[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSFORMING THE NATIONAL GUARD: RESOURCING FOR READINESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-188
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-597 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Grace Washbourne, Professional Staff Member
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 29, 2004................................... 1
Statement of:
McHale, Paul, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Security, U.S. Department of Defense; Thomas F. Hall,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S.
Department of Affairs; Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum,
Chief, National Guard Bureau; and Major General John A.
Love, Special Assistant to Combatant Commander for National
Guard Affairs, U.S. Northern Command....................... 334
Pataki, George E., Governor, State of New York............... 6
St. Laurent, Janet A., Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. General Accounting Office; Lieutenant
General Wayne D. Marty, Adjutant General, State of Texas;
Major General Timothy J. Lowenberg, Adjutant General, State
of Washington; and Major General Bruce F. Tuxill, Adjutant
General, State of Maryland................................. 117
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, prepared statement of.................. 28
Blum, Lieutenant General H. Steven, Chief, National Guard
Bureau, prepared statement of.............................. 81
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 32
Hall, Thomas F., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs, U.S. Department of Affairs, prepared statement of. 55
Harris, Hon. Katherine, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 274
Love, Major General John A., Special Assistant to Combatant
Commander for National Guard Affairs, U.S. Northern
Command, prepared statement of............................. 93
Lowenberg, Major General Timothy J., Adjutant General, State
of Washington, prepared statement of....................... 172
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 276
Marty, Lieutenant General Wayne D., Adjutant General, State
of Texas, prepared statement of............................ 153
McHale, Paul, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Security, U.S. Department of Defense, prepared statement of 37
Pataki, George E., Governor, State of New York, prepared
statement of............................................... 10
Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of.......... 22
Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Connecticut, prepared statement of............ 3
St. Laurent, Janet A., Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 119
Tuxill, Major General Bruce F., Adjutant General, State of
Maryland, prepared statement of............................ 252
TRANSFORMING THE NATIONAL GUARD: RESOURCING FOR READINESS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of Virginia
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Shays,
McHugh, Souder, Schrock, Miller, Murphy, Blackburn, Waxman,
Lantos, Maloney, Tierney, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger,
and Norton.
Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director and
director of communications; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel;
David Young, counsel; Robert Borden, counsel and
parliamentarian; Drew Crockett, deputy director of
communications; Grace Washbourne, professional staff member;
Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy clerk;
Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Kristin
Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel; Karen Lightfoot,
minority communications director and senior policy advisor;
Anna Laitin, minority communications and policy assistant;
Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk; and Andrew Su, minority professional staff
member.
Mr. Shays [assuming Chair]. Good morning. A quorum being
present, the Committee on Government Reform hearing entitled,
``Transforming the National Guard: Resourcing for Readiness,''
will come to order. Chairman Davis will be arriving shortly,
but he asked me to open the hearing so we can get all the
testimony in the record.
Governor Pataki, we understand you have a tight schedule,
and we appreciate your being here. I ask unanimous consent to
allow the Governor to testify and answer questions after Mr.
Waxman and I have made opening statements but before other
Members do so. But if it's just Mr. Lantos and my colleague
from Virginia, we probably could have all four of us do it.
Without objection, so ordered.
The committee convenes today to discuss important issues
raised by plans to transform and modernize the National Guard
to meet the demands of a growing set of domestic and global
missions. We captioned the hearing Resourcing for Readiness,
because Members need to know Guard units will be equipped and
trained to perform both the Homeland Security and global
defense tasks assigned them.
In the past, the total force, the operational union of
Active Duty and Reserve component units, didn't always add up.
National Guard units too often languished at the end of the
supply chain with limited training on hand-me-down equipment.
At the national level, significant strides have been made
reshaping military capabilities to meet an uncertain world of
lethal threats at home and asymmetrical warfare overseas.
But much more needs to be done to clarify the operational
and physical implications of new military missions within the
sovereign borders of the States, where National Guard members
can be called to duty by both the Governor and the President.
Federal mobilization of National Guard units can draw heavily
from local first responder ranks, degrading domestic readiness.
So the shape, size and mission of the National Guard of the
future will have significant intergovernmental implications.
Governors, county executives, mayors and hospital
administrators are trying to build response capabilities and
enhance preparedness without knowing who the Federal Government
might bring or take away when disaster strikes. To train as
they fight, Guard units have to take part in local and regional
exercises. Equipment, interoperability standards and
communication channels have to be established before the next
attack is upon us.
But National Guard civil support capabilities are not yet
well integrated with the State and local response plans. When
the battle lines stretch from Baghdad to Bridgeport, from
Kandahar to Kinderhook, new approaches are needed to assure the
National Guard is ready to confront the threat at home and
abroad. Building on rich traditions that predate our
constitution, the citizens militia that are the National Guard
today bring awe inspiring patriotism and skill to their work
and our common defense. They deserve to know they will have the
equipment and training they need to succeed in their 21st
century mission.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of
the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.002
Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you for holding this hearing. I am pleased that the
committee has been focusing attention on the increasing demands
facing our National Guard members. We must do everything we can
to ensure that the National Guard can meet its myriad
responsibilities without overburdening the dedicated and brave
Guard members who risk their lives to serve.
For over 350 years, our country has looked to the National
Guard to provide security within our borders and assist in
local disaster relief. But in the past few years, Guard members
have been activated for Federal duties with increasing
frequency and the Guard's responsibilities have been growing
exponentially. The shift from an essentially Reserve role to
active participation in the Nation's security forces has placed
tremendous strains on the National Guard system. We in Congress
have heard countless stories about problems Guard soldiers have
experienced, from poor training to inferior equipment and
health care, to delays in pay, to the negative effects of long
deployments.
We can't keep expecting these men and women to be
everywhere and to serve indefinitely. We need direction and
forethought from our military and State leaders, and a clear
plan that considers the increasing burdens facing the National
Guard. To this end, I support the efforts of General Blum and
his counterparts at the Department of Defense and Department of
Homeland Security to formulate a plan for restructuring the
National Guard. I look forward to hearing more from today's
witnesses about this plan and any other steps necessary to
assure that the National Guard is best equipped to fulfill its
important duties within and outside our Nation's borders.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. We're going to go right to the
witness, but we have a senior member, Mr. Lantos, and Mr.
McHugh, who's from New York. I guess what I would do is just
say that the Governor has to leave by 11 a.m., so it would make
sense to go to his testimony. Is there anyone who would just
like to make a short comment? Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. I will be very, very brief, and I certainly
want to add my words of welcome and note to my fellow committee
members, as I suspect they totally understand, that the reason
the Governor is here is, this Governor is a lot of very great
things, known to New Yorkers and known, particularly after
September 11th, to every American.
But one of the things he is most of all is an amazing
leader of the New York National Guard. Through his initiatives
and his programs New York State National Guard receives support
and benefits that are really second to none in this Nation. We
have before us a gentleman who can help us understand a great
deal about the demands on the Guard here and the new reality of
the 21st century, but also can teach us a great deal about what
other States might do to have as effective an organization. So
Governor, welcome, it's good to see you again.
Governor Pataki. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. The Chair would recognize Mr. Lantos and then
hope that we could go to Governor Pataki. Mr. Lantos, you have
the floor.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm particularly
delighted to welcome my good friend, Governor Pataki. I am
particularly pleased that he is testifying today because his
State is a perfect illustration of the wisdom of the
legislation I introduced, namely, preventing National Guardsmen
and Guardswomen from incurring severe financial losses and
their families incurring severe financial hardships as they are
activated. The State of New York provides the differential
between the military pay and the former civilian pay. I want to
commend the Governor for his State's action along this line.
When it comes time to question him, I will ask him what the
cost of this has been for the State of New York, whether it has
entailed additional appropriations, and what in his judgment
has been the impact on morale.
New York State is leading by giving us an example of how to
handle this problem. And it's long overdue that the
administration drop its opposition to what is a common sense,
singularly non-partisan approach to a severe issue of
recruitment and retention. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Pataki, Governor, as
you may know, it is our practice to swear in all our witnesses,
being that this is an investigative committee. I would ask you
to stand and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Governor Pataki. I do.
Mr. Shays. Thank you so much, Governor. You have the floor,
and we welcome you and we know you have a very busy schedule.
Thank you for honoring us.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. PATAKI, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NEW YORK
Governor Pataki. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
Congressman Lantos and Congressman McHugh and the other
Members, thank you all for having me before you this morning,
and for the opportunity to speak on this important subject.
At no time in America's history has the National Guard
played so critical role in both the security of our homeland
and in our Nation's military objectives overseas. In today's
world, the notion of the traditional citizen soldier, training
1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year for a war that might never
occur is a thing of the past. Our troops are actively engaged
on the front lines, supporting both our State's efforts to keep
New York safe at home and our Nation's efforts to combat terror
abroad.
In February, I had the great privilege of joining five
other Governors from across the Nation on a historic bipartisan
mission to visit our troops in Iraq. I was inspired by the
tremendous spirit, professionalism and resolve of each and
every one of the soldiers I met. They understand the mission
before them and why we must seize the opportunity to break the
back of terror so that our children and their children can live
in freedom.
The trip also reinforced just how involved and essential
the role of our National Guard troops is to our Nation's
mission. Each day, we flew in and out of Iraq from Amman,
Jordan. It was National Guard soldiers who piloted us each way.
And everywhere I went, I met with National Guard soldiers from
New York and from the other States.
As we speak this morning, more than 3,700 of the New York
National Guard members are currently on Active Duty, supporting
State security missions at home, Federal security missions
under Operation Mobile Eagle and overseas military operations
as part of Operational Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
Thousands more are engaged in regularly scheduled training and
operational requirements around the State, the Nation and the
world.
From riflemen to fighter pilots, in the turrets of Humvees
and in the huge bellies of C5 Galaxies, New York National Guard
soldiers and airmen are providing a historic level of support
to the Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. From a total
force perspective, the Guard has never played a more vital role
in major combat operations.
What truly sets the Guard apart, however, is its dual
roles. Our Guardsmen and women are not just part time members
of our Nation's military forces, they are our State's primary
emergency response force, providing support to their
communities and to civil authorities and first responders
throughout the State.
At no time in New York's history was this aspect of the
National Guard's role more evident than on September 11, 2001.
Within hours of the attacks on the World Tarde Center, 1,500
New York National Guard troops from units within New York City
had reported to duty. Another 1,500 units from upstate New York
were en route. In less than 24 hours after the attacks, over
8,000 New York National Guard soldiers and airmen were on
Active Duty supporting New York State's security needs. These
troops provided not just a calming presence on the streets of
New York during very unsettling times, they provided New York's
first responders with critical perimeter security support,
refueling for civil emergency vehicles, emergency lighting,
power generation, communications, emergency transportation,
engineering assets and other logistical support.
In the days, weeks and months that followed, our National
Guard force would assume mission and responsibilities within
New York State that never could have been imagined by previous
generations of National Guard soldiers. Today, hundreds of New
York Army National Guard soldiers are serving on State Active
Duty as part of Task Force Empire Shield. These soldiers
support security operations at New York's major rail stations
and nuclear power facilities, missions that have been ongoing
every day since September 11th.
During times that warrant an even higher elevation of the
threat level, the National Guard's Task Force Empire Shield is
integrated into Main Shield, the State's multi-agency joint
security task force, headed by the New York State Office of
Public Security. In addition, a civil support team for weapons
of mass destruction is on call 24 hours a day to respond to
incidents, known or suspect, to involve nuclear, biological or
chemical weapons. We continue to deploy our CST, to provide
proactive precautionary monitoring at major public events and
strategic locations throughout the city and State of New York.
Soon our CST will play an instrumental role in the stand-up
of a new type of National Guard capability, a chemical,
biological, radioactive, nuclear and explosive, or CBRNE,
enhanced response force. This joint National Guard task force
will integrate CST with an enhanced medical company possessing
robust determination and treatment capabilities, engineering
assets specializing in search and rescue, and specially trained
combat units capable of supporting civilian law enforcement.
Even with all of these added responsibilities and missions,
the New York National Guard remains our State's primary
emergency response force. As New York's Governor, I've called
upon New York's Guard more than any other Governor in our
State's history. Each time they responded heroically and met
every mission asked of them, particularly in times of crisis.
The attack on the World Trade Center, 8 natural disasters, 4
plane crashes, 11 crippling blizzards, 2 major wildfires, a
statewide blackout and now of course, the threat of global
terror.
National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General Blum is
working in Washington to transform the Guard into a modern,
highly relevant and appropriately structured force, capable of
combating the asymmetrical threat of terror at home and terror
threat abroad. I salute General Blum's efforts to enhance and
modernize the Guard's mission, while preserving both its
relevance to the Department of Defense and the capabilities it
provides to the Governors.
As State Commander in Chief of one of the largest Guard
forces in the Nation, I'm encouraged by General Blum's vision
and his appreciation of the Guard's dual role and the necessity
of preserving that role. General Blum is committed to enhancing
the National Guard's role as an active participant in the
Nation's military force and he aims to preserve and enhance the
National Guard's State role simultaneously.
As we work to transform the U.S. military, and specifically
the National Guard, it's critical to ensure that the Governors
who are most intimately familiar with and better understand
their unique needs retain the ability and the authority to
deploy the National Guard troops that best meet those needs.
General Blum's transformation plan would allow for a generous
National Guard contribution to Federal missions at home and
abroad, and ensure that at least 50 to 75 percent of a State's
National Guard troops remain available for State Active Duty.
His model shows real commitment to the traditional dual roles
of the National Guard, and is one I strongly support.
When President Bush gave authorization to deploy troops to
airports across the Nation after the September 11th attacks,
New York was of course among the first to respond. Because this
mission was a Title 32 status, where troops are paid federally
but remained under their State's command and control, rather
than in Title 10 status, where they would have served under the
Active Duty Army, we were able to meet this requirements
quickly, smoothly and with the troops best suited for the task.
From an operational standpoint, this approach makes the
most sense and is consistent with General Blum's innovative
thinking on this matter. We need to assure that troops
activated under Title 32 status remain under the authority and
control of the State's Governor to ensure maximum flexibility
and effective deployment. General Blum's plan promises to bring
predictability and regularity to Federal deployment of National
Guard units. A full spectrum availability model would call for
one Federal Title 10 Army Guard deployment every 6 years and
one Air Guard rotation every 15 months. This will distribute
the burden equally among States and units and provide
predictability and ample planning time for both unit
commanders, their individual troops and their families.
Having spoken directly with families of deployed troops
across New York, and having talked with troops on the ground
during my trip to Iraq in February, I can tell you that General
Blum's plan is not only welcome, but it is urgently necessary.
In today's post-September 11th climate, we are asking more
from our National Guard troops than ever before. In New York,
we strongly believe it is incumbent upon our government to do
more for our troops than ever before. No State in the Nation is
doing more than New York to support our troops and their
families. Last year, I was proud to propose and sign a historic
measure called the Patriot Plan into law.
The Patriot Plan, without question, provides the most
comprehensive package of protections and benefits in the Nation
to assist New York's military personnel and their families.
This historic package of benefits and protections for deployed
New York National Guard and Reserve troops was a recognition
that the National Guard, like the rest of the U.S. military,
cannot hope to continue its mission without these brave men and
women who join its ranks.
The Patriot Plan has 28 different benefit packages for our
Guardsmen, including, and I will just briefly summarize,
because I know it's a long hearing, including providing the
difference between a State employee's pay and their Active Duty
compensation; providing free tuition for the children and
families of National Guard members who are killed or seriously
injured in defending our freedom, and a number of other
benefits as well.
Quite simply, we have two basic roles here. One is to
understand the importance of the State mission that the Guard
plays as we call upon it for enhanced Federal activity, and
second, the sacrifice that the families have to make while
their loved ones are away. To the extent we can provide
additional benefits, that's what we need to make sure the Guard
remains strong and effective. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Governor Pataki follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.008
Mr. Shays. Thank you for a very helpful statement,
Governor.
We have a number of people, we'll do the 5-minute rule,
we're going to go with Mr. Schrock then Mr. Waxman if he
returns. Then Mr. McHugh and Mr. Lantos. I'd love it if other
Members--if you're able to stay beyond 11 a.m., it would be
great, but let's give it a shot. Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you.
Thank you, Governor, for being here, thank you for your
testimony, thank you for going to Iraq. I've been to Iraq and
Afghanistan a few times, and whether they're Guard, whether
they're Reserves or Active Duty forces, they all work together
as one cohesive unit. That's a wonderful thing.
You talked about the dual role. I just have one question
I'm going to ask. Is there a benefit to, in your opinion,
redefining the role of the National Guard in responding to
homeland security concerns? In looking back at the last 2\1/2\
years, what have you found are the major stumbling blocks to
helping the Guard respond to their homeland security challenges
in your State? Do we need to redefine the authorities of the
State Governors and the adjutant generals?
Governor Pataki. In our State, we have had, I hate to use
the word, but virtually seamless efforts to respond to any
homeland security problems within New York State. We have a
well thought out plan and we're able to implement that plan.
And the fact that the adjutant general, the local commanders
can determine what force to use for a particular mission has
been enormously helpful.
I'll just give you one example. When we call on National
Guard troops to perform a particular mission that doesn't
require a skill set, we ask for volunteers so that we minimize
the disruption in these citizens soldiers' lives. We couldn't
do that if they were federally controlled, so we're very
pleased with the response of the Guard and the ability to
command and control the Guard within the State.
Mr. Schrock. You think it works fine, then?
Governor Pataki. Within our State, it works very well. The
area of concern that we all have, I think, is to make sure that
the homeland security role within the States under the command
and control of the Governors is understood as a critical
mission of the Guard as they assume a more important Federal
role, and that the sacrifice that the families make is
understood, and we do what we can to help them on every
different front.
Mr. Schrock. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shays. Mr. Lantos, you can now question Mr. Pataki.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, I again want to commend you for your leadership
on this whole, complex issue. I'd like to zero in on the
legislation I introduced almost a year ago. I have to admit
that I find it very disturbing when I don't understand the
source of the opposition or the logic behind the opposition. I
know you will be able to help me.
In New York State, you recognize the obvious, that at a
time of war, we must have if not equality of sacrifice, because
we cannot attain that, but we must have an attempt at sharing
sacrifice. To place on the families of activated National Guard
people tremendous financial burdens, financial strains of major
proportion, people losing their homes because they cannot pay
their mortgage, children discontinuing their college education
because the parents can't pay tuition.
It makes eminently good sense not to impose on an activated
National Guardsman or woman an additional financial burden. In
New York, you're doing this, and I want to congratulate you.
May I ask your general judgment about the philosophy behind my
legislation, namely preventing financial losses for people who
are already called upon to make a major personal sacrifice?
Governor Pataki. Congressman, of course I agree with the
need that we have, not just at the State level but at the
Federal level to understand the economic impact this has on a
citizen soldier who has been activated. It's very different
from a career professional military person who understands the
pay scale and accepts that pay scale as part of their career
determination. But citizen soldiers too often will see their
income dramatically reduced.
