would be the last to come up and say that if cuts have to be made, we are not willing to take our fair share of the cuts. We

are.

But I would question whether or not the Guard and the Reserve units overall have been targeted for more than their share, and I would certainly question why a State like mine with a rich tradition in the Reserve and National Guard should be singled out for a cut that is more than twice the percentage of the national average, more than half of our Army National Guard force.

That proposal which came to Congress on March 26 includes reducing Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Brigade to a headquarters company of something over 200 slots and cuts 3,399 spaces, 92 percent of the last of the heroic Thunderbirds. This would be accomplished this year and next, not over 5 years. So, we are talking about not only twice the cuts, but cuts coming over 2 years rather than 5. So, the impact is going to be very severe, indeed, on our State.

I would say it's even more amazing in light of the fact that the Commander in Chief himself, the President, was in our State only about a month ago announcing his pleasure at the fact that the Department of Defense had decided to keep in service the 45th brigade. It defies use of the English language to say that a brigade is being kept in service which is being reduced from 3,600 to 200. A headquarters company does not constitute a brigade being kept in service. So, I can only hope that those who prepared this plan were unaware of the pledge, commitment, and the word given by the Commander in Chief himself.

An example of this flawed force structure plan is what is being proposed here with the Oklahoma 45th Infantry Brigade. It is located 3 hours from Fort Riley, Kansas, 3 hours from Fort Chafee, Arkansas, and 4 hours from Fort Hood, Texas. Oklahoma has its own large training facility at Camp Gruber, which was built in part with State funds, some of those funds appropriated and allocated when I served as Governor. And, of course, Fort Sill, Oklahoma is the home of the field artillery for the U.S. Army and conducts the artillery training of the U.S. Marine Corps. Now, this is the brigade that has been reduced from 3,600 down to 200.

What have the Army planners decided to do instead? They selected the 45th brigade to be reduced to a headquarters company while keeping or modernizing seven other separate infantry brigades. To make their plan work, one brigade must travel for training from the east coast to Fort Riley, Kansas, which is 3 hours away from the 45th.

So, none of this makes sense. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you include in the record a point paper on the impact on Oklahoma's National Guard prepared by the Oklahoma Military Depart

ment.

Senator GLENN. Without objection, it will be included.

[The information follows:]

1. In addition to the spaces shown above, Oklahoma has lost the following:

a. 39 spaces--45th MP Headquarters FY91

b. 199 spaces--Conversion of the 1/171 FA Battalion from 3X8 self-propelled guns to MLRS. All figuras currently being used show Oklahoma with a full battalion but the truth is that we have only a battalion minus one battery. One battery of MLRS was given up to Texas.

c. 128 spaces--The loss of one battery of NLRS to Texas Army National Guard.

d. 529 spaces--Inactivation of the TOW battalion (2/180 Infantry) scheduled to go away on 1 September 1992.

e. 10 spaces--Inactivation of the 245 Ordnance Detachment (TOW/Dragon) Missile repair scheduled to inactivate on 1 September

1992.

2. The following are programmed cuts already announced:

2. 18 spaces--Health Services Liaison Detachment due to doctrinal changes in the medical force. These spaces are currently stationed in the QKC metro area.

b. 8 spaces--Public Affairs Detachment shrinks from 13 to 5 and goes from a detachment to a tean. These spaces are located in the OKC retro area.

c. 106 spaces-and the loss of one company flag under the doctrinal changes to the medical force known as MedForce2000 or MF2K. This flag will be the 245 Medical Company located in Midwest City. Latest information, however, shows that this number may decrease to 61 with even more recent changes in the medical force structure. These changes, while raising the number of medical spaces, takes away the flags of two units, the Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment of the 120th Medical Battalion and the 245 Medical Company as well as the flag of the Battalion.

d. 239 spaces--1120th Maintenance Company inactivates in FY94. The unit is currently split between Sulphur and Ada. Nineteen of the personnel perform their training in Noraan as a part of the State supply function.

•. 32 spaces-Originally, the 80 man Rear Area Operations Center (RAOC) was to be split into two units one with 24 personnel and one with 48. This would have given us a nat loss of only eight. The latest plan, however, shows the unit with

24 going away. This results in a net loss of 32. The unit is located in the OKC metro area.

£. 72 spaces--with the inactivation of the Theatre Defense Brigades in PŸ94, Oklahoma will lose the Theatre Defense Aviation Companies it now has. These are two split units from a battalion headquartered in Washington, DC. The units are located in Lexington.

g. 292 spaces--(Possible) the Engineer. Restructuring Initiative (ERİ) will downsize all Corps Engineer assets. If this occurs, Oklahoma's 120th Engineer Battalion, headquartered in Okmulgee with stations in Okemah, Wagoner, Tahlequah, stilwell, Haskell, Pryor, Henryetta, and Eufaula, could downsize from 724 to

432.