COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 

2521 S. CLARK STREET, SUITE 650 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202 

ARNOLD L. PUNARO 

CHAIRMAN 

WILLIAM L. BALL, III 

LES BROWNLEE 

RHETT B. DAWSON 

LARRY K. ECKLES 

PATRICIA L. LEWIS 

DAN MCKINNON 

WADE ROWLEY 

JAMES E. SHERRARD III 

DONALD L. STOCKTON 

E. GORDON STUMP 

J. STANTON THOMPSON 

March 1, 2007 

Senator Carl Levin 

Chairman 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Congressman Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Levin and Chairman Skelton: 

As you know, the 13-member, independent Commission on the National 

Guard and Reserves was established by Congress in the Ronald Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act of 2005. Congress chartered the 

Commission to assess the reserve component of the U.S. military and to 

recommend changes to ensure that the National Guard and other reserve 

components are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and supported 

to best meet the needs of U.S. national security. The Commission’s final 

report must be submitted to Congress and the Secretary of Defense no later 

than January 31, 2008. 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 

enacted on October 17, 2006, instructed the Commission to examine 17 

proposals aimed primarily at enhancing the status and institutional powers 

of the National Guard Bureau and its leadership, and improving the 

resources and capabilities of the National Guard, particularly in regard to 

homeland missions. Public Law 109-364 further required that the 

Commission report our findings and recommendations on these matters no 

later than March 1, 2007. It is that report (attached) which we respectfully 

submit to you and the members of the Armed Services Committees of the 

U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. 

PHONE 703.699.2800 FAX 703.699.2846 EMAIL CNGR@WSO.WHS.MIL ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE RONALD W. REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005, PUB. L. NO. 108-375,118 STAT 1880 (2004) 
 

 

The proposals that Congress directed the Commission to study and report on were central 

components of the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act, 

introduced in the House and Senate during the 109th Congress and recently reintroduced 

in the 110th Congress. The Commission’s views with regard to the 17 provisions can be 

found in Appendix 1 of our report. 

The Commission has analyzed the proposals carefully. In the past four months we have held 

public hearings, taken extensive testimony, consulted top experts on all aspects of the 

subject matter, and reflected on these measures in depth and within the context of the 

Commission’s overall charter. We also relied on the work the Commission has had under 

way since our inception in March 2006. Moreover, we have considered the proposals in light 

of a comprehensive vision for the National Guard and other reserve components and for how 

they can best meet U.S. national security requirements in an era of high operational tempo, 

increased focus on homeland security, and overall military transformation. 

As our report makes clear, we agree with the proponents of the legislation that significant 

reforms are necessary to update and improve the status, structure, and activities of the 

National Guard Bureau and its leadership. The Commission believes that many of the 

proposals in the legislation have considerable merit and should be considered for adoption 

in whole or in part. In those cases where we do not recommend a specific provision, we offer 

alternatives or modifications that we believe better address the underlying problems. 

In formulating our recommendations, we have been guided by principles aimed at improving 

U.S. national security capabilities in general, not simply those of the National Guard. 

Throughout, we view the National Guard as part of a total force of military and civilian 

agencies, federal, state, and local, working in concert to achieve national objectives, not as a 

military or political entity that can be viewed in isolation. Our objective was to recommend 

improvements to the institutions of government, not just to one individual, office, or 

organization. 

The conclusions and recommendations in this report address primarily those issues arising 

from the National Guard Empowerment Act. Our final report, due no later than January 31, 

2008, will be more comprehensive with respect to the National Guard and the other reserve 

components as we address the extensive requirements of our charter. The Commission looks 

forward to continuing our mission and fulfilling our vital charge of ensuring that the National 

Guard and Reserves can best meet the needs of U.S. national security now and in the years 

ahead. 
We wish to close by thanking the service members of our nation’s reserve forces, who 

represent the best of America. Their service and sacrifice, and those of their families and 

employers, will continue to inform and inspire our work. 