Now, how you deal with that, I think you can do it in many
different fronts. In fact, Congress first began to respond to
that concern with the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act that was
passed back during World War II. But obviously, circumstances
have changed dramatically since World War II.
So I think there are a number of different approaches. One
is to provide additional benefits in the form of salary
enhancement or making up the gap when someone suffers a
significant diminution of earnings. Another is to make sure
that we do cap interest rates. I know the Soldiers and Sailors
Relief Act does that at 6 percent. Given the historically low
interest rates now, perhaps they could be lowered even more.
Our plan not only provides to make up that salary
differential, but as an example, if a young man or young woman
goes out and leases an SUV that they use and then they get
called to Active Duty, we allow them to cancel that lease, so
that the don't have any penalty at all. If you're enrolled in
school and you're activated, we require that school to give the
tuition back and the fees back to the portion of the semester
they were there and to keep that slot open for when they come
back.
So there are a whole gamut of benefits, including salary
enhancements, that we are looking to do at the State level, and
I think it is appropriate to do at the Federal level as well.
Congressman, just one point, though, and this is something
where I'm commenting from afar because I'm not a part of the
Federal military chain of command. But one of the important
things we cannot do is have a differential among those in the
Guard so that people are reluctant to call up a particular unit
because of the additional cost factor if that skill set is
needed.
So I don't know if that is in fact a relevant consideration
as your legislation and others is considered, but it's just
something that we have to be able to call upon the people we
need with the skills we need without concern for the economic
cost to the country, we have to be concerned about the economic
impact on those soldiers and sailors and their families.
Mr. Lantos. Governor, if I may pursue this for one more
moment, obviously we all know that we face serious problems of
re-enlistment, retention, enlistment, given the new nature of
the global struggle we are engaged in. In view of that fact, do
you view the New York program as a success?
Governor Pataki. The New York program is a success. As I
indicated earlier, one of the first things we did, well before
September 11th, we created a program where if you enlist in the
National Guard, you get free tuition at our State or city
universities or an equivalent in a private or parochial. And
that had a very dramatic impact on recruitment. Now we have
seen, since September 11th and since the operations overseas,
recruitment holding steady, and in fact a little bit increased
over the last couple of months.
We are concerned about retention, as thousands of our
National Guard troops come back. It's too soon to tell, but one
significant enhancement of the benefit package for our National
Guard troops that we believe would help with both recruitment
and retention would be to provide health benefits to those who
enlist in the National Guard. It's something that they would be
able to access under the Federal program, and it would have an
enormous help to both encourage enlistment in the first case
and retention of those who are coming back.
Mr. Lantos. I want to thank you, Governor, and want to
commend you for your achievement.
Governor Pataki. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. McHugh.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you.
Again, Governor, welcome. Always good to see you. My friend
from California brings up a serious consideration, and from my
other perspective as the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee
on Armed Services, I commend him for his concern and for his
leadership on it. I was pleased to hear your response,
Governor, and the program you've initiated, that I tried to
acknowledge and praise in my opening comments. Obviously I'm
very familiar with it. Again, God bless you for that insight
and that leadership.
As I think your response indicated, there's a whole range
of things that can and probably should be done in terms of
benefit packages for the Guard, for the Reserve component in
general that can show both our appreciation and also our
concern about retention and recruitment, and you have. As my
friend from California suggested, you're a natural leader on
that.
But Mr. Lantos mentioned the administration's opposition,
and I think technically that's true. But I think it's important
just to note for the record that the military service is
opposed to that initiative as well, because of their concern
about the morale impact of placing two service members in this
new era, one active and the other Guard and Reserve, where
they're doing the same job and taking the same bullets and
sitting in the same foxhole and being paid at different levels.
Mr. Lantos. Will my friend yield for just a second?
Mr. McHugh. I will in just a moment.
I'm not sure that concern is justified. There have been
attempts in the past to try to divide pay differentials that
have failed and insurance policies that were run through Gulf
war one. We are aggressively searching for a way in which we
can help that one-third, in fact about one-third of the Guard
and Reserve that have deployed actually lose money, about a
third stay the same and about the other third actually make
some money, because it is a legitimate point.
But it has proven to be far more complex here at the
congressional level, and at the Washington level, than just
passing the bill to mandate it. With that, I'd be happy to
yield to my friend from California.
Mr. Lantos. I will just make one quick point, and thank my
good friend for yielding. I find a profound inconsistency in
the administration's opposition while at the same time the
administration is praising private employers for maintaining
salary levels of activated people. They can't have it both
ways. They can't praise a company for doing exactly what my
legislation is calling for while opposing the legislation.
Mr. McHugh. Well----
Mr. Lantos. That's profoundly inconsistent.
Mr. McHugh. Reclaiming my time, I understand the
gentleman's point. But as I tried to note, maybe I wasn't clear
enough, there is a distinction between the administration
concerns about the gentleman's proposal, and they're praising
private employers and the military opposition, I was referring
to the military's concern, I'm not de-legitimizing the
gentleman's point, I just want him to know we're trying to work
through that.
That having been said, Governor----
Governor Pataki. It's a very unpleasant debate, and I'm
used to being in the middle of it.
Mr. McHugh. Well, we appreciate it, and if you weren't so
darned foresighted on this, it wouldn't have been a problem.
But it raises a very serious point, and we need to deal with
it, and we thank you for drawing our attention to it.
I was going to ask you about recruitment and retention,
because that does become important in the Reserve components,
and General Blum was kind enough to stop by my office not so
very long ago and talk about the discussions he had with you
and some of the other Governors with respect to that meeting to
retain both the control of those forces through his Title 32
provision, but also the need to ensure you have sufficient
manpower, personpower, I guess, in this day and age, to meet
those kinds of emergencies and demands that are common to
someone who's got a few nuclear power plants in his district
and has had all those snow storms you spoke about and the ice
storm and others for the National Guard that you deployed and
activated came and helped. That's something we want to see
happen.
So you are, as I understand your comments, at least at the
moment encouraged if not optimistic that General Blum is in the
right direction, and that will be helpful in ensuring that you
have as a Governor what you need.
Governor Pataki. Yes, I think General Blum has outlined a
very sound strategy that not only works from a Federal force
perspective but works from the standpoint of the Governors,
their Guards and the Guard families. One of the important
elements is to have some predictability and some warning as to
when you're going to be called for Federal duty.
After September 11th, obviously we were all starting an era
that we had not anticipated and could not, if we have tried,
prepared for. It was just very different to see this type of
attack upon our soil against civilians. So when some of our
Guard components were activated for Federal duty, they hadn't
been prepared, either as a family or militarily to respond. And
it took some time.
But that is a thing of the past, I honestly believe that.
Right now we are seeing some, we get the advance notice, the
units are on a list and they do have the training, the
preparation and when they're called to duty, they are called
for a mission as opposed to being called and then ending up
waiting, which happened shortly after September 11th quite a
bit. So I'm very pleased with the Federal action in dealing
with, to the extent they can, predictability, notification,
training, and equipment is prevailing.
Congressman, let me just say for a moment, you and I have
been to Fort Drum together a number of times. The Tenth
Mountain Division, of course, is headquartered there. They have
played a critical role in Afghanistan and in the entire war
against terrorism. You've done a tremendous job in making sure
that facility and that great unit is one of the finest, if not
the finest in the world.
Mr. McHugh. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. We're going to go to Mr.
Ruppersberger then Mrs. Miller and Mr. Tierney and Mrs.
Blackburn.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Governor, thank you. First, having a job
like yours and managing a lot of issues you have to deal with,
you do a great job.
Governor Pataki. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. When I was in Iraq, it was where you
talked with the troops and I think one of the biggest issues
with the National Guard and Reserves too were what was
happening when they got back to their home life and with their
families and jobs. I think really, you call it the Patriot
Plan, it's an admirable plan and probably has given a lot of
comfort to those individuals. We still have a long way to go,
and there are a lot of problems when our men and women come
back, and we'll have to face that down the road.
To begin with, the issue of recruitment, because we do have
a dual role, and that dual role, I'm sure, will continue on for
many years to come, based on what's happening in the world
today. Where does New York stand as far as recruitment of
National Guard? What is your plan?
Governor Pataki. We have, as I indicated, we have
recruitment levels not just remain the same so that we can
maintain our current force level, it has actually gone up a
little bit over the course of the past few months. We had a
terrible record in the early and mid 1990's in recruitment. But
one of the programs, we began a number of things. One was the
free tuition thing. That had an enormous impact on young
people, to understand that by serving their State and their
country they could at the same time get education without any
charge. It dramatically improved recruitment.
We also began to use the norm, so that they had
constructive missions, not just in response to emergencies,
whether it was TWA 800 or the ice storm in Congressman McHugh's
district or some of the other disasters, but we created
something called Guard Help where they would proactively work
with communities. Just one example in the south Bronx, the
Bronx River was a needed entity, it's a wonderful water body
where you had truck bodies and debris blocking the stream.
We brought in a Guard engineering crew to work with the
community and clean it out. So they had a mission where they
were helping their communities, they had a sense of purpose as
well as immense benefits. It worked extremely well, we're
pleased with the recruitment level that continues now. Our
concern, as I indicated, is with the troops coming back, what
the retention rate will be. We just don't know, because it's
too soon.
Mr. Ruppersberger. How about the issue of retention?
Governor Pataki. We don't know, we're not sure. We're
hopeful, because most of our National Guard troops in Iraq have
gotten back within the last weeks. I believe there's a 90 day
period when they come back where they make a determination. So
we haven't seen people saying yes or no yet. Anecdotally we're
hopeful, but it's too soon to really say.
Having said that, it's always better to retain more. And if
we could enhance the National Guard by providing health care
benefits, military Federal health care benefits for someone who
enrolls in the National Guard, it would help on both levels. It
would help with recruitment because it would be another benefit
and reason for someone to choose to serve. And when the
soldiers came back, it would help with retention because they
would have a significant benefit they might not have in
civilian life.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That would be excellent. It's amazing
the patriotism that the National Guard and Reserve in the
United States and abroad and Iraq have at this point.
To get to another issue as far as local government is
concerned, you have a lot of your first responders, especially
in your volunteer fire and paramedics, that have been called to
service. And it's causing a problem with some of the stations
that have to, at least in my State, the State of Maryland. What
impact is that having on your State?
Governor Pataki. It has had an impact, a significant
percentage of our National Guard are first responders. And a
lot of them are police officers and corrections officers.
Before we passed the Patriot Plan, we listened to the local
governments. And they said, well, we're losing three of our
police officers, a small town in upstate New York. And we don't
want to hire new ones, because they'll be coming back.
So what we did as part of our plan is in that law now,
local governments can bring back retirees to fill a position of
someone who has been activated to National Guard duty. It's a
very intelligent program. A retired firefighter, retired police
officer, someone from that community gets activated, their
local government doesn't want to train somebody else, knowing
that this person will be returning in a year, so they can bring
back someone. So we have had the problem, this is one of the
ways we've looked to deal with it.
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.014
Mr. Shays. Thank you. The Chair would like to recognize
Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, thank you so much for being here today. I must
say that watching you after the absolutely horrific attacks on
our Nation on September 11, we all look to you as the Nation's
Governor, quite frankly, and your leadership that you
demonstrated at that time has really been very significant. We
certainly appreciate your being here today and your comments.
I share your concern about retention with the National
Guard. I actually have a National Guard base in my district in
Michigan, which has been sort of the staging area for our, all
of the midwest, frankly, for many of the Guard and Reserve
components that have deployed for Afghanistan, Iraq,
Uzbekistan, what have you. It's interesting, actually over 30
percent now of all our troops in theater are National Guard or
Reserve. So they really, as you mentioned in the total force
concept, are such a critical component of all that.
I would just make one comment, we talked about retention.
One of our Guard units, the Michigan Red Devils, who fly F-15s,
the 107th is over in Iraq right now. When they deployed, they
had more volunteers than they actually could accommodate, and
I'm sure that is not unique throughout the Nation.
But my question, I think, Governor, to you would go more to
your State plan. As you're aware, obviously, all the different
States are preparing their individual risk assessment plan for
the Department of Homeland Security. And how did you find in
your State the cooperation from your various units? Did you
task that force principally to--did you call it New York's
Public Security Force or your State Police? Did they cooperate
with the National Guard?
Governor Pataki. We had an emergency management office,
SEMO, the State Emergency Management Office, that responded to
the national disasters and plane crashes and things of that
nature. But after September 11th, we created a whole new
bureau, the Office of Public Security. We gave them oversight
over all the different elements, including the National Guard,
so we would have coordination.
So we don't have the National Guard running our homeland
security operation in New York State, we have an entity,
because we have to integrate not just National Guard, but State
Police, New York City Police Department, the finest in the
world, first responders from around the State. And one of the
key elements is integrating the health department, so we can
have instantaneous, not instantaneous, but within minutes, the
ability to determine if there is an outbreak of a particular
illness or where experts are to respond.
So we created this entity, the National Guard plays a
critical role within that entity, but I wouldn't say a
disproportionate role. The State police, the health department,
local officials are all of them working together.
Mrs. Miller. Just one other question. As all of us are
trying to make sure that we do get the necessary resources into
our respective States, the first responders, what have you, did
you share your State plan with your congressional delegation or
did you have any input----
Governor Pataki. We have worked closely with the
congressional delegation. I don't know that we sat down and
formally said, this is what we're doing. But we did give them
parameters and also of course the request for Federal
assistance. Because this is an extraordinary expense, and in
New York now, we're at level yellow, it's still costing us tens
of millions of dollars for, as Congressman McHugh was
indicating, enhanced security at the nuclear power plants in
his district, train stations, bridges, tunnels, other very
sensitive areas.
Mrs. Miller. I see. Thank you very much, and again, thank
you for your testimony today and your service to the State and
the Nation.
Governor Pataki. Thank you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Mr. Tierney, you have the floor.
Mr. Tierney. Governor, thank you for coming here today and
for your testimony.
In Massachusetts, one of the comments that some of our
officers were making was about the armories, the physical
assets that the Guard has. In New York, do you feel all your
physical assets are being used to their maximum potential? If
they are, what exactly are you doing with them other than just
the monthly training regimen that's going no, and if you're
not, what do you think they might be used for?
Governor Pataki. First, let me say from an equipment
standpoint, I know that question has been raised. All of our
Guard troops that have been deployed overseas were very pleased
with the level of material and equipment they've been provided.
And I think there's been dramatic improvement over the course
of the past couple of years in making sure that the necessary
equipment and supplies that we need, not just for overseas but
also domestically, are available.
With respect to the utilization of the resources, General
McGuire, our Adjutant General, I'm unaware that we have any
shortages or stockpiles. The General reminded me that things
like our engineering battalions that haven't been deployed
we're using as things like the Guard health program, so that we
are utilizing those assets on an ongoing basis in a way that is
constructive to the troops, because it gives them experience
and training and a sense of mission and helps with the local
communities as well.
So if you're creative, we've got the equipment, we're going
to use it.
Mr. Tierney. Beyond equipment, the armories themselves, the
buildings, structures. Are you maximizing the use of those and
how?
Governor Pataki. We have surplus armories, because the size
of the force has, since over 100, in some cases 150 years ago
when these armories were constructed, there are surplus
armories. But what we've done, as we have identified those that
no longer serve a military purpose, we've turned them over to
community groups, we've converted them into recreational
centers, or community centers, we've sold them off to private
entities. They still serve a very important function.
The evening of September 11th, the armory on 23rd Street in
lower Manhattan served as the family command center where
family members would go for information. So we want to make
sure we maintain sufficient armory capability around the State
in case there's a call on them for some emergency service. To
the extent we have surplus armories, we have disposed or turned
over to communities a large number of them.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much.
Governor, I apologize for being late. We are so happy to
have you here today to talk about the job you're doing there.
You have a unique perspective in New York, of course, being the
epicenter of September 11. We appreciate it.
I'm going to defer my opening statement so we can get to
members' questions. Usually we have one or two Members in this
hearing, so on a day the House is not voting, there's not a lot
of interest in what you have to say, and we appreciate your
being here.
Governor Pataki. Thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mrs. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Governor,
thank you so much for taking the time to be here and to talk
with us. Those of us that have large numbers of National Guard
families in our districts and in our States are very concerned
and very interested in what we're going to do as we look at the
National Guard going forward, how they integrate into the
Active Duty. The issues you've mentioned of predictability,
readiness, skills, whether it's the equipment, the training,
the help, the quality of life issues for the families, and I
commend you for your Patriot Plan and the way that does address
those quality of life and recruitment and retention issues.
I'm going to roll my three questions into one for the sake
of conserving time, and ask you to respond to those. Because I
know you all had significant Guard deployments like we are
having in Tennessee, with our Guard being down, and did those
Guard deployments affect your ability to respond to State
missions or disasters, or homeland security needs. And then as
you looked at your State plans, did you build a compact with
surrounding States to assist you and back you up if there were
to be a need for those resources. And the third part is, how
did you as a State reimburse the Guard for any homeland
security missions that they may have performed for you?
Governor Pataki. That brings up three very important
questions. First, with respect to the Federal deployment, it
has never jeopardized our ability to respond or be active
status to protect the State of New York against any possible
attack. As I indicated, right now there are probably 3,700 New
York Guards troops that are serving a Federal mission, hundreds
more serving a State mission. But we have 17,000 plus the Naval
militia and the New York Guard.
So I don't believe, other than September 12th and a few
weeks after that, there are still units that have not been
called upon because of their unique skill sets. So we have not
been stretched too thin, to use that term. And General Blum and
the Federal officials have been very, very careful to work
closely with our command structure to make sure that the calls
they have made are consistent with our need to protect ourself.
Second, with respect to compacts with surrounding States,
of course, we are a part of EMAC, the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact, with a number of other States. That was
very helpful right after September 11th, when emergency teams
from other States came to New York and they had the ability to
function within New York State free of any constraints they may
have had because they were not within their home State.
We also have entered into, I assigned Executive orders,
I'll just give you one example, authorizing Connecticut and the
New Jersey State police and law enforcement officials to have
jurisdiction on the trains between New York and Connecticut and
New York and New Jersey. When we're at level orange and at
other times that we don't discuss, we have significant
additional support and security on the commuter trains, in
addition to on the subway lines. The commuter lines run not
just within New York State but into New Jersey and Connecticut.
And the Governors of Connecticut and New Jersey have placed
their troopers where we would have jurisdiction of our troopers
on the trains in Connecticut and they would have jurisdiction
within Penn Station or Grand Central Station. And that has
worked very well.
And we're continuing to work on a regional concept of
support, particularly information sharing. We're going to be
moving forward on the intelligence and information sharing with
some specific initiatives over the course of the next few
weeks.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your work and
appreciate your time here very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.010
Governor Pataki. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Governor, for your leadership on these many issues.
I also had the opportunity to travel to Iraq in February on
a trip that was led by the chairman of this committee, and had
the opportunity to talk to many of our National Guardsmen and
women there. I must say I found their morale was high, that
they were proud of the service they were doing.
They also, though, were lied, that the term, that the time
for their tour of duty, they took that seriously as it was
given to them and many of them were discouraged by the fact
that their tours were extended beyond the time they had been
originally informed. Obviously you have a hardship on families
back home as well as them. So I think it's important that we
work this out so we can provide greater predictability both to
the men and women who are serving overseas but also to their
families back home. I do appreciate what you've done in New
York to relieve those burdens.
I want to ask quickly, if there's a member of the New York
State government who is deployed overseas, in addition to
paying the pay gap, you also guarantee their position will be
held open when they return, is that right?
Governor Pataki. That's correct. We hold their position
open.
Mr. Van Hollen. And a number of States have done this, my
home State of Maryland has done this. Their experience has been
that they are able to cover this pay gap without having to
request additional appropriations, that those agencies have
been able to fill, meet those demands without having a lot of
additional cost. Is that your experience?
Governor Pataki. That has been our experience. But I just
want to clarify something in response to what Congressman
Lantos said earlier. We provide the pay gap when you are a
State employee. We did not mandate that for local governments
and we do not do that for private employers. So if you are a
State employee, we work with the public employee unions, we
provide that pay gap, we hold the slot open. And we've been
able to minimize the fiscal impact to the State of that
particular benefit.
Mr. Van Hollen. Right. I just think what you've done is a
good model for what we can be doing at the Federal level with
respect to Federal employees, as Congressman Lantos has
suggested. I think we can do it with minimal impact on the
budget.
Let me ask you, because a lot of States are facing multiple
demands on the National Guards people as you suggest. Do we
have, this function where the Guards serve within the States to
respond to emergencies now more and more to homeland security
demands, at the same time we have many being deployed overseas.
Have you encountered any difficulties in terms of the competing
demands on the same resources and when those competing demands
occur, which take precedence? How do you decide?
Governor Pataki. We really have not seen that, because
General Blum, as I indicated, has been very, very cooperative
in working with our command structure, General McGuire and the
others, as the New York members of the Guard are deployed for a
Federal mission. So we haven't seen that.
There is one area where we are requesting additional help,
and that's the civil support team, which has the ability, the
high tech equipment, to not just respond but to monitor for
chemical, biological or radiological weapons. We only have one
of those teams. It hasn't been called upon for Federal service,
but we call upon it regularly to monitor and to proactively
protect. That is one area where we would very much like the
authorization to have a second civil support team that would
allow us to enhance that capability and not keep relying on
that one unit.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. I think the time has come, you said 11
o'clock, and we will let you go at 11. I appreciate it very
much, for what you've been able to add to this. We may get back
to you with some ideas. This has been very, very helpful for us
and we appreciate it.
Governor Pataki. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's
been an honor to testify before the committee. What you're
doing is extremely important and I have no doubt you will do it
extremely well. Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
We will have a 3 or 4 minute recess as we go to our next
panel.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. We're going to move to our second panel
of witnesses, and I want to thank you all for taking time from
your busy schedules to appear today. I think you've heard
Governor Pataki from the back.
We have today the Honorable Paul McHale, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security and a former Member
of this body. Paul, welcome back in a different role here, but
it's good to have you here. The Honorable Thomas F. Hall, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs; Lieutenant
General H. Steven Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau;
and Major General John Love, the Special Assistant to the
Combatant Commander for National Guard Affairs, U.S. Northern
Command.
It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be
sworn before you testify, so if you would rise with me and
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Members deferred opening statements, and I would just put
my opening statement into the record, and we'll ask unanimous
consent that Members put their statements into the record.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.012
Chairman Tom Davis. I do recognize Mr. Schrock. Do you want
to wait? We'll go through this panel and then go to Mr.
Schrock's questioning.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back. It's good to have you here. I
know you've worked hard on this and thanks for being here.
STATEMENT OF PAUL MCHALE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; THOMAS F. HALL,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AFFAIRS; LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM,
CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU; AND MAJOR GENERAL JOHN A. LOVE,
SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO COMBATANT COMMANDER FOR NATIONAL GUARD
AFFAIRS, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND
Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, it's good to be back.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it
is an honor and a privilege to appear before this body. To be
entrusted with national security responsibilities at any time,
but especially at this point in our country's history, it is a
solemn and sacred duty.
From past experience, I fully appreciate your oversight
obligations pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution, although I have to tell you it's a little more
challenging on this side of the table than it was when I sat up
there and asked the questions. My goal today is to provide the
committee with a candid, accurate assessment of our current
homeland defense capabilities and to describe emerging DOD
mission requirements with particular emphasis on Reserve
component capabilities.
Because I have submitted my formal testimony for the
record, I would like to provide only a brief introduction at
this point, in order to allow maximum time for member
questions. I appear before you today in my capacity as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense. My
position was created by Public Law 107-314, the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2003.
The statutory duty assigned to the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense is ``the overall supervision of
the homeland defense activities of the Department.'' I was
nominated by President Bush in January 2003 and confirmed by
the Senate 1 month later. As a result, I have been serving in
this office for just a little over a year.
In the interim, much has happened. Although my written
testimony focus in some detail on the organizational changes
within the Department of Defense following the attacks of
September 11, 2001. I think the members of this committee are
primarily interested in the recent steps we have taken to
ensure the physical safety of our citizens, their property and
our Constitutional freedoms. The painful losses of September
11th produced not only grief, but resolute action.
Each day since September 11th, the men and women of the
North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, have patrolled
the air space over Canada and the United States. In a
completely integrated effort of U.S. and Canadian capabilities,
the U.S. Air Force, Air Force Reserve and the Air Guard have
protected the skies of our major metropolitan areas, critical
infrastructure, government facilities and historic monuments.
These dedicated professionals have executed over 34,000 air
defense sorties and responded to over 1,700 requests from the
Federal Aviation Administration to intercept potential air
threats. That is an extraordinary achievement.
In fiscal year 2004 alone, the Air National Guard has flown
1,909 sorties and logged 6,926 hours to guard our Nation's
skies. The number of flights and their location changes daily,
and each day's flight data is shared in advance with the
Department of Homeland Security. This level of air security is
unprecedented in our Nation's history. Nearly every homeland
defense exercise that we now conduct involves a threat scenario
involving a terrorist takeover on commercial airliners. As a
result, our air defense training is realistic, focused, and
subject to well understood rules of engagement.
We had implemented similar improvements in our domestic
land defense capabilities, while fully recognizing that
domestic counter-terrorism is a lead law enforcement mission,
we now have Active Duty soldiers and Marines on alert every
hour of every day, prepared to deploy to any location within
the United States where a land defense against a terrorist
attack might be required. Such quick reaction forces did not
exist on September 11, 2001. They do now and they are both
trained and ready.
Even more importantly, we are working closely with the
National Guard Bureau to ensure that Army Guard forces will be
mission ready to provide immediate land security forces within
their own States. In my judgment, the protection of critical
infrastructure will likely become a core National Guard mission
during the next decade. It is also important to note that DOD
has recently been assigned, with the signing of Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 7, an important responsibility
in the protection of the defense industrial base. The
achievement of this new mission will require close coordination
of private and public, military and civilian security
capabilities. The task is both enormous and essential.
We now recognize that a 21st century maritime defense
requires a common operating picture of the maritime domain,
real time tracking of threat vessels, appropriate ships and
resources to support maritime intercept operations on the high
seas against terrorists potentially armed with weapons of mass
destruction, and command and control structure which maximizes
both Navy and Coast Guard capabilities.
Our goal is to defeat every enemy maritime threat with an
integrated, layered defense long before such threats are able
to enter our ports. To that end, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
recently signed an expanded maritime intercept operations
execute order for realistic maritime exercises and
unprecedented Navy-Coast Guard cooperation. We are making daily
progress with that goal.
Similar improvements have been made with regard to DOD's
ability to support civilian authorities following a terrorist
attack. Thirty-two National Guard weapons of mass destruction
civil support teams have been trained, equipped and certified
by the Secretary of Defense. Twelve new teams will be created
this year. We are planning to establish a total of 55 civil
support teams, sufficient to ensure that every State and
territory will be served by a team.
If a more substantial WMD response is required, we have
established, equipped and organized large joint task forces at
dispersed locations throughout the United States, sufficient to
ensure that we will be able to respond to multiple, near-
simultaneous terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass
destruction. Although this capability is not fully developed,
we are working hard and with a sense of urgency to get there.
In my view, multiple simultaneous attacks are not only
possible, they are consistent with terrorist operational
doctrine. Even in the absence of a large scale enemy attack,
the Department of Defense civil support responsibility is
substantial. During the past year, DOD acted on 75 separate
civil support requests from more than 20 civilian agencies,
including the January 4th deployment of the Marine Corps
chemical-biological incident response force to the Dirksen
Building when ricin was detected in Senator Frist's office.
That mission was executed at the request of the Capitol Police.
And finally, we at DOD recognize that an effective defense
against terrorist activity requires a close daily partnership
between our Department and the newly created Department of
Homeland Security. Our missions are complementary and mutually
reinforcing. To make certain that partnership is a reality,
employees from my office now work full time in the Homeland
Security and Operations Center. A defense coordination office
has been established by DOD personnel at DHS. A memorandum of
agreement for mutual support has been negotiated between the
two departments. And I meet routinely and regulatory with
senior DHS leadership, including a 1-hour meeting yesterday
with Admiral Loy, the Deputy Secretary.
Our homeland security and homeland defense exercise
programs have now been fully integrated. The scenarios are
challenging and involve complete interagency participation. Mr.
Chairman, this summary should make it clear that the Department
of Defense, working with our partners in the private and public
sectors at the local, State and national levels, is fully
committed to the most capable homeland defense ever planned or
executed in our country's history.
Despite great progress, we are not comfortable, we are not
satisfied. Rather, we are dedicated, with a real sense of
urgency, to ever-improving homeland defense capabilities. In
that effort, our men and women in uniform stand in common cause
with the members of this committee. Victory in the global war
on terrorism is a national imperative, our generation's
greatest challenge.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions and those of
the members of the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McHale follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.030
Chairman Tom Davis. Thanks very much.
Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to be here and speak to the committee. I'm pleased
to be here today with my colleague Paul McHale and with
Generals Blum and Love to discuss the role of the National
Guard in overseas and homeland operations.
Our Guard and Reserve make up 46 percent of our military,
or some 1.2 million service members. Since September 11, we
have mobilized a total of 340,000 service members. This equates
to 40 percent of our force, and it's the largest mobilization
since Korea. Today as we meet, there are over 165,000 Reserve
and Guard members that are mobilized. Although 60 percent of
our Reserve force has not been touched, we share everyone's
concerns about the same thing, and that's the stress on our
force.
Just as the active force is the first to deploy in support
of U.S. operations abroad, the National Guard is often the
first military force to deploy in support of most homeland
security requirements. National Guard is a citizen soldier
force that can be activated by the Governor in support of State
emergencies and also Federalized to support national
contingency requirements. A Governor can deploy National Guard
under State Active Duty or upon approval of the Secretary of
Defense in Title 32 of the U.S. Code, National Guard can of
course be Federalized under provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code.
This unique triple status makes the National Guard a cost
effective, flexible force that can be employed in a variety of
circumstances.
The Guard's capability was demonstrated in the aftermath of
the September 11th attacks. Even after the attacks, as we have
heard and know, the National Guard responded, National Guard
assets took to the skies to secure our air space, and local
Guard forces were directly sent to the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon to assist with security and recovery efforts.
Shortly thereafter, the President asked the Governors to
use their Guardsmen to secure airports at Federal expense. They
responded in a matter of hours by deploying Air Guardsmen in
Title 32 status at over 440 airports. In addition, many of our
Governors ordered our Guardsmen in State Active Duty to secure
critical infrastructure facilities, such as bridges, power
plants and government buildings. Many of those State security
missions continue today.
Our National Guard personnel were activated in 12 States
under Title 10 to augment security along our Nation's borders.
Their missions ensure that the commerce continued to flow while
the vital entryways were protected. Today, there are over
100,000 Air and Army National Guard men and women mobilized in
support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom. They are flying air patrols, performing force
protection duties here in the United States, flying refueling
missions over central Asia and on the ground in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. As expected, the National Guard continues to
conduct all missions in an exceptional manner.
The fight against terrorism and the protection of our
homeland will be protracted endeavors, much like the cold war.
To that end, many outside policy experts, independent panels
and studies have advocated expanding roles for the National
Guard in homeland security. Some have even suggested that the
National Guard should be reoriented, re-equipped, and retrained
solely for the homeland security mission.
The reality is that there has been no recent national
security change that justifies the need to establish a separate
role for the National Guard to perform homeland security
related missions under new statutes and administrative
guidelines. There are already sufficient legal mechanisms in
place that enable State and territorial Governors to employ
their National Guard forces and support local authorities to
meet a wide range of existing missions.
The National Guard is an integral part of the Air Force and
Army total force mission capability. Their roles are vital to
the survival of this Nation. The position of the Department of
Defense is that the National Guard will remain a dual mission
military force.
This concludes my statement. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.054
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
General Blum.
General Blum. Good morning, Chairman Davis and other
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
address this body this morning. I ask that my written testimony
be entered into the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, so ordered.
General Blum. As we appear here this morning before you,
there are 149,000 citizen soldiers and airmen employed all over
the globe in the current global war on terrorism. For the last
2\1/2\ years, since September 11, the National Guard has
maintained and sustained that level of contribution to the war
fight, both here at home and abroad. The National Guard is no
longer questioned about its relevance. Today our worst critics
can only call us over-used or essential to the safety and
security of our Nation.
The modern day National Guard has been in the homeland
defense business now for 367 years. Our homeland defense
efforts actually predate us as a Nation. We plan to remain in
that effort and we call that ``job No. 1'' or ``priority No.
1.''
But defending the homeland is not always done only here at
home. Some of that homeland defense has to be conducted, to use
a sports analogy, as an away game, or a scheduled away game,
where you see us participating with our Active Duty
counterparts and the other Reserve components in a joint,
multinational, interagency and intergovernmental effort
overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and other places
in the world.
We have to change the National Guard, however, because it
is not exactly optimized for the current threat that we're
facing right now and future threats that we foresee on the
horizon. As the modern day National Guard, we can answer no
less calls by our Governors to respond to catastrophic events
created by either Mother Nature, man-made accidents or acts of
terrorism here at home.
But we have to change the National Guard, the way we train
it, organize it, and most importantly, the way we resource it,
so that it can be an operational Reserve force that can be used
in a joint and expeditionary overseas war fight to supplement
our active components when necessary. We are not structured
correctly to do that today and we are working very hard to move
as fast as we can with a great sense of urgency to become a
relevant, ready, reliable and accessible force that is needed
by our combatant commanders around the world.
The Congress, and its National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Account, will remain a very essential tool in helping us
accomplish this effort. As you heard Governor Pataki say, and
the two previous Secretaries that have testified before me in
their opening statements, I am proud to tell you that the
National Guard has met every requirement that it has been asked
to perform since September 11 and even before that. Service in
the National Guard has always been honorable, but it is
particularly rewarding today, because we are truly defending
our Nation, our way of life, our liberties, our form of
government, and our future. And we're very proud to stand and
answer the call to do that.
But to do this, I have to tell you, we are committed to
transformation. We are changing the Guard from what it was
designed to do what it needs to be designed to do today. We are
transforming the Guard today to be a more joint and effective
organization from the very top to the very bottom, building it
from the bottom up, and that's the essence of the Joint Force
Headquarters that were described by Governor Pataki and the
Secretaries. We are developing capabilities that will be needed
to defend the homeland here at home and to support combatant
commanders overseas in the war-fight outside our Nation's
borders.
We want to give better predictability to our soldiers, to
their families, to their employers, as you heard discussed. And
we've built a model for this that we think will accomplish
better predictability. Soldiers, their families and employers
will know on a more routine basis when they can expect to be
called, how long they can expect to be deployed and when they
will return home and then how soon again they will be asked to
answer the call for another extended duration deployment.
We are meeting the needs of our elected officials and our
uniformed leaders. We are meeting the mandate to operate as a
seamless organization that can perform both the State mission
and the Federal mission and do them simultaneously if necessary
and to be able to do this in a joint, interagency,
intergovernmental or multinational environment if required. The
National Guard is focusing so that it ensures that every
Governor and every combatant commander gets the right force mix
from the National Guard: the right kinds of units with the
right kinds of capabilities; modern equipment that is
interoperable, and beyond interoperable--or actually
interchangeable parts with our active components, whether it be
Air Force or Army, Air National Guard or Army National Guard.
We need to redistribute these capabilities so they are resident
in every State and territory of this great Nation. We are
transforming, along with the Army and the Air Force. This is
not an independent effort. We are shoulder-to-shoulder on this.
There is no daylight between the National Guard and the active
components as once existed.
The Army recognizes that there are 18 divisions in the U.S.
Army; 10 on Active Duty, 8 in the National Guard. The U.S. Army
hopes to have 84 transformed brigades, 34 of these brigades
will be resident in the Army National Guard. We are similarly
full partners with the U.S. Air Force and their initiatives to
modernize and transform and develop modularity, so that the Air
National Guard and the Army National Guard can truly be plug
and play elements of our Active Duty counterparts.
The bottom line is, your National Guard is committed to
doing what is right for the United States of America. I look
forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Blum follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.064
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. General Love.
General Love. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
committee, on behalf of General Everhard and the men and women
of the U.S. Northern Command, thank you for the opportunity to
be here to discuss the National Guard's role in the vital
issues of homeland defense and homeland security.
As you've heard from Secretary McHale, Secretary Hall and
Lieutenant General Blum, every Department of Defense office and
headquarters charged with defending our homeland has looked
very carefully at the role the National Guard should play in
deterring and preventing attacks on our homeland and mitigating
any attacks that might occur. The National Guard Bureau, under
the guidance and direction of General Blum, has begun a number
of what I believe to be critical initiatives to respond to the
realities of our post-September 11 world.
Historically, the National Guard headquarters in each State
has largely acted to fulfill the services and needs to
organize, train and equip airmen and soldiers to fight our
Nation's war somewhere other than in our homeland. It was
always an additional mission to provide Guardsmen to meet the
needs of their States in responding to natural disasters. That
response seldom called for skills other than those war-time
training had already provided.
All of our assumptions regarding the use of our core war
force and Reserve were predicated upon the United States having
and retaining the initiative as to where to fight and when to
fight. This is not the case with the global war on terrorism.
We no longer have the initiative, and we must be prepared to
respond anywhere within our homeland, knowing that any delay in
that response may be a loss of lives, and those are American
lives.
The National Guard has deployed in 3,300 locations across
our Nation. Wherever a terrorist attack may occur, it is likely
that the National Guard will be the first military force on the
scene. The response to a terrorist attack will not be analogous
to the response to a flood. It will require specialized
training at a corporate as well as a unique command and control
structure that is responsive to the realities of a WMD attack.