Sincerely, 

cc: Senator John McCain, Congressman Duncan Hunter 

CONTENTS
 

Transmittal Letter
 
 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ iii
 
 

I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
 
 


II. The Context for Our Report................................................................................................. 7
 
 


A. The Security Environment and Its Implications for the Reserve Component........... 7
 
 


B. The Current State of the National Guard ................................................................. 10
 
 


III. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations .............................................................. 39
 
 


A. The Defense Department’s Role in the Homeland ................................................... 39
 
 


B. The Role of States and Their Governors................................................................... 55
 
 


C. The National Guard Bureau...................................................................................... 66
 
 


D. U.S. Northern Command.......................................................................................... 78
 
 


E. Reserve Policy Advice................................................................................................ 83
 
 


F. Reserve Component Officer Promotion .................................................................... 89
 
 

Appendices.............................................................................................................................. 97
 
 

Appendix 1. The Proposals of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act 
 

and National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 
 

Empowerment Act..................................................................................... 97
 
 

Appendix 2. Commission on the National Guard and Reserves: 
 

Authorizing Statutes ................................................................................ 105
 
 

Appendix 3. H.R. 5200, The National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 
 

Empowerment Act of 2006...................................................................... 111
 
 

Appendix 4. S. 2658, The National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 
 

Empowerment Act of 2006...................................................................... 117
 
 

Appendix 5. The National Guard Bureau Charter ...................................................... 123
 
 

Appendix 6. Commissioners of the Commission on the National Guard 
 

and Reserves ............................................................................................ 125
 
 

Appendix 7. Public Hearing Panels to Date ................................................................ 129
 
 

Appendix 8. Individuals Consulted by the Commission on the National Guard 
 

and Reserves ............................................................................................ 139
 
 

Appendix 9. Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................. 149
 
 

Appendix 10. CD of March 1, 2007, Report
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES i 
 

TABLES AND FIGURES 
 

Figure 1. End-Strength Trend (Actual Strengths, FY 1986 – FY 2006) ............................. 11
 
 

Figure 2. Reserve Component Force Structure.................................................................. 12
 
 

Figure 3. Total Force — 2.4 Million.................................................................................... 13
 
 

Figure 4. National Guard Force Structure Contribution ................................................... 14
 
 

Figure 5. ARNG Contributions Worldwide (as of FY 2007) ............................................... 15
 
 

Figure 6. ANG Contributions Worldwide (as of FY 2007).................................................. 16
 
 

Figure 7. National Guard Share of Budget......................................................................... 17
 
 

Figure 8. DOD Reserve Contributions in Both Peacetime and Contingency Operations.. 18
 
 

Figure 9a. Average Percent Cross-Leveled to Build Deployable Army Guard Unit ............ 21
 
 


Figure 9b. Average Number of Army National Guard Units Contributing .............................
 
 


Equipment to Fill One Deploying Unit ............................................................... 22
 
 


Table 1. Prior Service Recruits as Percentage of Total .................................................... 23
 
 


Figure 10. Selected Reserve End-Strength Achievement Rates (FY 1987 – FY 2006)......... 24
 
 


Figure 11. Favorability of Reserve Components .................................................................. 25
 
 


Figure 12. The War on Terrorism and Attitudes Toward Military Service.......................... 26
 
 


Figure 13. Military Propensity of 16- to 24-Year-Olds.......................................................... 27
 
 


Figure 14. Key Individual Indicators (Gains and Losses) ................................................... 28
 
 


Figure 15. Spouse/Significant Other Favorability Toward Participation, by Reserve 
 
 

Component........................................................................................................... 28
 
 

Table 2. Army Spending on Reenlistment and Enlistment Bonuses 
 

(Millions of Current Dollars) .............................................................................. 29
 
 


Figure 16. National Defense Spending Relative to Federal Outlays and GDP.................... 31
 
 


Figure 17. U.S. Spending on National Defense (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted)............. 32
 
 


Figure 18. Army National Guard Procurement Budget (Projections vs. Actual Funding).. 35
 
 


Table 3. Comparison of National Guard State and Federal Roles ................................... 45
 
 


ii COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves was established by the Ronald 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005. Congress chartered the 13-member 

body to conduct a comprehensive, independent assessment of the reserve components of 

the United States. The purpose of the assessment is expressed in the following mission 

statement: 

To identify and recommend changes in policy, law, regulation, and practice to ensure that 

the National Guard and Reserves are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and 

supported to best meet the national security requirements of the United States. 