By any measure, this change is through transformation. The
National Guard headquarters in each State must now deal with
its historic roles to organize, train, equip and deploy, it
must now be an operational headquarters that provides not only
a response to a crisis in their State but provides NORTHCOM and
the Nation with a clear picture of what has happened and what
is needed to save lives and property. We must examine closely
the statutory authorities under which the National Guard
responds to an attack in our homeland and how best it may be
utilized to prevent those attacks.
We at NORTHCOM are looking closely at changes that may be
necessary in Title 32 of the U.S. Code. We believe that certain
circumstances may dictate that National Guard units should
perform homeland defense or homeland security duties in a
Federal status other than Title 10. It may be far more
effective for the Guard to remain under the command of the
Governor of a State as opposed to being Federalized and placed
under the command of NORTHCOM. Guardsmen know the local
territory, know the local first responders, exercise with those
who will be engaged on the part of the State emergency response
system, and under Title 32 utilization, can be accessed far
more quickly.
Response in the homeland is all about speed. We cannot wait
for help from afar if there is help close at hand. We must
train and equip that help so it can offer the kind of
assistance that is needed and so it can do so with proper
training and equipment. If the mission is a Federal mission, we
must find a way to budget for that mission and make those funds
available to a Governor to pay his or her Guardsmen.
Of course, States must assure the Congress that its
appropriations are being used as it directs. But that's not a
complicated undertaking. The Guard performs counter-drug
missions in a similar manner, and that program has worked well
for 15 years.
The war on terrorism demands that we look for innovative
ways to utilize those forces that are closest to any crisis.
That said, it is not really innovative at all. The National
Guard has been responding to crises in their communities for
more than 367 years, since 1636, when the Massachusetts Militia
mustered in December of that year in Salem.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today and thank you and your colleagues for your continued
commitment to armed forces.
[The prepared statement of General Love follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.068
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
I thank the panel for your testimony. We will move into
questioning. We'll start first with the gentleman from Indiana,
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I first want to make sure I get a couple of comments on the
record, if we have to get the answers written, I'd appreciate
it. First, I want to thank Secretary McHale for his comments on
narcotics. It's impossible to do that task without the
assistance of the Department of Defense. On JTF6, there is an
interrelationship where the training of our Guard and Reserve
and military component is absolutely essential to our south
border.
If we're long-term going to protect our homeland security
on the south border, I mean, right now a million people are
making it across. That's why we need immigration reform, we
need a number of things. But the bottom line is, we are not
secure at all there. And without your help, it would be
inconceivable even to do it.
I want to raise again, and we need your particular help,
we've raised this with the Department of Defense, in the Barry
Goldwater Range in the southwest part of Arizona, we have a
problem with, we don't have aerostat protection, we have high
yield monitoring that can feed in, but we need low level. The
U.S. Customs, which is now your homeland security, wants to fly
planes there in a 5 mile radius, like they do the rest of our
border, but have not because it's an Air Force training range.
But the jets shouldn't be that close to the international
border anyway, or we'd have a problem. We need to get this
worked out. We have repeatedly been told, well, we're working
on it, but we need a solution, because what's going to happen
is, we squeeze other parts of the border, illegals, not to
mention narcotics trafficking, is going to push into that
range. And the first one that gets killed, you are going to
endanger your entire training facility there. We have to secure
that portion of the border, not only for other reasons in the
United States, but for even keeping our range open. We really
need your help on the Air Force range. But I thank you for
raising the narcotics issue.
I want to mention a couple of other things, and then if the
chairman indulges, maybe you can raise it. I have heard from
the Guard and from the manufacturer that the Humvees that the
Guard takes over to Iraq are being left there because of
shortages of the Humvee, and I want to know if this is true,
because it's going to long term impact our training with Guard
people in the States if we're having to leave the Humvees in
Iraq. If it's true, which we have heard from a number of
different people in a number of different places, then are you
requesting more Humvees for Guard and Reserve training?
Second, I was pleased to hear that you are trying to get
better at communicating to our groups long term whether they're
going to be deployed again, not only the first time. But I want
to raise a couple of questions. My understanding is that 60
percent have not been utilized. A logical question would be,
before others go back, will that 60 percent be utilized, or are
we talking about some of these units didn't have, didn't get
100 percent utilized and the 60 percent of the Guard that
hasn't been utilized in fact may be in that unit, and if that
unit's called up, they may not be utilized again.
In other words, I just had a group that's been forward
deployed of 700 Army Guard in Fort Wayne, IN that was a
specially trained battalion. Are we adequately communicating?
Will that group be called up again because of its special
training? I have a Reserve group that is going up over to
Afghanistan, they may already be in flight, it's within the
next day, that they haven't been forward deployed since Alayat
Gulf. But they are the only artillery ammunition support group
going into Afghanistan, in place of all the other units on the
ground.
It seems to me, if our premise is correct, that many of us
feel that the war on terrorism is not going away and we are
going to use Guard and Reserve, certain specially trained units
for short need may be facing some serious redeployment, even if
you have 60 percent that aren't. Could you elaborate on that,
because we need to be able to look at, should we have specially
targeted benefits for those who are higher risk, how do we
communicate this, if you join certain units? Because it doesn't
seem to be an even deployment list in the combat zone.
Mr. Hall. I certainly would take a couple of them.
You hit upon the exact problem that we have. As we analyzed
the force over the past 19 months that I've been there, we have
discovered that we have used about 28,000 of our people over
and over again, two, three and four times. And that's about 3.3
percent of our force. But they're in specialties like civil
affairs, military police, air traffic control. So it is very
clear to us that we need to rebalance.
And within that 60 percent that we mentioned are many of
the specialties that are not required today. So we have an
excess of artillery. So the services are all recommitted to
balancing 100,000 billets and taking the specialties that were
targeted toward the cold war that are not used in today's
warfare, moving these over, building a bigger base so that we
don't have to continually call up the same people all the time.
As of this year, we're about halfway there. We have 50,000
billets, 10,000 in 2003, 20,000 in 2004 and 20,000 in 2005. We
have another 50,000 to go, and the services are moving as fast
as they can to convert those kinds of specialties, and one of
the areas is excess artillery. So we're concerned about that.
We want to minimize the stress, and we certainly, every time we
mobilize a unit, one of the things my office asks is, when were
they mobilized before, how long ago and are there other
alternatives we have other than remobilizing them, either
through other services, through the joint solutions.
So that is always part of that equation. We want to reduce
that stress on the force.
With respect to the Humvees, I think you are absolutely
right, that there are ones that are being left there. I think
it's a question that all the chiefs, including General Myers,
have looked at. If there are not enough, do you want them where
the actual combat was going on, rather than the training. The
answer is, you'd like them both places. As you know, the
industrial base is pushing as hard as it can to get the armored
Humvees out. But right now they are kept there, so that the
people participating in combat can have them. We certainly
would like to have them at the national training center and
other places, and we're moving toward getting those for
training.
Mr. Souder. I want to clarify something for the record
there, because this is important to Members of Congress. If
somebody, the AM General facility that makes the Humvees is at
the edge of my district, it's not in my district, but my
district is the biggest parts supplier. They can produce more.
They can produce 150 more a month now, up-armored. The question
is, are you going to allocate the funds to do that and is the
administration going to request that.
Mr. Hall. I will certainly take that for the record, sir,
that they have that capacity. And I don't know if General Blum
has any comments on the Humvees or not.
General Blum. My comments on the up-armored Humvees would
be this. The National Guard has shipped overseas every single
up-armored Humvee that we controlled in the United States of
America, so that the soldiers in harm's way have the best
protection to perform their mission. I don't want to see an up-
armored Humvee in the United States of America until every
single one that's required overseas in the warfight is
delivered into the warfight.
I cannot speak to what AMC can produce or what the Congress
wants to provide in the way of funds and who's going to request
it. But I will tell you, with the assets that I control, I put
the protection of soldiers No. 1, and I put that protection in
theater where they need the protection. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
D.C. National Guards, the Guardsmen trucking company where
we lost one man, came home yesterday, we had a big ceremony,
and I am one of their greatest supporters, have great
appreciation for them. I'm going to ask Mr. McHale to help me
to get for the District of Columbia what Mr. Pataki indicated
in his testimony has been so helpful to him, and I quote from
you, we need to ensure that troops activated under Title 32
status remain under the authority and control of the State's
Governor to ensure maximum flexibility and effective
deployment.
The D.C. National Guard comes totally under the President
of the United States, it's as if this were 1800. It's really
dangerous today to have a situation in the Nation's Capital
where the kind of flexibility that Mr. Pataki testified to is
not even possible here. I have a bill to put the National Guard
under the mayor. At least this city, which must be target No. 1
in the world, ought to have the kind of flexibility as Mr.
Pataki. I'm going to ask you to work with my office to try to
get some of that flexibility here in the Nation's Capital,
where more is at stake than the, not only the 600,000 people
who live here, but the entire Federal presence as well. That
flexibility is simply not available to us.
My question really goes, however, to the mix. I very much
appreciate what you are trying to do with the National Guard.
It's almost like zero budgeting. Gentleman, I think you may as
well start over again. It's the old concept of the militia,
which we are operating under, just lay aside, begin in the
world of post-September 11, particularly since I understand
that within a few months you may have as many as 40 percent of
the National Guard in Iraq. Nobody contemplated that, even a
year ago.
In Mr. Pataki's testimony, by the way, the GAO graph
showing this escalation of the Army National Guard--nobody
believed that these men and women were prepared for this kind
of escalation in combat. And in contrast to your testimony, the
GAO, let me read from the GAO, it says, DOD has not fully
defined requirements, readiness standards and readiness
measures for the homeland security missions it will lead or
support. The Guard's readiness, preparedness specifically for
homeland mission is unknown.
Then it says, this is my concern, based on concern that
continuing deployments reduce the Guard's preparedness and
availability for all its homeland security and natural disaster
missions. Now, Mr. Pataki was brought here this afternoon, he
is totally unrepresentative of the Governors of the United
States at this point, wonderful testimony. But there's no doubt
he called General Blum's name over and over again, there is no
doubt that following September 11 you were careful about what
you did with the National Guard in the State of New York. And I
hope that the next time we will have a more typical Governor
here, so we can really find out what is happening with the
Governors.
At least for example, in neighboring New Jersey, 70 percent
of the National Guard has been deployed. In this city, 40
percent have been deployed. These folks are in Iraq. Now, the
Governor testified proudly since he's been Governor, he's been
Governor for 2 terms, 8 natural disasters, 4 plane crashes, 11
crippling blizzards, 2 major wildfires, etc. We just had a
terrible hurricane, Hurricane Isabel. It is very hard for me to
believe we had a representative Governor here. He would be able
to say, particularly since there's no doubt he wouldn't have
been given the special consideration that New York was entitled
to, that he could handle any disaster that came forward.
I need to know, particularly in light of what the GAO has
said, even about the definition of requirements. I need to
know, I find a real contrast with you on the testimony. I need
to know what we're supposed to do on the home front, when these
are deployed in Iraq, we've got them deployed also for homeland
security, and then they're supposed to deal with disasters as
well. I still have no understanding of how this in fact is
going to occur, how long it will take you to get to this
rebalanced National Guard, or how a typical Governor is
supposed to operate during this period when that Governor
happens not to be of New York State.
Mr. McHale. Congresswoman, if I may, what I'll do is divide
your question into a couple of different parts. A portion of
your question falls within the area of responsibility that has
been assigned to me, a portion of the question is really within
the area of responsibility assigned to Secretary Hall and
General Blum. But let me take the part for which I am
accountable.
With regard to the command and control of the D.C. National
Guard, the first part of the comment that you raised, in order
to achieve a closer partnership between the Department of
Defense and the operational requirements assigned to the D.C.
National Guard, there is an ongoing review, not yet completed,
within the Department of Defense that would consider the
possibility of transferring that responsibility from one
individual to another.
You correctly noted that ultimately the President of the
United States is responsible for the Federal missions assigned
to the D.C. National Guard. And----
Ms. Norton. And the President can nationalize any National
Guard.
Mr. McHale. I'm sorry?
Ms. Norton. And can nationalize any National Guard he wants
to.
Chairman Tom Davis. The gentlelady's time has expired, so
answer the question and we need to----
Mr. McHale. I'll make it very brief, Mr. Chairman. What's
underway right now is the possibility of transferring the
responsibility from the current executive agent, who is the
Secretary of the Army, and who has had historically the same
responsibility with regard to the D.C. National Guard that a
Governor of a State would normally have with regard to his or
her National Guard.
The person or the office that is being considered is a
transfer from the Secretary of the Army to my office. My office
was created by Congress last year. It has overall supervision
of all the homeland defense responsibilities of the Department
of Defense. And there is a possibility that responsibility
would transfer from the Secretary of the Army to me or to my
successors.
I have met with Mayor Williams, I have talked to him about
the responsibilities in the D.C. Guard. We are eager to make
that an effective partnership.
Second, with regard to homeland defense mission, we agree
with the GAO assessment that those missions have not yet
formally been defined within the necessary documents. However,
that's because we're new. NORTHCOM is new capability, my office
is brand new. What we have done operationally is define those
missions, and pursuant to the strategic planning guidance
that's been reviewed by the Department of Defense, by June of
this year we must develop and publish a comprehensive strategy
for homeland defense, which in turn will define the
requirements that are necessary to support those missions.
Frankly, there won't be many surprises. The missions that
we will be including are important missions that we have
developed during the past 2 years. The air caps that protect
our air space, critical infrastructure protection and the
involvement of the National Guard in meeting that mission
requirements, the CSTs, 32 of which we now have, an additional
23 I believe are scheduled over the next 2 years, including 12
within the next year.
The missions are well understood by NORTHCOM. Many of them
are being executed today. And the document reflecting the
development of those missions will be published by June of this
year.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Let me----
Ms. Norton. Could the other part of my----
Chairman Tom Davis. The chairman is going to make a
comment. We asked a number of Governors to appear, including
the Governor of New Jersey, Ms. Norton. We asked the Democratic
Governor of Michigan to appear as well. We asked the Democratic
Governor of Virginia to appear. We would have had a panel had
we had--I'm very grateful we had Governor Pataki, because not
only did he have September 11, he's one of the longest serving
Governors in the Nation, he's had blackouts, he's had
transportation, weather issues and everything else. And I think
we're--I take exception to that statement. He came here on his
own accord, and I think sitting here and bashing him is really
not appropriate.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I didn't bash----
Chairman Tom Davis. The gentleman from Virginia.
Ms. Norton. You have made a personal attack on me----
Chairman Tom Davis. I was answering something, Ms. Norton.
We gave you 5 extra minutes.
The gentlelady from Tennessee.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
our panel. I appreciate your willingness to come and visit with
us on these issues today.
The health of the National Guard, the strength of the
National Guard is very important to all of us. I have two
questions. My first question I am going to direct to Mr. Hall
and General Blum and then, Mr. McHale, I will come to you with
my second question. I do want to be brief in consideration of
everyone's time.
One of the things I am very concerned about, Mr. Hall and
General Blum, is the 168th out of Lebanon, TN, which is
military police. We have talked a lot this morning about
predictability, about readiness and the quality of life with
the families. And Governor Pataki was very forthcoming with
what he's doing to address those issues in New York.
The 168th out of Lebanon was activated in December 2002.
They were deployed in June 2003, and they are the group that
just got extended for another 90 to 100 days. And this is a
great concern to us because of the families that are involved
and the length of this deployment. We know that retention and
readiness is important. But I think, I'm very concerned for the
families of the 168th and how this lengthy deployment does
affect them.
What I want to know is what you plan to do as you
restructure that will keep that from happening again. Then Mr.
McHale, for your answer, the question I would like for you to
answer for me, as we look at this restructuring and we talk
about having missions that are complementary, mutually
reinforcing, the one thing we've not focused on a lot in this
hearing is, going forward with the implementation, what is the
estimated cost of stepping up the readiness. And as we talk
about cost, are you looking at a 5-year frame or a 2-year
frame? Have you given an estimate to the restructuring on the
increased time and what that increased training time is going
to cost us? The different units, the equipping of these and
how, what that cost is going to be.
So backing it up, Mr. McHale, I'll ask you to speak to the
cost, but first, Mr. Hall and General Blum, if you will address
the restructuring, to keep from happening what is happening
with the 168th.
Mr. Hall. We are all very concerned with having to have
that extension. We worry about the families. I spent 34 years
in the military, deployed all the time as an Active Duty
person, and I worried about my family at that point, and we are
continuing to do that.
That decision was made because the combatant commander felt
that he needed to have it, and as Secretary Rumsfeld and
General Myers said, we have to provide him the force. So it was
a very difficult decision. We have over 6,000 Guardsmen and
reservists, including the ones you mentioned, who are involved
in the 20,000, both the Guard and the Army Reserve are having
town halls, meeting with the families, dedicated to every month
reconnecting with the families, trying to help them and give
them as much assistance as we possibly can.
What we're doing to prohibit this or to mitigate it for the
future is what I mentioned earlier, we are restructuring, and
in this case, building more military police, 18 provisional
battalions, I'll let General Blum talk about it, from excess
capacity and artillery and others. We want to build a larger
base so that we don't have to go back and touch the same groups
or extend them.
So we're accelerating that rebalancing and building more
military police, because we know for sure, in conflicts in the
future, military police are going to be needed and we need to
build a larger base. So that's a major focus point, along with
civil affairs. I'll ask General Blum if he will add something.
General Blum. Congresswoman Blackburn, you're absolutely
right. Nobody liked what happened to the 168th. Nobody wanted
that to happen. Unfortunately, we're in a war where we don't
control all of the conditions. Unfortunately, they have a
special skill set that is in short supply and was needed a
little bit longer in theater to keep the mission in theater
from becoming at risk.
Those soldiers, because they are so superb, because they
are so well trained, because they have such good situational
awareness and have been conditioned to the environment, they
are hugely effective and very valuable to the combatant
commander on the ground. The combatant commander asked for a
very small number. Now, if you're the one that is, that number
is one too many. If you're the family member or the employer or
the service member that's been extended, then even that one,
that's one too many.
But it's a very small number of units and National
Guardsmen that have been asked to extend beyond the already-
extended 1 year boots-on-the-ground policy. They will be there
as short as possible. I am in communication with the ground
commander almost weekly to make sure that they are closely
examining the absolute necessity and requirement for the 168th
to stay in theater. They will be released as soon as they can
possibly be released.
To answer your question directly, how do you keep that from
happening again, I have to develop the right kind of
capabilities in the right numbers of units distributed across
the Nation so that Tennessee doesn't have to pay or bear an
unfair burden in the defense of this Nation. And right now
we're not set up exactly perfectly to optimize our ``shelf
stock,'' to use a civilian term. I need more ``shelf stockage''
of the right kinds of units and capabilities in the right
modularity. We're attempting to develop as fast as we can.
We have converted 18 artillery units from around the
country and this month they will be certified as military
police units. Then they will be available to go into the
rotational base, so that I can get, when the 168th comes home,
I can look those citizen-soldiers in the eye and tell them and
their families and their employers they will probably not have
to face another extended duration overseas call-up for about 5
or 6 years. That's the best I can do. I won't have that perfect
probably for another 24 months. But we will be in a much better
position by the end of this month to provide additional MPs
into subsequent rotations, which means to the 168th they don't
have to go back so soon.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Before I raise my point, let me express my admiration for
the work all you gentlemen are doing. You know we are fully
supportive of what you're doing.
In the 24 years I've served in this body, I have been
involved in many policy disputes. But I've never had an
inexplicable dispute with an administration spokesperson that I
have in this instance. So let me try to frame my question with
great respect, but in the hope that I will get a straight
answer.
The National Guard Association of the United States wrote
me a letter signed by Richard Alexander, Major General retired,
thanking me for introducing H.R. 1345. I will just read a
paragraph from this. Thousands of Guardsmen and women are
currently being called to Active Duty in support of the ongoing
operations in Iraq, supporting the global war on terrorism,
defense of the homeland in addition to the multitude of other
State and Federal operations and missions normally performed.
Many members of the National Guard are experiencing
financial hardships when they serve their country for extended
periods of time, due to the difference of income between their
civilian and military pay. H.R. 1345, which is my legislation,
will help mitigate financial loss by making up the difference
between a Guardsman, civilian and military salaries.
Mr. Hall, since you have been the most articulate and
vociferous opponent of my legislation, let me ask you to
explain something to me which despite my best effort, I'm
incapable of comprehending. You and your superiors all the way
up to Secretary Rumsfeld are full of praise for private
companies when they do exactly what my legislation calls for by
the Federal Government. I have a whole list of quotations from
a very large number of important people like yourself,
showering praise on private companies for doing exactly what my
legislation calls for.
Yet, incomprehensibly and illogically, you are vehemently
opposed to a legislation which is totally non-partisan in
character and that would help enormously in recruitment,
retention, morale, in every conceivable arena that you as a
responsible officer are interested in. Now, please explain to
me how can you praise a private company for voluntarily
introducing the precise provision my legislation mandates the
Federal Government to do?
Mr. Hall. I will try and be as careful in answering your
question as you posed it to me. And I didn't realize I was the
most vociferous opponent----
Mr. Lantos. You are.
Mr. Hall [continuing]. Of yours. I didn't know I had that
label.
What I tried to do is to look upon this issue in a very
broad aspect. First of all, I think it's appropriate that we
praise those civilian employers who do this. They do not have
Active Duty people in the same foxhole with our Guard and
Reserve that they have to worry about. All the Reserve chiefs,
as Mr. McHugh has said, have come over and have worried about
the comparability of an Active Duty E-4 in a foxhole with a
Reserve E-4 and do they receive the same Federal pay. And they
do.
I spent, as I said, 34 years of my life in uniform
commanding young men and women on the Active Duty side. And we
have to honestly worry about that in the Federal----
Mr. Lantos. May I stop you for a second?
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lantos. Your logic has already left you. Because you
are applauding the private employer who pays the salary which
makes two people in the same foxhole getting different
salaries. So you can't have it both ways. You can't praise
private employers for doing exactly what my legislation calls
for. I mean, with a straight face you can't tell me this,
because it makes no sense.
Mr. Hall. Well, I do applaud them and they have their own
imperatives and their own system and they have chosen to do
that.
Mr. Lantos. Why don't you answer my question? You have two
people in the same foxhole getting different salaries because
General Electric chooses to maintain the salary while the
person is on Active Duty. And you are praising General Electric
for creating presumably a problem for you.
Mr. Hall. I have answered it in that the Federal pay for
that Active Duty and that Reserve soldier needs to be the same
and it is the same, and that is my area to worry about. And
remember, one-third of our Guardsmen and reservists lose some
amount of pay. Two-thirds have the same amount or more.
And the average loss, and I know we focus on what is in the
newspaper, of tremendous bankruptcies, tremendous loss, that is
not the case. It's between $3,000 and $4,000. Now, that's an
amount of money, we worry about that, but it is not where each
and every one of these soldiers are losing their homes and
going bankrupt. We worry about that. And there are possible
solutions, such as insurance.
But we need to worry about targeting the full range of
compensation to those young men and women. The Guard and
Reserve chiefs all together and the active chiefs have stated
their position, that in considering the overall compensation,
and I also do not believe this is the major recruiting and
retention problem we have, this particular pay. There are
others that, if we have limited funds, we need to look at. I
think I've answered it the way I honestly feel based on my
background service and my position now.
Mr. Lantos. Well, let me just pursue it a bit.
Chairman Tom Davis. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Lantos. If you'll allow me, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. You can ask unanimous consent to
increase your time.
Mr. Lantos. I do.
Chairman Tom Davis. Any objection to giving the gentleman a
couple, 2 additional minutes? Without objection.
Mr. Lantos. The notion that the current situation hurts
only one-third of the people who are serving our country, and
that can be dismissed so cavalierly, is absolutely
preposterous. We are passing legislation here that helps 1
percent of our population. You're talking about one-third of
your manpower or person power which is being hurt by this
idiotic policy. It's an idiotic policy, and I'm using the term
advisedly.
And for you to dismiss it, that it impacts only one-third
of the people, you need to give me an answer. You don't give a
damn about that one-third?
Mr. Hall. I don't dismiss it cavalierly. I've told you how
seriously I view the compensation for our young men and women.
And we look at it in a broad view. I understand yours, and I
think I've answered it adequately about my concern for our
young men and women.
Mr. Lantos. Well, let me for the record state, I think your
answer totally lacks logic and internal consistency and is
totally unacceptable.
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman,
Admiral, General, General, thank you for being here today on
what is a very difficult subject but a very important one.
I think that as a Nation we are probably at a crossroads
where we must make a choice on what the role of the National
Guard is going to be. That choice should be made in the context
of the full spectrum of tests that we expect the men and women
who serve this country in uniform. I've been to both Iraq and
to Afghanistan, and I have always returned home and remarked
how it was impossible to tell the difference between the
reservists, the Guardsmen, the Guard and the Active Duty
forces. They look the same and they face the same threat.
But as leaders charged with funding these troops, with
equipping them, with training them and answering to them and to
their families when we ask them to go into harm's way, we must
not fool ourselves that they are the same. The Marines fighting
outside Fallujah and Najaf right now knew from day one that
they were being trained and equipped to some day go in harm's
way for this country. They represent the finest combat force
that this country has ever produced.
Before they went to Iraq, they were specifically trained
and equipped for urban combat. They share a warrior mind set
that comes from walking out the door each day in uniform and
training for war. Unfortunately, we are not always able to give
our Guardsmen that same level of training before we ask them to
deploy to Iraq and other places around the world.
They do not receive that training day in and day out. If
they receive the same equipment and training they receive it at
the last minute and often hand me down equipment previously
used by the active component. Their families do not see them
walk out of the house each day in uniform and become accustomed
to their prolonged absences and the chance that they may have
to serve in environments such as Iraq.
As a Nation, we must decide what the role of the National
Guard will be in meeting both our global military commitments
and our homeland security needs. I believe that our National
Guard is rightfully part of our first responder equation. If we
are going to continue to rely on the Guard to comprise 40
percent of our Nation's military capability, we have to come to
grips with our responsibility to train them, to equip them and
to let them know that they are part of the team.
We must ensure that funding levels and that of the
authorities and scope of Title 10 and Title 32 reflect the way
that our world has changed in the last 3 years. We must
reevaluate our own commitment as leaders responsible for this
crucial homeland security force and critical military Reserve
force.
That being said, I want to address several questions to
you, Secretary McHale, if I might, and I hope the Chair will
indulge me, because some of it's rather long. The Guard differs
from the Reserve components in that it's under the command and
control of the States. This positions the Guard for some unique
opportunities with the States' Federal nexus. Question, does
DOD see the National Guard's unique Title 32 activities, such
as civil support teams, the counter-drug programs or the
airport security missions, to be unhelpful distractions, or
have these uses of Title 32 been meaningful contributors to the
security of the Nation?
Mr. McHale. Congressman Schrock, let me emphasize in the
strongest possible terms that Title 32 has been of enormous
benefit, not only to the Department of Defense but to the
Nation. There are three categories in which the Guard may be
employed, in State status or at State expense under command and
control of the Governor, the Guard executes the missions that
are assigned to it by the Governor. At the other end of the
spectrum, you've got Title 10 where the National Guard is
brought to Federal service, paid for at Federal expense and
under command and control of the President of the United States
and Secretary of Defense.
Title 32 is an excellent, very flexible middle ground which
produces tremendous utility. The expense of Title 32 is paid
for by the Department of Defense, by the Federal Government.
But in Title 32 status, National Guardsmen are exempt from
posse comitatus, so they can engage in missions that are very
close to law enforcement activities, missions that would be
precluded for Title 10 forces. The expense, as I said, is
carried by the Federal Government, but we have flexibility in
terms of command and control by the Governor.
If anything, where we are at this point is the Department
of Defense is actively reviewing the tremendous benefit of
Title 32 to determine whether or not that training status needs
to be expanded in the context of the global war on terrorism
for an increased number of missions in that Title 32 status,
because it has proven to be so beneficial.
Mr. Schrock. OK, then we go to the last question. How soon
might we expect the DOD to send to Congress a proposal to
review Title 32 and in particular, the language about training
in Section 502(f), I think it is?
Mr. McHale. As you point out, Title 32 status involves
National Guardsmen who are on Active Duty, performing specific
missions that often have been statutorily assigned. We have 32
civil support teams, we'll have 12 more this year and
presumably 11 more after that, based upon the assumption that
the Congress will provide the funding for the final 11.
In Title 32 status, we have those forces immediately
available at Federal expense, exempt from posse comitatus,
under command and control by the Governor. I mentioned earlier
in response to Congresswoman Norton that we are preparing a
comprehensive, really I think a historic homeland defense
strategy that will be completed by June 30, 2004. I don't want
to assume that we will necessarily ask for a statutory revision
of Title 32, but by the end of June we will know whether or not
such a revision would be appropriate.
And frankly, because Title 32 is a training status in the
context of the global war on terrorism, we need to take a very
serious look at expanding Title 32 to cover additional
missions.
Mr. Schrock. So sometime around?
Mr. McHale. I would think by the end of summer, if in fact
we request a change in Title 32, we would know by the middle of
summer whether such a change would be required. I don't want to
preclude an ongoing review, but certainly at this point, it
appears to me as if Title 32 would be appropriate for review to
include in the future not only training missions but
operational missions and specifically, the mission that I
envision as being central to the future of the National Guard
and homeland defense missions, and that is critical
infrastructure protection. The use of National Guard
potentially in Title 32 to defend critical infrastructure in an
operational role within our own country.
Mr. Schrock. Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I continue for a
minute?
Chairman Tom Davis. We will give the gentleman 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. Schrock. Paul, this question is about the possibility
of similar operations in the future. The airport security
mission was performed under Title 32, the Federal Government
provided the money, the States executed the mission. This seems
to have been a success. But subsequently, there was a need to
use the Guard for border security, and of course for that
mission, the Guard was taken out of State control under Title
32 and mobilized to Federal duty under Title 10.
Does this reflect an intent by DOD to tend toward Federal
mobilization as the best way to use the Guard for domestic
requirements or might such future requirements be evaluated on
a case by case basis for execution under Title 32 or Title 10,
as the situation would demand at the time?
Mr. McHale. The Secretary of Defense has in the past
indicated a preference for the use of National Guard forces,
including in Title 32 status, rather than the necessary use,
because of a lack of an alternative, of Title 10 forces for the
same mission. In short, if there is a clear mission
requirement, and we have the choice between using Title 10
forces or National Guard forces, particularly for the missions
that are related to counter-narcotics and the support that we
provide to civilian law enforcement along the borders, the
preferred course of action is to use the National Guard while
preserving our Title 10 capabilities for overseas warfighting.
And that's why as we look at the emerging mission
requirement in the context of the global war on terrorism,
there will be more, not less, for the Guard to do, including
missions assigned in Title 32 status.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is up.
I'd like to submit two other questions to Secretary McHale for
the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. I'd be happy to keep the record open
for that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, you all have a very difficult job,
and I think you've done a great job but we can always do better
and that's what we're talking about here today.
In this country, when people feel that something is wrong,
it's an issue. As Members of Congress, that's why, I think
you're getting a lot of the questioning on how long someone's
going to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever.
What I would like to really discuss right now is the short
term. General Blum, you said, and so far, from what I see I
think your plan for a full spectrum force looks pretty good to
me. But you said it would be about 24 months, I believe, before
it's really implemented. And eventually this plan will reduce
the burden on those already deployed and also give some sense
of a plan and a commitment on how long they're going to be.
I think one of the worst things you can do for anybody is
raise expectations and then take those expectations away. But
if we're in a war, we have to do what we have to do. That's
what's happening now.
Could you please tell us what you need now? Congress is in
session now until next November or December, whatever. What
would you like to see on the short term to help the troops on
the ground and their families and their employers? What do we
need? And really what we're talking about is resources, which
means money, which means we have to encourage the
administration to maybe reprioritize to do something in the
short term. I'd like to hear the short term solutions based on
what you've seen now as far as deployment, as far as dealing
with families, all those issues that might help.
General Blum. The first thing I'd like to tell you,
Congressman Ruppersberger, is that there is continued strong,
solid, unswerving support for the citizen soldiers and airmen,
the young men and women in uniform. People are separating
differences over what is going on, how it's being prosecuted,
and the techniques that are being applied, separating that from
the solid support to uniformed service members that are
answering the call to colors, I'd like the Congress to continue
that strong, solid support.
Now, it is absolutely critical in an all volunteer, all
recruited force that a strong message of support from both
parties, from both houses, from all elected officials be
clearly understood that service to our Nation is something that
is honorable, that is necessary and is something that we all
should be very proud of and supportive of. So that is the first
thing that I would ask the Congress, to be very careful in
their discussions and deliberations to consider the eroding
effect that it has on the morale of soldiers that are deployed
longer than they would like to be, away from their families
longer than they would choose to be and put either career and
education and lives, frankly, at risk.
Mr. Ruppersberger. In that regard, when I was in Iraq, I
had a conversation with a member of the Maryland National
Guard, and he said, with all the political rhetoric we hear,
people back home aren't mad at us, are they?
General Blum. That's precisely the question that I don't
want to have in their minds when they're walking the streets of
Fallujah.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I want to get some specifics----
General Blum. The specifics are--I could get the specifics
for you, and I'd be glad to leave them for you for the record.
Because in the interest of time, it would probably be the
better way to do it. I'll provide you that.
If you'll put up that chart that talks about the strategic
Reserve moving to an operational force, everything on the left
side of this chart that's about to go up there, that was listed
under strategic Reserve, is what is wrong with the National
Guard and Reserve components today. They are resourced wrong
for today. They were resourced exactly right for the time
before September 11th. But they're not right for today.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Resourcing being?
General Blum. Resourcing means money for training----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you have a money figure base?
General Blum. I'll provide that for you, sir, for the
record. It's money for retraining soldiers to reclassify them
from what they are now to what they need to be, retrain them
for the skill sets we need for tomorrow, not what we needed for
yesterday. It is money for equipment that we do not have, we
were never equipped to be an operational force, so we have all
this cross leveling. Each time you cross level, you lessen
what's left in the pot and cross leveling becomes more and more
difficult.
Last, the most important is, full-time manning. Because it
is clearly a readiness issue. If you're going to use the Guard
and Reserve as an operational force, you must have the right
combination of full time soldiers matching up with part time
soldiers. And that is clearly out of balance today and needs
addressing.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, could I have one more
minute?
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Very quickly. There's an article in the
Sun paper today and I'm sure throughout the country about U.S.
reservists accused of prisoner abuse. I'm quoting in the Sun
paper an article written by Tom Bowman and Sabar, and this is
one of the individuals who has been charged, or the allegations
that they were abusing prisoners. Well, by the way, if it's
criminal conduct we have to deal with it like we deal with
anything else. We cannot tolerate it.
However, there are a lot of gray areas when you're at war.
This, one of these individuals said that we had no support, no
training whatsoever. They were in a prison camp. And I kept
asking my chain of command for certain things like rules and
regulations. Another individual said, I understand they usually
don't allow others to watch them interrogate, how to go about
interrogation. So we had no rules, no training.
The attorney for one of the individuals told 60 Minutes II
that the soldiers never have been charged because of the
failure of commanders to provide proper training and standards.
What I'm getting to really is that you have men and women in
the National Guard who are being put in the same situation as
career, we know that. And if they don't have the proper command
structure and then they don't have the training, and they're in
a situation where they make believe that they're at war and
they are attempting to do what they need to do, I'd like you to
address the issue as it relates to these men and women, not
specifically, because you can't talk about the trial, but about
that type of training, when you're put in that situation, when
all of a sudden you're at home and you're doing your weekend
duty, then all of a sudden you find yourself in a prison and
now you have six individuals who are being charged that are
saying they didn't know what to do, they didn't have the proper
training.
General Blum. I will not address that specific instance,
because it's under investigation.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I understand that.
General Blum. But I will talk on the broad issue there, and
I believe what I'm about to tell you to the core of my being.
We have never as a Nation sent a force of citizen-soldiers
overseas better trained, better prepared, better equipped,
better led with better values and clearer established standards
than we have sent these citizen-soldiers that are over there
right now. I believe that deep in my heart, to the core of my
being. I've gone and watched this training, I've participated
in the training, I've been a product of the training, I have
visited every single major unit that has been prepared before
it was sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have visited those
same units in theater once they're there. And I stand on the
record of that.
Now, will you find some soldier who may not live up to the
standards and the training that they received? That's possible.
And that may be happening or may not be happening in this case,
and that's why it's being investigated.
Mr. Ruppersberger. In this case and other cases, we have to
evaluate to make sure it's not training, it is actually
criminal conduct. But I think it's important, there are a lot
of gray areas and we're at war. It's very, very important that
we deal with the issue of training.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
I want to first say, I have tremendous admiration for all
of you, and all of you have very excellent reputations. I would
say to my colleague Mr. McHale that I considered him one of the
finest Members of Congress to serve as I have served here. And
I think it's a real blessing that you are working for the
administration and for our country.
When I was last in Iraq, and this is my fifth visit with my
staff, I recently, in my capacity as chairman of the National
Security Subcommittee, which oversees Defense and State
Department, I recently visited Bravo Co. first of 252nd Armor
regiment commanded by Captain Sean Moser. This North Carolina
National Guard unit is helping secure the city of Hannakin in
northeast Iraq. I just want to say for the record that these
soldiers at B Co. are doing a superb job.
But having said that, I want to say to you that the miliary
has never made it easy for us to go and visit Iraq. When we go
we learn things. I believe that Congress has not done the
proper oversight job. If you had ever told me that we would
send troops without proper body armament, I would have been
amazed, but we did, General. If you had told me we would have
sent them in Humvees that didn't have proper protection, I
would have been amazed, but we did.