The United States Congress has directed the panel to deliver three separate reports to the 

House and Senate Armed Services Committees: 

•	 An initial organizational report due within 90 days of the Commission’s
 

first official meeting. 
 

•	 A second report providing our recommendations and supporting
 

analyses on a set of specific legislative proposals bearing predominantly on matters related to the National Guard, no later than
 

March 1, 2007. 
 

•	 A concluding report providing our final assessments, findings, and 

recommendations, no later than January 31, 2008. 

The first of these reports, detailing the status of the Commission’s organization and the 

progress of our work, was submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House 

Armed Services Committee, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on June 5, 2006. 

The report is available on the Commission’s Web site, www.cngr.gov. 

The report we submit herewith is the second of our three products, and responds to the 

instructions set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(P.L. 109-364). The law directed the Commission to report to Congress, no later than 

March 1, 2007, on the advisability and feasibility of 17 proposals bearing mainly on the 

status and activities of the National Guard Bureau, its Chief, and related matters. 

March 1, 2007, Report: Approach and Structure 

The issues that Congress instructed the Commission to address in this report are, for the 

most part, provisions of freestanding legislation titled the National Defense Enhancement 

and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 (S. 2658/H.R. 5200), introduced in both the 

U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. The legislation was 

reintroduced in the 110th Congress as the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 

(S. 430/H.R. 718). The legislation, in general, seeks to enhance the stature, authority, and 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES iii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 

resources of the National Guard and the National Guard Bureau, the Department of 

Defense organization charged with managing joint aspects of the Air and Army Guard and 

other responsibilities, and particularly to improve the National Guard’s capabilities to 

provide military assistance to civilian authorities in times of man-made or natural disaster 

here at home. 

The recommendations in this report are not the full sum of our conclusions and 

recommendations on topics related to the National Guard. Rather, they are the ones we 

believe are directly related to the mandate we received from Congress in the 2007 NDAA. 

In the final section of this Executive Summary, we identify some of the related topics still 

under review by the Commission as we address the extensive requirements of our charter. 

The National Guard Empowerment Act and Its Implications 

The sponsors of the legislation have stated that at a time when we are asking more of the 

National Guard both at home and abroad, its effectiveness is hampered by Cold War 

structures and a lack of institutional power within the Pentagon commensurate with its 

increasingly important role. In summary, the proponents conclude that 

•	 The Department of Defense and the parent services of the National 
 

Guard have not adapted to the significant role of the National Guard 
 

in the post-9/11 security environment. 
 

•	 Decision-making processes within the Department of Defense do not 
 

adequately consider the interests of the National Guard and do not 
 

always include National Guard participation and input at the 
 

appropriate level. 
 

•	 DOD’s failure to appropriately consider National Guard needs and
 

funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not fully 
 

ready to meet current and emerging missions. 
 

We believe that addressing the fundamental problems facing the National Guard requires a 

broader approach than the legislation envisions. It requires a strategic framework that 

focuses not only on the National Guard Bureau but also on the parent services of the 

National Guard, the organizational structure of DOD as a whole, the role of United States 

Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the role of the states and their governors, and the role 

of other government agencies involved in homeland security missions. In that regard, the 

Commission believes it necessary to consider how best to empower not exclusively the 

National Guard Bureau but rather overall national security capabilities—including those of 

the National Guard, as part of a much broader, integrated team. 

As described in its organic statute, the National Guard Bureau is neither a reserve 

component nor an operational command. Its chief missions are to participate in the 

formulation, development, coordination, and administration of programs, policies, and 

plans pertaining to the Army and Air National Guard based on guidance from the Army and 

Air Force; and to participate with and assist the states in the organization, maintenance, 

and operation of their National Guard units so as to provide trained and equipped units 

iv COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 

available for service in time of war or emergency to augment the active Army and Air 

Force. 

The bulk of the National Guard Bureau’s statutory responsibilities are reflected in its 

charter, including the responsibility to allocate unit structure, strength authorizations, and 

resources to the Army and Air National Guard; to prescribe training discipline and 

requirements; to monitor and assist the states in the organization, maintenance, and 

operation of National Guard units; to plan and administer the National Guard budget; and 

to supervise the acquisition, supply, and accounting of federal property issued to the 

National Guard. 