Because in that company, we saw one Humvee modified by a
kid, one modified by the soldiers in country and one not even
modified. And then we had the basic briefing that there were
caches of weapons throughout the eastern part of Iraq, pre-
deployed, they are constantly uncovering them. Then they had a
3-hour briefing in Baghdad showing us how they make these
weapons.
And I just want to say to you as well, General Blum, I know
these are the best trained military. But I also know first
hand, and in the soul of my being, just as you would say, I had
Army personnel tell us that they were being asked to do things
they were never, ever trained for. And that's a fact. And it
didn't happen once. It didn't happen twice. It happened
continually.
And for me, I didn't even know about the inadequacy of our
Humvees until I had a community meeting in Oxford, CT, and I
had two moms show me letters from their National Guard sons
showing us the Humvees that were not in any way, with a kit or
improved or not. So I just want to put that on the record.
We're doing the best we can do, but it is a surprise to me that
when I sent our men and women off to war I sent them in some
cases without the best equipment.
And I believe it's the National Guard and reservists who
are the last in the food chain. I would like to think that in
the future, it will never happen again. I know you make the
best of what you can do, but for me, I thought my job was to
make sure it was never a fair fight. I think that in some
cases, I've put our men and women in jeopardy. And I think we
have to just say it and then deal with it. Not to mention the
pay problems and the benefit problems and the health care
problems that exist for our reservists and National Guard.
I want to understand, and the other thing I want to say,
and I'm sorry to press this for so long, but having visited
bases all throughout the country in previous years, I praise
God I did, because you all told us, the people you have to get
to sign up is not the soldier, it's the spouse of the soldier.
If we talk about having them be gone every 4 or 5 years, I am
going to be very surprised if we aren't going to lose a lot of
good men and women. And not to mention our soldiers being
forced to take anthrax against their will, which affects the
Air Force, General Love.
So having said that, show me why it isn't harder to be a
National Guard and reservist, given that you've got to be
trained to fight and hopefully do your job extraordinarily well
and defend yourself and make sure you come home to your loved
ones, tell me why this isn't a harder job than the active
forces? Because you also have to be trained to do work under
Title 32 for the States. I think it is a tougher job than the
active forces. Tell me it's no different, or tell me in fact,
is it harder?
General Blum. It's harder, sir. It's been harder for 367
years. It hasn't gotten any easier. Nobody said it was going to
be easy. Nobody said it was going to be fair.
Mr. Shays. We've made it harder, though.
General Blum. That chart depicting our strategic to
operational shift tells the story. It is not because of
anybody's evil intent. Most of the policies, most of the laws
that have caused the pay problems, lack of health care, the
lack of properly equipping the U.S. Army and Air National
Guard, properly resourcing them with full time training and
enough money to train and operate----
Mr. Shays. Could I just have 2 more minutes, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Tom Davis. Any objection? No objection.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I'm sorry.
General Blum. Absolutely. All those things are true. But
they are not by accident. They were by design. We were supposed
to be a strategic Reserve. We did a superb job as a strategic
Reserve. We were a great deterrent force against the Russians
in the Warsaw Pact. That's no longer a threat.
We now need to build an operational force, and we need,
sir, Congress needs to reevaluate the benefits, the
entitlements, the pay, the resourcing, the equipment and the
full-time manning issues of the Guard, or we can't be an
operational force the way you would like it to be.
Mr. Shays. But to say that they've always had a harder job,
I think it is many times harder today because of September 11th
and the response abilities they have to train for the terrorist
attacks which we weren't really focused on in the past.
General Blum. Mr. Shays, we're in agreement. I agree with
you. It's a tough job, but it's an essential and necessary job
if we're going to defined this Nation.
Mr. Shays. I know that. But a few years ago, we also
decided they were going to be part of the force structure in a
very primary way. I feel like in a way this is a debate we did
not have before we sent them to Iraq. I have a bit of concern
that it has not turned out quite the way we had hoped.
I just want to make my point, and General Love, I'd like
for you to respond as well.
General Blum. Before he does, I just want to finish my
point, if I may. I personally and professionally feel this
Nation should never go to war without the National Guard. When
you call up the National Guard, you call up America. And we
should never, ever send a force overseas that Congress and this
Nation can walk away from.
Mr. Shays. I hear what you're saying, and I am not
disagreeing. But what I'm saying is, they were the last in the
food chain. I know that for a fact. And yet they're being asked
to do a harder job, in my judgment, than the active force. I
just would love you----
General Blum. But for the record, sir, they are not last in
the food chain. The 81st that has just gone to Iraq were first
in the food chain. They got body armor before the active army.
They got up-armored Humvees before the active Army.
Mr. Shays. General, I'm going to say this as clearly as I
can. I know this for a fact, when the hand-me-downs of aircraft
and so on, they usually get some equipment that has already
been used by the active forces. And that's a fact you and I
know is true. General?
General Love. Congressman, thank you. And as a preface, if
I may, I will say that I was invited here today to speak on
behalf of NORTHCOM. So if I may, I will answer your questions
from personal experience, rather than in my role as the
Assistant Commander of NORTHCOM. I think a review of my
personal experience in the Air National Guard would indicate
that the Air National Guard was asked to become an operational
Reserve immediately following the first Gulf war. It had the
period of the 1990's in which to bring itself up to the status
of a participant, an equal participant in the air expeditionary
forces.
Yes, there were some equipment shortfalls, and yes, there
may not have been the most modern, current equipment within the
Air National Guard. But whether it was in the transportation
business or in the fighter business, I'm proud to say that the
Air National Guard carried its role and the Congress supported
it when it asked for support to assist us in doing so.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The men and women in the National Guard and Reserves are
doing an awesome job. And I thank them for that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. I've just got a couple of
questions. General Blum, nobody's really asked today what we
can do here in Congress to help the Guard carry out its
mission. Is there any legislation or authorization that would
be helpful along the vision that you have given us?
General Blum. Based on most of the comment that has gone on
here today, and Governor Pataki's earlier comment, unambiguous,
clear legislative authority for the operational use of Title 32
I think would be highly helpful for both the Department of
Defense and the National Guard, so that we can know how we're
going to respond to the Governors and the President in the
myriad conditions that we're asked to respond.
Right now, the ambiguity of the current code leaves it much
too subject to interpretation, and actually, that code was
designated again, for strategic force, not an operational force
to be combating the global war on terrorism. So sir, I would
say that would be first and foremost.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. General Love, let me just
ask, I know NORTHCOM just conducted two very large scale annual
training exercises called the Unified Defense that includes
scenarios for protecting the homeland under simultaneous
attacks. Can you tell us a little about the exercise, who
participated and any lessons we learned?
General Love. You're right, sir, Unified Defense, the
exercises perhaps you're referring to were Determined Promise
03, which occurred last August, and Unified Defense 04. And
yes, sir, you're correct as well in saying that we engaged our
forces in multiple places, responding as Secretary McHale
pointed out earlier today, that we anticipated attack on this
country by our enemies in a number of places at the same time.
The lessons we learned from that were very good and
sometimes very painful. That is that we did not have command
and control where we perhaps needed. We didn't have the
exercising we perhaps needed. But that is examined in the light
of the fact that we wouldn't exercise if we didn't want to warn
those lessons. And NORTHCOM is just barely, not quite 18 months
old. Is that responsive, sir?
Chairman Tom Davis. That's fine. Let me must thank this
panel. There's always a tendency in the military and politics
and everything else to fight the last war. And nobody does the
last war better than we do. If you look at a conventional war,
the war we did in Iraq, nobody does it better. You drive
through Baghdad and there are heaps of rubble that were
military installations, defense installations, and next to it
residential buildings that weren't touched.
But it's the aftermath that obviously we weren't prepared
for. No one envisioned this. General Blum, I'm glad to see your
vision now is looking at these kinds of things. We need to
continue looking outside the box, because it may be a little
more complicated in our next era of operations. Who knows.
We just need to continue to have these conversations with
us and the other appropriate committees. This hearing has been
very helpful to all of us. We appreciate our taking the time.
Paul, it's great to have you back here on the other side, have
a lot of confidence in you and a lot of respect from your days
in the House. Anything anybody else wants to add?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, might I have about 30 seconds?
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Hall. The question you asked General Blum about things
that you might do, we have a number of rules which don't cost a
lot of money but are rules for our Guardsmen and reservists
that go back to the cold war which does not contribute to a
continuous service. And we passed those over, we would
appreciate your looking at them, such as volunteer auxiliaries.
The single biggest source of manpower that we have not
tapped are retirees. And I have a vast amount of retirees call
and ask, can I serve. They are around our bases. We would like
authority to form voluntary auxiliaries to use the retired
population in the country which can relieve the stress on our
Guard and Reserve. Many of our rules, which if you serve more
than 179 days, we count you on Active Duty list for promotion,
the strength accounting.
So there are a number of those rules which I think we need
to take care of which are not costly but will make service
easier for our Guardsmen and reservists. Those are submitted
and we would ask, if they make sense, that the committee look
at them and support them.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. And we also will submit
those to Duncan Hunter and his committee. We'll talk to them as
well.
Mr. Hall. We think it will help our young men and women and
not cost a lot of money.
Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would hope it was
clear in my opening statement and perhaps in some of the
answers to the questions raised by the Members that during the
past 2 years since September 11th, we have very substantially
reviewed and strengthened our homeland defense capabilities.
That's not rhetoric, those are deliverable, operational
capabilities on a daily basis. We fly air combat air patrols
that were not being flown prior to September 11th. We have Army
and Marine units on alert for deployment within our own country
to defend against a ground attack.
And most importantly, we have and are developing at a
higher level the ability to respond to multiple, near
simultaneous WMD attacks within our own country. We have not
had that capability historically. We have it now and it's
getting better every day.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. And let me
associate myself with Mr. Lantos' remarks at the beginning when
he said we've got to appreciate and respect the job you're
doing, and of course the men and women in uniform that you
represent.
Thank you very much. We'll take a 2-minute recess as we
move to our next panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Shays [assuming Chair]. We would like to welcome our
third panel, Janet A. St. Laurent, Director of Defense
Capabilities and Management, U.S. General Accounting Office;
Lieutenant General Wayne D. Marty, State Adjutant General of
Texas; Major General Timothy Lowenberg, State Adjutant General
of Washington; Major General Bruce Tuxill, State Adjutant
General of Maryland.
As you know, gentlemen and lady, it is the policy of our
committee to swear in all our witnesses, and I would
respectfully request you stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. Note for the record that
all our witnesses responded in the affirmative, and I
appreciate others standing up in case we need to seek their
testimony.
We will go in the order I called you. We do a 5 minute
clock, we roll it over, but we'd like you to stay as close to
the 5-minutes as you can. You also know that your testimony
will be part of the record, and also feel free to respond to
any question that was asked in the previous two panels. Thank
you for being here, thank you for your testimony and thank you
for your service to our country and to your State.
Ms. St. Laurent.
STATEMENTS OF JANET A. ST. LAURENT, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE;
LIEUTENANT GENERAL WAYNE D. MARTY, ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF
TEXAS; MAJOR GENERAL TIMOTHY J. LOWENBERG, ADJUTANT GENERAL,
STATE OF WASHINGTON; AND MAJOR GENERAL BRUCE F. TUXILL,
ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF MARYLAND
Ms. St. Laurent. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's observations on
challenges facing the National Guard. For the sake of time, I
would like to quickly summarize our work in three areas. First,
how and to what extent Guard forces have been used since
September 11th; second, how the use of the Guard has affected
readiness for future operations; and third, challenges that
DOD, Congress and the States face in preparing the National
Guard for the future.
First, let me turn to the use of the Guard. Since September
11th, over 51 percent of Army Guard personnel and 31 percent of
Air Guard personnel have been activated or alerted for a wide
range of Federal missions at home and abroad. The chart on the
board to your left, and I believe you also have copies of
these, shows that the Army Guard has experienced the largest
demand for forces.
As of last month, the Army Guard had almost 95,000
soldiers, more than 25 percent of its forces, mobilized or on
alert to support operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and at home.
Moreover, DOD has recently placed thousands of additional
soldiers on alert.
The Air Guard's usage has also been significant, but has
declined in recent months. Currently, the Air Guard has about
7,500 personnel who are deployed overseas or conducting
homeland security missions at home, such as flying combat air
patrols over portions of the Nation.
Second, I would like to turn to readiness. Specifically,
the readiness of Guard non-deployed units has declined steadily
since September 11th. The decline in readiness is a more
serious problem for the Army Guard, because it has not been
funded to quickly deploy the number and types of units that
have been needed within the past few years.
In the past, much of the Army Guard's role was to be a
strategic Reserve force that would be maintained at lower
readiness levels and given additional resources and time to
train if needed in the event of war. Although real world
demands on the Army Guard have changed, DOD's resourcing
strategy has not. For example, the Army Guard's eight divisions
are authorized 65 percent of the personnel they need, while the
Guard's 150 enhanced brigades, which are intended to be
maintained at a higher readiness level, are authorized about 85
percent of personnel.
However, theater commanders require that units deploy with
100 percent of required personnel, and that has been the case
for Iraq. As a result, the Army Guard has had to transfer
significant numbers of personnel and equipment from non-
deploying to deploying units. For example, the Army Guard has
had to initiate transfers of 71,000 soldiers since September
11th. To get two enhanced brigades ready to deploy to Iraq
earlier this year, the Army Guard had to transfer about 2,000
soldiers, about a quarter of the total required for these
brigades, worsening shortfalls elsewhere.
The readiness problem also affects equipment. To mobilize
forces to Iraq, the Guard transferred about 22,000 pieces of
equipment, such as night vision goggles, machine guns, trucks,
and radios. This is an important point, because it further
degrades the readiness of some units that may be needed in the
near future. Moreover, some of this equipment is the same type
of equipment that may be needed to deter a response to
potential terrorist threats at home.
In addition, the Army and Air Guard's readiness for
homeland security missions is uncertain because DOD has not
fully established requirements or readiness measures for these
missions. Officials in one State we visited were somewhat
concerned that ongoing Guard deployment may lead to situations
in which Guard units are not available when needed at home.
I would like to refer you to two charts that provide a
snapshot of Army and Air National Guard personnel deployed in
March 2004. The first chart, which refers to the Army National
Guard, shows that 15 States had 40 percent or more of Army
Guard soldiers alerted or activated in March and they're
unavailable to the Governor. A couple of States had over 60
percent deployed.
The next chart shows that the Air Guard was less affected
by high deployment. Only a few States have more than 20 percent
of their Air Guard personnel deployed during March.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we see three major challenges that
DOD, Congress and the States will need to collectively address.
First, DOD's current practice of transferring large numbers of
personnel and equipment from non-deploying to deploying Army
Guard units, in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul, will
not be sustainable if the high pace of operations continues.
Although DOD is aware of this issue, it has not developed any
comprehensive formula, plan or identified specific funds to
address it.
Second, although the Army National Guard plans to
restructure its forces for the long term and would like to meet
a greater percentage of its full time manning requirements in
the future, DOD has not yet fully budgeted for these
initiatives or developed detailed implementation plans.
Finally, the Guard has taken some steps to identify the
types of capabilities that each State should have for homeland
security, such as aviation, transportation, engineers, security
units, and to develop a rotation scheme that will try to keep
50 percent of the forces in each State at home. However,
details have not yet been developed in coordination with the
States that will be required to implement the plan.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, declining readiness, combined
with the continuing high pace of operations, suggests that a
comprehensive reassessment of the Army Guard structure and
resourcing assumptions is needed. Moreover, once homeland
security requirements are better defined, additional analysis
will be needed to assess the impacts on both the Army and Air
National Guard.
This completes my statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. St. Laurent follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.100
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony. General Marty, welcome.
General Marty. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. Let me just say that it's an honor for this
Texas soldier to come before this committee to testify. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Shays. General, you need to know it is an honor to have
you come before us. Don't even wonder.
General Marty. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to
discuss the transformation of the Texas military forces. The
Texas military forces include the Adjutant General's
Department, the Texas National Guard, both the Army and the
Air, and the Texas State Guard. We are a diverse team of
approximately 21,000 Federal and State personnel in 106
installations in or near 86 cities and towns across Texas.
Since September 11th, the Texas military forces have
responded to homeland security respondents and other public
emergencies in a variety of ways that demonstrate the
versatility of the force. These include the fighter escort of
Air Force One immediately following the September 11 attacks,
the security of 26 airports statewide, assisting the FBI in
review of airline manifests, augmenting Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Border Patrol, the Customs Service
along the Mexican Border and Gulf Coast line, conducting combat
air patrols over Houston, the Gulf Coast, New York City and
Washington, frequent interception missions against unidentified
aircraft entering U.S. air space and security of critical
national assets at at least 20 locations across the United
States.
Additional activities include augmenting search, security
and rescue forces at the World Trade Center and the 2002 Winter
Olympics in Utah, both air and ground support of local, State
and Federal law enforcement agencies along the Mexican border
and throughout the State, assisting with the joint recovery of
the space shuttle Columbia, medical and dental support to the
needy in south Texas border region, and emergency response to
hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, snow storms, floods and
wildfires.
Our ability to respond like this is based upon close
working relationships with State homeland security and
emergency management officials, and clear guidance from them on
their requirements. The shuttle recovery operation in
particular highlighted the value of Title 32 mobilizations,
which provided Federal funds but allowed the Governor and me to
continue to use the established system of command and control
and the habitual relationships with the State emergency
agencies and responders.
In addition, since September 11th, Texas military forces
have developed on land and deployed on land, at sea and in the
air in support of the global war on terrorism at 195 locations
within the United States, on Coalition Naval vessels in the
Mediterranean and in 38 countries. I must tell you that we
could not have done this without the support of the U.S.
Congress and the American people. For that, we are very
grateful.
Our ability to meet the demands of this expanding roles is
also greatly facilitated by the drive for the joint
transformation by the Department of Defense and the National
Guard Bureau. In Texas, we are pursuing transformation along
five closely related lines. We have transformed the various
headquarters into a single, joint State headquarters. We are
transforming the Texas Army National Guard into agile,
versatile, modular, independent units of action.
We are transforming the Air National Guard into a more
relevant force, anchored in precision strike, fighter training
and worldwide tactical airlift. We are transforming the Texas
State Guard, a voluntary auxiliary for Texas National Guard,
into a joint forces specialist to augment the medical
infrastructure in Texas in public health emergencies, including
terrorism.
We continue to serve both the global war on terrorism and
homeland missions. As should be apparent, the preparation for
one role has enhanced our preparation for the others. Because
both missions require agility and the ability by diverse
agencies and services to work closely together and effectively.
You have asked how you could help. I have some suggestions.
Continue to support the Department of Defense and U.S.
Government's drive for joint transformation. To assist the
Department of Defense in adjusting incentive programs,
retention incentives can be redirected for military and
military occupational specialists bonuses to post-mobilization
retention bonuses. To assist the Department of Defense in
assuring that our soldiers and airmen have the equipment they
need, including ammunition for training, aircraft upgrades and
engineer equipment. Assist the Department of Defense in making
various funding streams which began with Congress, less
stovepiped and more flexible and more joint.
I'd like to thank you very much for having me here, and I
appreciate your efforts on behalf of the National Guard
soldiers and airmen, their families and employers, as well as
the soldiers, the sailors, the airmen, Marines, members of the
Coast Guard personnel who serve this great Nation. These are
great young men and women and I am extremely proud of them.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Marty follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.116
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. We are extremely grateful
for your work and proud of the men and women who you work with,
General. Let me introduce and recognize General Lowenberg, and
just say, General, my staff has wanted me to just know, so I
want to put it on the record that your statement, which is 73
plus pages, my staff, excuse me, the chairman's staff's view is
that it is almost a bible of what should be done, and are very
grateful for your very significant effort to try to accommodate
this committee and its work. We're grateful as well that you
have summarized your statement. [Laughter.]
I want very much to put on the record that your entire
statement is going to be very helpful to this committee and we
may not plagiarize, but we'll come close.
General Lowenberg. I thank the Chair for those kind words.
Members of the committee, it's an honor to be with you today in
my capacity as the Adjutant General for the State of Washington
and as chair of homeland security for the Adjutant General's
Association of the United States.
Like the Adjutants General of all States, I have military
and civilian responsibilities that are unique throughout the
military services and, for that matter, unique throughout the
remainder of State and Federal Government. In addition to my
joint Army and Air National Guard command responsibilities, I
am the State's senior emergency management official. I'm
charged with administering the comprehensive emergency
management plan for the State of Washington. I oversee our
Statewide enhanced 911 telecommunications system and serve on
the State interoperability executive committee.
I serve as the State's homeland security advisor, in that
respect for every week since the attack of September 11, 2001,
I have chaired a weekly meeting of the Governor's chief of
staff, senior cabinet officials and policy advisors and the
State attorney general. As the State cabinet level official for
homeland security, I deal directly with my Federal counterpart,
Secretary Tom Ridge. I also serve as the Homeland Security
Grant Administrator for our State, and therefore lease with
other States, interface with senior officials in other Federal
agencies such as the Department of Defense, Health and Human
Services, Energy and others.
I mention these interwoven civil and military
responsibilities, because they are not unique to me. Portions
of my own portfolio are reflected in the central roles of
General Tuxill and others, and other National Guard adjutants
general throughout all the States and territories. We are a
fusion point that assures a unity of effort within our States,
between the States and the Federal Government and perhaps most
significantly, between the Department of Defense and other
Federal agencies where the risks and vulnerabilities are the
greatest at the State and local level.
Just as our responsibilities are unique, so too the
military forces that we command have a unique legal status.
It's that unique legal status that is our biggest strength and
offers extraordinary flexibility to State and Federal
authorities on how our forces can be used to enhance homeland
security. That strength should be leveraged by using the
National Guard in Title 32 status to the maximum extent
possible for all domestic operations, not just for training as
is currently and unambiguously authorized in 32 U.S. 502, but
also for the full scope of domestic operations. The practical,
fiscal and legal advantages of using the Guard in Title 32
status are well documented in the Defense Science Board study
which will soon be released, and a resolution adopted by the
National Governors Association last year and in my formal
testimony.
This country needs bold, visionary leaders at the national
level to revise Title 32 for the 21st century. To remove
bureaucratic obstacles, I encourage the Congress to take strong
action to make it unambiguously clear that Title 32 may be used
for domestic operational missions in addition to training. If
properly authorized and resourced with civil authorities in
addition to preparing for our overseas combat missions, the
Guard can make a wealth of experience and expertise available
to State and local authorities for planning, training and
exercising for synchronized and complex responses.
Our experience in intelligence fusion and analysis can and
should be made available to State and local authorities. This
integration would contribute greatly to the operation picture
needed by NORTHCOM. As has been previously noted, the Guard has
provided counter-drug support to State, Federal and local law
enforcement agencies for more than a decade and a half. The
nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism is clear. Congress
should expand the existing National Guard counter-drug program
to enlarge the focus that authorizes and funds a Governor's
narco-terrorism plan in each State. And just as we do with the
current counter-drug program, that narco-terrorism plan should
be fully vetted and approved by the Department of Defense.
Taking a successful program like the current counter-drug
program and updating it to combat the 21st century narco-
terrorism threats confronting our Nation will be
transformational indeed. To effectively rebalance the force in
consort with everything General Blum and the other speakers
have outlined for you, the Army National Guard must be
resourced at a similar level of readiness that exceeds what it
is now--in contrast to the Army, which is fully resourced, and
the Air National Guard, which is at 100 percent of its
requirement.
We can build an Army National Guard force with an equal
state of readiness, but only if the Department of Defense and
Army choose to fund the Army National Guard to a similar level
as the Air National Guard. These are policy choices with
operational and national security consequences. DOD has a
number of high demand, low density mission areas that are
currently in short supply, and it should be recognized that
some capabilities are also desperately needed by the States for
domestic homeland security. These mission areas should be
expanded and resourced as quickly as possible.
Secretary McHale's presence here underscores how
dramatically the Department of Defense itself has reshaped and
reformed to meet the challenges of the global war on terrorism.
The purpose and charter of the National Guard needs to be
similarly updated to give the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau clear statutory authority to deal directly with
Secretary McHale and with NORTHCOM, and with all the other
players in this newly reorganized Department of Defense
Homeland Security architecture.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I look forward
to answering your questions. Thank you for your kind attention.
[The prepared statement of General Lowenberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.194
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, General, and General
Tuxill, thank you so much. You have the floor.
General Tuxill. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee.
I'm here representing Maryland's Governor, Robert L.
Ehrlich, Jr. Mainly, he asked me to come to discuss our
readiness and the National Guard for our some 8,300 men and
women that comprise the National Guard in Maryland. In keeping
with the 367 year tradition, Maryland citizen soldiers and
airmen continue to respond today. We have over 1,100 soldiers
and airmen deployed in support of either Operation Noble Eagle,
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since
September 11, we've deployed over 4,100 citizen soldiers and
airmen in response to the global war on terror.
Our soldiers and airmen fully understand that our Nation is
at war with terror, and likewise expect to serve. These young
men and women have volunteered to defend this Nation against
all enemies, foreign and domestic. We owe it to them to ensure
they enjoy capable leadership and are provided nothing but the
best training and equipment. To do this, the National Guard
must be organized, trained and equipped at the same levels as
our Active Duty counterparts.
But the reality is, as a result of our cold war design to
be used as a force in Reserve, many units are currently funded
at C3 level, thus impacting training and equipment. As a
workaround to provide the combatant commander with National
Guard units that are fully equipped to support the warfight,
it's become necessary to do what we call a cross-leveling.
Cross-leveling is gaining personnel and equipment from other
units within the State and across State lines. In essence, we
are breaking units to provide the appropriate equipment and
personnel to the deploying unit. This becomes a vicious circle,
in that units that gave in many instances do not have the
appropriate equipment with which to train. Thus, the losing
unit is no longer to even keep a level of C3.
Another one of my major concerns continues to be the length
and predictability of deployments and how that personnel
operational tempo impacts not only the quality of life but also
the very retention of our soldiers and airmen. Currently, the
U.S. Air Force employs an air expeditionary force which
provides predictability for their personnel and their families.
If we are to count on the continued support of employers and
families in a war that will be conducted over many years, we
need to have and provide predictability.
I am very supportive of the National Guard Bureau's
rotational concept that will give Governors 50 percent of the
forces available for the State mission and homeland defense,
approximately 25 percent that are engaged in extensive training
to be deployed and 25 percent of the force employed in an
operational capability. One more concern that I have is the
proper force mix of soldiers and airmen with our Active Duty
counterparts. By that I mean, the low density, high demand
missions must be addressed.
The current efforts underway between the National Guard
Bureau and the services are steps in the right direction to
correct this imbalance. While I understand the Secretary of
Defense's need for a rapid reactive force in the Active Duty
military, we must be able to spread all missions to the active
Guard and Reserve. We cannot be the sole owner of a mission in
either the active Guard or Reserve. To do so will continue our
history of the Guard and Reserve maintaining legacy missions
that will never be mobilized. If we field an operational
mission within our active component, we should pull the Guard
and Reserve with that fielding wherever practical.
I did have a little blurb on Title 32. I will defer to
General Lowenberg, he has a much better description of that, so
I will pass that. But I did want to bring out one more thing
that I think is very important. The unique infrastructure and
population of the State of Maryland and its portion of and
proximity to the National Capital region presents a very
complex set of coordination boundaries for emergency response.
We have drafted a memorandum of agreement between the
commanding general, D.C. National Guard, the Adjutant General
of Virginia and myself to ensure mutual aid, support and
cooperation between and among the parties in response to a
critical incident or event occurring within the National
Capital region. This clarifies military command and control of
National Guard forces pursuant to the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact.
The Joint Task Force, National Capital Region Plan, has
been approved by the commander of NORTHCOM and the DOD. The
Guard is not included in that current document. Subsequent
meetings with NORTHCOM, Military District of Washington and the
National Guard Bureau may alter that plan. But the planning
that the Adjutants General and the commanding general of D.C.
are doing right now will not be affected. We see that we are
looking at the Guard doing an all-hazards approach to emergency
management within the National Capital region.
Finally, in addition to my duties with the Maryland Guard,
I have Maryland emergency management under my purview. One of
the points I'd like to make, we had two major incidents, a snow
storm and Hurricane Isabel last year. Two points out of this.
The first is that the Guard functioned wonderfully in the State
mission. The second is, we continued with Operation Noble
Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
And we did that without missing a beat.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Tuxill follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.205
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Before recognizing Mr. Schrock, I
just want to thank General Blum and General Love for staying
and listening to your testimony.
Mr. Schrock.
Mr. Schrock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have never known anybody who's written a Bible, but this
document henceforth and forever more will be referred to as the
Lowenberg bible. And I will read it. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Ms. St. Laurent, for being here and thank you
for bringing folks from the district I'm privileged to
represent as well. Believe it or not, I read your entire
testimony in two nights, but I read it, and there are some
mighty good things in there, and I'm going to start the
questioning with you if I could.
What do you think are the greatest challenges that the
National Guard is going to be facing in the next few years, and
do you think the Army has an adequate plan to deal with the
eroding readiness that we seem to be experiencing?
Ms. St. Laurent. I would categorize the challenges as being
some of a short term nature and some of a longer term nature.
And we are concerned about the effect of these extensive
transfers of personnel and equipment from one unit to another,
to ready deploying units.
General Blum mentioned that the Guard soldiers that are
deploying to Iraq, after having spent time on mobilization
stations, have gotten additional equipment, they are well
trained when they leave there, but I think what we are
concerned about is the longer term and cumulative effect of
continuing rotations and having to support Iraq and Afghanistan
potentially for a number of years, and over time, how this will
translate into continuing eroding readiness.
Again, we haven't seen the details as to how the Guard
might be able to address that situation, haven't seen DOD
providing the funds to address it. But the more we can identify
units earlier and give them equipment and personnel that they
may need earlier, they will be in a better situation and better
trained once they get to mobilization stations.
Mr. Schrock. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing never in
our history have we had to use the Guard and Reserves to the
extent we're using now, is that right? I think that's why all
these things are getting spread out.
Ms. St. Laurent. And another major change is that the focus
of DOD planning has been on preparing for the combat phase of
operations, and we're now seeing a lot of demands caused by
having to do stability operations.
Mr. Schrock. Yes. Adjutants General of 25 of the States and
territories have been vested with dual military force provider
civilian emergency management responsibilities. I understand
that you, General Lowenberg, are also the homeland security
advisor for the State of Washington. It seems you're all in
unique positions to discuss how well the Federal Government, in
other words, the Departments of Defense and Department of
Homeland Security, are doing and helping with your State's
homeland defense and homeland security initiatives.
What help have you received from DOD and DHS in identifying
those requirements?
General Lowenberg. We are working with both of those
agencies to identify the requirements as a collaborative effort
between the State and Federal Government. It's an ongoing
process. It's not prescriptive. The Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Defense are not presuming to
come to any of the several States and territories and tell us
what those requirements are. We're building this from the
ground up.
The national homeland security strategy was intentionally
designed to be a collaborative effort and it's proving to be
so. The relationship the States enjoy with Secretary Ridge and
members of his Department I would say are very healthy. So
right now, we just formally promulgated our State homeland
security strategic plan, which has performance measurables, it
has a balanced score card matrix. We're developing the action
plans and business plans to affect enhancement of homeland
security preparedness in our State as funds and other resources
become available.
We're also working with the Department of Defense, with
General Eberhart and others at Northern Command, to identify
the communications requirements needed to give NORTHCOM and the
Department of Homeland Security a seamless communication sight
picture, so they have a common operating picture, and the
development of a joint communications coordination support
environment is one of the major recommendations of the Summer
Study of the Defense Science Board.
I'm very happy to say that report, having been delivered to
Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Department of Defense, is
undergoing implementation even as we speak, even though the
formal volume two report of the DSB is still awaiting security
review. So I'm very encouraged by the proactive stance of both
these Federal agencies.
Mr. Schrock. You said the relationship with Department of
Homeland Security is healthy. What about DOD?
General Lowenberg. I didn't mean to exclude DOD. Our
relationship with Northern Command is very healthy as well. As
Chair of Homeland Security for the Adjutants General
Association, I served on Northern Command's general officer
work group, as do some of my colleagues and we are full
partners at the table in developing the NORTHCOM homeland
security requirements.
Mr. Schrock. Let me ask the three generals, what role do
you believe DHS should play with the Guard's mission in
homeland protection?
General Lowenberg. I think the Department of Homeland
Security should recognize that there are some State security
programs, taking a holistic approach to it, that can best be
aided by use of the National Guard. So this is going to require
a very close policy coordination between Secretary McHale and
Secretary Ridge to identify those areas that should be funded
perhaps by the Department of Homeland Security, those programs
that perhaps should entitle the National Guard to draw
Department of Homeland Security Funds, as a State agency and in
State Active Duty, and those programs that should be funded by
the Department of Defense itself, utilizing the National Guard
in Title 32 status, for a paramount Federal purpose, to develop
programs in accordance with federally prescribed tasks,
standards and conditions.
So again, it's a major policy coordination and
collaboration effort.
Mr. Schrock. General Marty.
General Marty. In Texas, we have an emergency manager and
we also have the chairman of the homeland security. As the
Adjutant General, I support both of those operations. Just
recently, there's been a change of policy in Texas where I have
now a member of the Texas National Guard, one of the members
from our J3, our operations center, that is now the co-chairman
of the homeland security committee. What this has done now is
it's tied in homeland security closer to my operations and to
my ability to respond quicker and more efficiently to the needs
that we have in homeland security. So this is a move that we've
just done.
The support that we're getting now is, I think, much
better, and I think the plans are in place that I think the
support we can anticipate is coming. It's not completely there,
but I think in the future we'll see more activity there.
Mr. Schrock. General Tuxill.
General Tuxill. One of the things that's, homeland security
goes across the gambit, as you well know. In our recovery form
Hurricane Isabel, I can tell you that the Federal Emergency,
FEMA and that part of DHS just did a wonderful job of
mitigating and helping us. For the first time, they did many
things that we had not seen before, to include soil mitigation.
So they are doing everything they can to help. I agree with
General Lowenberg, there are still many things, many areas and
many procedures, policies, that we do need to take a look at to
see how they will affect and work with the National Guard,
because he is correct when he says there are many missions that
are what the Guard should be doing, and we should have the
opportunity to have some funding from DHS.
Mr. Schrock. Let me followup with that. Do you believe
there's adequate coordination between DOD and DHS in
preparation for the protection of homeland when it comes to the
role of the National Guard?
General Tuxill. I would hesitate to answer that for fear
that I would--I've got some ideas but I think that's all they
are, sir.
Mr. Schrock. All right. Now I'm intrigued. [Laughter.]
General Lowenberg.
General Lowenberg. I think there's excellent coordination.
As the two agencies mature, I think we have to be mindful that
both the Department of Homeland Security and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense are new creations
chartered by Congress. They're getting their legs under them.
And as those processes mature, the dialog becomes stronger, and
more directly results in positive effects in the States.
Mr. Schrock. General Marty.
General Marty. In our States, the cooperation among the
many agencies that we have to deal with when we have an agency
has matured. And this has matured over years and years and
years. What I see right now is you have two new agencies that
have just been brought into being. And they're working
extremely hard to reach this great amount of cooperation that's
going to be needed.
I see that growing every day with great anticipation. I
think the maturity will be there, and the cooperation will be
what we expect.
Mr. Schrock. Would it be helpful if DOD and DHS could agree
on a plan that would involve the Guard for homeland security
and defense?
General Lowenberg. I think it would help immensely if both
of the Federal agencies with primary responsibility for
homeland defense and security could develop a master concept of
employment of the National Guard, and I'm quite confident as
they do that the use of the National Guard in its broad
spectrum of flexible response in Title 32 status, particularly
if Congress unambiguously charters the National Guard to be
used in Title 32 status, will be key to the success of that
strategy.
Mr. Schrock. I know my time is up, but let me say, I have a
great appreciation for what the Guard does. The Guard unit, the
Red Horse unit in the district I represent, a little over 2
years, a plane crashed a large number were killed. I know the
impact it had, and I think that was my first realization of
really what the Guard did and how important they were. I'll
never forget that. I may have been Active Duty for a career,
but the Guard and Reserves, I have a son who's a Reserve and a
chief of staff who is a Reserve, so I get reminded of that all
the time.
But I appreciate what everybody does and the role you all
play. I'm glad you came here today, and I really appreciate Ms.
St. Laurent's report that the GAO did, it was great. I think it
really made us understand what some of the problems are, what
some of the issues are. And we here on this side of the room
need to get this addressed and need to get it addressed pretty
quickly. But thank you very much.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. And I would just say, as
a parent, it's amazing what we learn from our children.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Sure. I'm going to get a little
parochial here. I'm from the State of Maryland, I've worked
with General Tuxill and General Blum. I think I can be
parochial when we have two generals both on the panel, so I'm
glad you're both here today.
I know since my Maryland Second Congressional District has
the Port of Baltimore, BWI Airport, a lot of those different
areas that we're working with with respect to homeland
security, I know a lot of what you're doing. My concern,
though, is in the capital region. Maryland and Virginia have
basically responsibility from a National Guard point of view
for Washington, DC. Washington, DC, does not have any National
Guard.
General Tuxill. No, sir, they do.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Oh, they do? OK. Well, then, let me ask
you this question. Tell me what you feel needs to be done, how
is the cooperation with NORTHCOM or whatever, but as it relates
to National Guard, both in Maryland, Virginia, that makes your
job more difficult than what you might recommend we do to make
it easier for national security?
General Tuxill. This is evolving, and it's a very positive
evolution. We have gotten the three, the commanding general for
the District of Washington and the two Adjutants General of
Maryland and Virginia have sat down and forged out a letter of,
or a memorandum of agreement on how we will actually work the
EMAC and how we will come into each other's areas to make sure
we take care of the National Capital region. That right now is,
it's being sought, we're seeking level review through the Army,
since the Army is the executive agent for the D.C. National
Guard.
That's where it's sitting right now. We hope once that's
done, we will start going down this further. The next thing
that I think we should do is the joint task force, we need to
be part of the Military District of Washington. We've had one
meeting with the Military District of Washington and that went
very, very well. We will continue to have meetings so that we
start talking about how the Guard can be employed, how the
Guard can be used and how we will be probably helping the first
responders, because when September 11 hit, the on-scene
commander was from Virginia, he was a first responder in a fire
company. There was no Federal involvement in that until well
after.
And the first people to guard the Pentagon was the 115th
Military Police Battalion out of Parkville and Salisbury. They
were there the very next day at 11 a.m., with 136 soldiers. So
we see right now that the Adjutants General and the commanding
general of the National Capital region will be pivotal to
putting together and helping assemble a plan that will make
sure that the Guard is tasked appropriately.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Let me change the subject matter. When
we talk about priorities and we talk about transformation, when
we talk about all the issues we've talked about today, in the
end it comes down to money, the resources that have to go in
order to implement the programs you're talking about.
Now, there's a debate on how much the States should pay or
the Federals should pay. When it comes to homeland security and
that role, I think it's important that the Federal Government
stand behind the National Guard, especially with the States now
having extremely difficult problems with respect to their
budgets.
The issue, and General Tuxill, you and I discussed this
when we were talking about the issue between Title 32 and Title
10, I think right now the issue that we should change, and I'm
going to ask you, General Lowenberg, to address this, since
General Tuxill said you were the expert, I'm not sure whether
you are or not----
General Lowenberg. He's setting me up, sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Ruppersberger. OK. It's the stars you have on.
Right now, the other than a couple of issues such as drug
activities or basically all that the Title 32 money can be used
for, it's my understanding, is for training. If there are other
areas, let me know. But what would you recommend that we do? I
know the Governors would love to be able to federally, to have
the orders that you're under the Federal mandate or whatever
that order is, to be able to do some of the things that are
being done in the State, which really could be considered
homeland security.
Let's talk about what you would recommend, what type of
legislation or what type of mandate you would like to see, and
second, how much would this be? Because whatever we talk about,
what we're going to do, we have to talk about money.
General Lowenberg. Let me be very clear at the outset in
stating that when the States or territories use the National
Guard for a State purpose, they pay for 100 percent of all the
expenses of the utilization of those National Guard forces.
There is no Federal-State match. So the Governors, as they ask
for unambiguous authority to use the Guard in Title 32 status,
are not asking for the Federal Government to pay for something
for which the paramount interest lies in the State.
There are a broad range of issues in the realm of homeland
security, however, in which there are both State and Federal
interests, and in which when there is a paramount Federal
interest, it's in the national interest to use the National
Guard, such as for airport security or border security or
protecting DOD critical infrastructure or critical
infrastructure for other Federal agencies.
It is that realm in which the Governors and the Defense
Science Board and the Adjutants General have urged Congress to
unambiguously authorize use of the National Guard in Title 32
status for these homeland security and defense related areas in
which there is a paramount Federal interest, and there's a
Federal interest in assuring that the mission is executed among
the several States or the affected States in a consistent
manner. So whether that's done by Federalizing the National
Guard, including a lot of additional expenses in doing so, or
whether it's done in Title 32 status in which the service
itself is paid for by the Federal Government but we take full
advantage of all existing command and control structure, so
there are no added costs, that's really the question for
Congress.
Mr. Ruppersberger. One other issue, then I'm finished. The
issue of retention and recruitment. I asked that question of
the general, and I'd like to hear from the panel where we are,
what we need to do. The general mentioned the issue of medical
insurance, those types of issues.
General Tuxill. Recruiting and retention for the National
Guard continues to be one of our challenges. One of the things
that I have noticed and I will let my fellow Adjutants General
talk to this as well, but those units that we have used, that
we have deployed, that we have done our Noble Eagle, Iraqi
Freedom, Enduring Freedom, when they come back, they're very,
very proud of their service. They're very proud they had the
opportunity to be a part of the larger picture and a part of
our global war on terror.
And for the better part, these people that we are deploying
and bringing home want to stay. They don't want to get out. And
this is anecdotal information that I'm coming up with, but I'm
watching these units. We just got a 115th Military Police
battalion back from Iraq. They had been called up for No. 1,
the Pentagon. They were then pulled off that and they were sent
to Fort Stuart for duty down there under Noble Eagle. They came
out and they were told the next thing they were going to do was
Guantanamo, Operation Enduring Freedom. Then they finally had
the opportunity to go to Baghdad.
So they've done all three. Surprisingly enough, that unit
is enjoying retention that I didn't think I would see. Now, we
are correct, when you sign up a soldier or airman, you're
signing up the spouse. And we need to be very, very aware of
that.
But these young men and women are very happy with their
service to this Nation, and we should be very proud of them.
But two, I think the health care is an issue, Tricare for our
members would be great. Those things that give them incentives
for education and other incentives for our soldiers and airmen.
General Lowenberg. Recruiting and retention in the State of
Washington, as I've heard in most States, is at historic highs.
It has been for the past 4 years, predating the attacks of
2001. What we don't know is the effects of these prolonged
periods of mobilization and assignment overseas, and what an
impact that will have. To this date, for shorter duration
deployment, the retention has been the very highest among the
units most frequently deployed. But again, we're entering an
arena in which we have no national experience.
On the point of medical and dental coverage, which many
Guard men and women are unable to provide for themselves in
their private capacity, it's only collaterally a benefits
issue. It is first and foremost a military readiness issue.
A disturbingly high percentage of the Army National Guard
soldiers now deployed and currently serving in Iraq were
delayed, there were obstacles to their assimilation into the
training because they needed medical and primarily dental
attention. Some of them are still awaiting deployment because
of correctable medical and dental conditions that would have
been obviated if they had access to the Federal Tricare
program.
So medical and dental coverage is a military readiness
issue first and foremost.
General Marty. In Texas, we've had 4 years of record
setting recruiting. This year, we're approximately 19 percent
ahead of where we were last year in the area of recruiting. So
I don't see a problem. We've met all the National Guard
Bureau's goals for strength at the Army National Guard. The Air
National Guard seems to be steady and holding tight.
The retention this year, we're about 2 percent lower in our
losses than we have been in the last 10 years. So that's an
indication that our retention is holding well.
Now, I will tell you, we have had a test program in the
State of Texas where I have put dedicated retention mangers in
every Army battalion. I think this may be a reason why our
retention is going up and our losses are going down, at least I
hope that's the indication. But at this particular time, I
don't think there's any panic button to push as far as the
retaining. Our men and women are very dedicated and they are
very loyal and very pleased to be serving a worthwhile mission
at this particular time.
And the amount of volunteers we have that would volunteer
for a second tour is amazing. So I think if we do some right
things, if we take care of some of these things, if we take
care of the families of these deployed individuals, and work
with the employers, I think this is going to help in the
retention arena.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you all very much.
Ms. St. Laurent. GAO's perspective would be that this is an
issue that definitely needs to be carefully watched over the
next few years, that it's probably a little too soon, and some
of the initiatives that General Blum has underway that could
bring more predictability to the force and establish rotation
cycles would probably be very helpful. I think there is a
question of how soon we can get the Guard to the level where
they are on a more predictable schedule that's spaced out over
one every 6 years.
Then also I think the issue has to be watched from a skills
perspective. As our testimony states, 92 percent of MPs have
been deployed and 18 percent more than once. So there are
certain skills that need to be rebalanced.
Mr. Ruppersberger. The Chair wants to move on. One
suggestion I want to throw out is retirees. We've gotten calls
in our office about retirees that would like to be involved
somehow, and a plan that could use retirees for certain desk
work, whatever, I'm just throwing that out as a suggestion.
Mr. Shays. If the gentleman wants to pursue that, I'd be
happy to allow.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, again, I'm putting it out to
evaluate it. General Blum, you're still here, the retirees, and
we've seen that in other parts of Government, people who are
well trained, well qualified, and yet they're retired and they
might be able to do something or have the expertise to take the
burden off of some of our duties.
Mr. Shays. If General Tuxill would like to respond.
General Tuxill. If I could, thank you, Mr. Chair. What we
have in the State of Maryland, and I can only speak for the
State of Maryland, we call it the Maryland Defense Force. It is
a force of professionals. Those professionals are doctors,
lawyers, health care providers, crisis response personnel,
chaplains, etc. And what we try to do here is, we try to use
both the lawyers and the medical end of the house to do what we
can for our deploying soldiers to make sure that they've got a
good will, to make sure they are getting some good health care.
But also what we're doing is using that in emergency
management as a response force. So yes, sir, and we are also
looking in the cyber world for that same retired group to take
a look at cyberterrorism and what we could do with that defense
force.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Just make sure that it's beyond the age
of 72, because a lot of the calls we're getting are over the
age of 70. [Laughter.]
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman.
This is a very important hearing, and it is, I think,
somewhat scratching the surface. There are so many questions we
could ask.
But I find myself writing the question, does the National
Guard have an impossible task? Then I'm thinking, because they
have to do two things, they've got to fight a war, be prepared
to fight a war and fight a war, and then they've got to protect
their homeland. I realize there is some synergy between the
two, but there are clearly some differences.
So then I think, and I know that our National Guard are
components to a full force structure. So then I think, well,
maybe they have the role of MPs so they don't have to take the
hill, where our active forces may in fact have to take the hill
and it's a different kind of training that you want constantly
to have.
I'm hearing our GAO say some things that you all didn't
really, in my judgment, respond to. You made very important
points, but they didn't respond to them. I want to say that I
want to get a response to the idea that we say our retention is
up, excuse me, our retention is stable, we are getting new
enlistees. And yet, we don't have the full force structure
within the National Guard. So that unit has to take from
another unit.
And that bothers me, because we haven't been working with
each other. And I know for a fact that the equipment they have
is hand-me-down. It may not be bad, but it's hand-me-down. They
don't get the new airplanes, they don't get the new vehicles,
they get the hand-me-downs, in my judgment.
So would you first, Ms. St. Laurent, tell me the first,
second and third point you want to make, and I want each of our
Generals to respond.
Ms. St. Laurent. In terms of?
Mr. Shays. Your major points. I want you to summarize your
major points.
Ms. St. Laurent. I would say, near term readiness is an
issue that needs to be looked at very carefully. We would like
to see a plan to address that.
On the homeland security issue, I think those requirements
need to be defined better. And once they're defined, there's
still a lot of analysis that needs to be done of how that's
going to be operationalized, what kinds of training, what kinds
of equipment are going to be needed. I don't think we're there
yet on that.
Mr. Shays. This is homeland security.
Ms. St. Laurent. Right.
Mr. Shays. Let me just throw that out for all our three
Generals here. We were briefed that the DOD has not fully
defined requirements, readiness standards and readiness
measures for homeland defense and security missions that will
lead or support. So Guard preparedness for homeland defense and
security missions is unmeasured and unknown. That's what we've
been told.
Now, you also made another point that they are not fully
staffed, correct?
Ms. St. Laurent. Right.
Mr. Shays. And that they then have to what?
Ms. St. Laurent. They have to transfer personnel and
equipment. But one other issue is the full time manning of Army
Guard units. Although most Guardsmen are part timers, each unit
does have some full time personnel. And the Army Guard only has
about 15 percent, whereas the Air Guard has about 33 percent.
The Army Guard has a plan to increase that, but even by 2012,
they are only going to be at about 71 percent of their
requirement.
Those people are critical to keeping units running,
planning the training, tracking training, tracking medical
status readiness.
Mr. Shays. Let's first take just the readiness issue. An
honest assessment.
General Marty. For the last 10 years, I've chaired the
readiness committee in the State of Texas. When I first got
there in 1993, out of 58 reporting entities, 54 of them met the
readiness standards. As we decreased the full time manning, the
readiness of those units decreased. Also the fact that the
structures that we have in the National Guard today do not meet
the needs that we have in today's Army.
The majority of the forces in Texas are from an armored
division. Of all the men and women we have deployed out of
Texas, not one tank has been deployed, not one Bradley has been
deployed. We've taken people out of the tanks and made them
infantrymen or given them the M1s and have them guarding places
throughout the United States. They have not been used in their
capacities as armored crewmen.
So that does affect the readiness of the organization. The
fact that we have been manned at C3 level and below is, there's
no way in the world we can bring that unit up to 100 percent of
its authorized strength without going to other units. The
minute we do that, we automatically break the other units.
So the answer to that is, once we go through this
transformation and we get the right type of formations that we
can man at 90 to 100 percent, I think that's going to take care
of some of this readiness issue. Resourcing is going to be the
problem. In the State of Texas, the full time manning, we're
about 40 percent of what we're authorized in our full time
manning. That has a direct impact upon the readiness.
Mr. Shays. Is that a cost issue or a volunteer issue?
General Marty. This is the full time----
Mr. Shays. Is it a matter of cost or is it a matter that
you don't have the people?
General Marty. It's a matter of funding.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. General Lowenberg.
General Lowenberg. Readiness for both homeland defense and
homeland security, for both overseas missions and domestic
missions is a function of articulating the requirements and
funding to meet those requirements. Full time manning, as has
been previously noted, is the No. 1 weakness of the Army
National Guard. It's the No. 1 failure of the Department of
Defense and the Department of Army.
And as you've noted, Mr. Chairman, equipping the National
Guard with front line equipment as part of a force funding plan
for, in particular, the Army is something that is handicapping
our level of readiness for both combat and domestic security
issues. As has been noted, and you are correct, the
requirements for employment of the National Guard for homeland
security purposes has not yet been articulated by Northern
Command or by the Department of Defense. When that happens,
we're going to need to be resourced, particularly in the Army
National Guard, to meet those homeland security needs.
General Tuxill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are cold war construct still. And if you take a look, we
have been funded at a level, I mimic what my fellow Adjutants
General said. We're funded at C3. You can't expect--and that's
minimum mission ready, that's minimum. So we end up cross-
leveling, we bring equipment in, we bring other troops in. One
of the reasons is that if you have, let's say, an infantry
battalion, you have X number that you're sending to basic
infantry school, you'll have X number that are going to basic
training, you'll have X number in school and you'll have so
many that you will not be able to account for, for one reason
or the other, maybe sickness.
That means while you're funded at 82 percent or so, you've
got X number of people that you cannot reach out and take, so
you have to reach over and take them from another unit. You've
already got a built-in structural deficiency for how many
people you actually have in that battalion. You're authorized
this many, but you only really realize a much lower number.
General Blum right now is addressing that situation so that
we can start having a school account, if you would, a holding
account that does not count against the readiness. The Army has
it, the Air Force has it. But the Guard, on the other side of
the house, does not have it.
As far as clearly defined homeland security requirements,
we do not have those yet. We are right now making them up as we
go for our various States. As far as critical infrastructure,
what we should be doing there, one of the things that was very
interesting to me were the amount of critical infrastructure
plans that are out there, and denoting what critical
infrastructure is around. In the National Capital region,
everyone's got a dog in the fight. I think we need to ferret
through that and come up with a requirement as to what we
really should do.
Mr. Shays. The challenge we have is that we have to do it
while we're in the midst of a very real war. That makes this an
extraordinarily difficult undertaking.
Let me ask you, Ms. St. Laurent, to respond to what you
heard. It sounds to me like you all are pretty much in
agreement. Is that your sense?
Ms. St. Laurent. I think that's very true. I think there is
a consistent theme. In doing our work, we saw a very consistent
pattern going to all the States that we visited, Georgia,
Texas, Oregon and New Jersey. They all had a wide variety of
State missions and critical infrastructure protection missions
that they were dealing with at the same time they were getting
ready to deploy units overseas. So I agree with the comments
that have been made.
Mr. Shays. Well, I would say to General Blum and General
Love, we know as well that this is a challenge for Congress, to
step up and make sure that we are beginning to address this. I
think our committee will develop a very honest report about
what Congress needs to do, what the administration needs to do,
what Defense needs to do, and hopefully how we get there.
I'm going to ask professional staff to ask a question or
two, and then we're going to call it quits.
Ms. Washbourne. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
I have a two part question just for the Adjutants General,
talking about readiness. Since there is no Federal or national
readiness standard for homeland defense and security missions
performed by the Guard, how do you judge or certify the
readiness of the Guardsmen for your Governor in these roles?
And how might the Federal Government begin to judge that
readiness for homeland defense missions?
General Lowenberg. In the State of Washington, we certify,
to use that term, I attest to the Governor as to our readiness
for the homeland security mission by looking at the homeland
security strategic plan that has been developed solely in
coordination with the Department of Homeland Security. That's
not to say the same level of readiness or the same requirements
would necessarily be articulated by Northern Command, as best I
try to divine what those requirements are. They may have a
different perspective based upon classified information that
they have available to them that has not been shared with me,
notwithstanding my security clearance.
General Marty. I think it's important that we look at the
fact that we train for war time mission, at this particular
time our training focus is on the war on terrorism. This brings
our soldiers and airmen up to a readiness level. There are
skills that we train to that are transferrable that we need to
go into the homeland security mode, we've done this for years
and years. Even though the requirements are not defined by
homeland security by Northern Command, we still have to
maintain our war time skills within our organizations and our
formations. And again, like I said, they do transfer to the
skills that we do need when we perform either State Active Duty
or homeland security missions.
General Tuxill. I agree. Really the byproduct or the
benefit to homeland security is the training that we do for
that Federal mission. And we have many disciplines and many
skill sets, and they are readily, as General Marty said,
transferrable to the public sector. When you look to certify a
full-up military police unit, you know that they're ready to do
the job, because many of those in there are local police that
are in that, that are already going to work in that area.
They're just putting on a different uniform.
Ms. Washbourne. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I'd like to know, is there anything
that you basically prepared for that we didn't ask that you
think we should have asked, or you thought we shouldn't ask but
you know you need to answer? [Laughter.]
Either one. In other words, is there a question I should
have asked that we didn't that you need to answer? Is there
anything you want to put on the record before we adjourn this
hearing? I think we're all set then.
General Lowenberg. Mr. Chairman, I think I speak for the
Adjutants General in thanking you for your generosity and
extending the time and for the particular interest you and
other members of the committee have shown on these subjects. I
recognize that there are a lot of questions that could be
asked, and a lot of answers that were perhaps left unspoken.
But I'm confident and very grateful for the interest of this
committee.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. We will be getting to all those
questions, and that will be some of the informal dialog that
occurs between all of you and our staff. It's very helpful in
ultimately helping us make our recommendations. So I thank you
all for your service to our country. Again, I want to thank
General Blum and General Love for their participation by
listening to what all of you had to say.
I'm going to adjourn this hearing and hopefully get a 2:30
flight. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Katherine Harris and Hon.
Carolyn B. Maloney follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5597.209