The statute and charter do not tell the full story of the Bureau’s functions, as they do not yet 

include all the duties currently required to be performed by the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau based on today’s challenging security environment. The CNGB today oversees a 

joint force of more than 450,000 Army and Air Guard members (larger than the strength of 

all the other reserves combined), more than 200 general officers, and more than 3,000 

facilities nationwide. He administers 54 Joint Force Headquarters; provides liaison with 

every governor—each a state or territorial commander in chief; coordinates National 

Guard domestic emergency response, homeland defense, and support to homeland security 

operations nationwide; supports combatant commanders, including the five regional 

combatant commanders, through 54 state partnership programs; and manages the 

readiness and resourcing of the Army and Air National Guard for the federal Title 10 

warfighting mission. 

The nation’s response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 emphasized the role of the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau as the nationwide coordinator of the Guard. The National Guard 

Bureau became a crucial link between state and federal emergency response capabilities. 

The Bureau coordinated the deployment of 11,000 members of the Army and Air National 

Guard to assist law enforcement and other federal agencies in securing more than 440 of 

America’s commercial airports. Similarly, it identified National Guard volunteers to defend 

critical infrastructure and it oversaw the establishment of a weapons of mass destruction 

civil support team in each state and territory in the United States. All the while, it was 

continuing to source the Army and Air Force’s expanding requirements to sustain the 

deployment of National Guard units for the global war on terrorism. 

Executive and legislative branch investigations into the response to Hurricane Katrina 

indicate that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau acted appropriately and efficiently, 

but beyond the authorities set forth in the National Guard Bureau’s charter, in ways that 

must be more formally established. The National Guard Empowerment Act, in part, is one 

approach to formalize those responsibilities. 

The Commission believes that the goal of reform should be to ensure better national 

security outcomes by modernizing the authorities given to the National Guard and 

providing it with influence, stature, and participation commensurate with its current 

expanded and critical role. Reform efforts should ensure that the Guard is integrated with 

other military entities—not set it apart. To be successful, reforms should systemically 

enhance the National Guard within a set of organizations and processes redesigned to 

• Reflect the higher priority placed on domestic missions. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES v 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

•	 Improve the advice the Secretary of Defense receives about reserve 
 

matters. 
 

•	 Increase cooperation among DOD—including the National Guard 

Bureau and U.S. Northern Command— the Department of Homeland 

Security, and governors on homeland matters. 

•	 Harmonize the NGB with the goals and principles of the Goldwater-
 

Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. 
 

•	 Strengthen the National Guard’s ability to perform both its overseas 
 

(Title 10) and homeland missions. 
 

•	 Increase the influence of states and their governors, thereby 
 

enhancing national security at home. 
 

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the scope of reforms necessary to achieve 

better national security outcomes related to the National Guard is broader than those in the 

proposed legislation. 

Structure of the Report 

In this report, the Commission first assesses the current and emerging security environment, the military capabilities necessary to keep America secure in this environment, and 

the current state of the National Guard, which is the major focus of the legislation. We do 

so to provide the proper context for possible reforms. 

Second, with this context firmly in mind, we identify those changes to law and policy that 

we believe are necessary, in the areas raised by the legislation, to meet U.S. national 

security objectives now and in the years ahead. We identify the key problems that impede 

DOD’s ability to create the kind of National Guard force necessary to carry out the nation’s 

security, defense, and military strategies, and we make recommendations we believe must 

be adopted to solve those problems. 

In evaluating and recommending proposed reforms, including the proposals referred to us 

by the National Defense Authorization Act, we asked the following questions: do the 

reforms 

•	 Improve the ability of the National Guard to meet both its overseas 
 

(Title 10) and homeland responsibilities as required by U.S. military, 
 

defense, and homeland security strategies? 
 

•	 Enhance the ability of the National Guard to be a reserve force
 

overseas, backing up the active force, and an operational force in the 
 

homeland, backed up by the active force? 
 

•	 Build jointness among the military services as envisioned by the 
 

Goldwater-Nichols Act? 
 

vi COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

•	 Further integrate the active and reserve components to promote 

military effectiveness while respecting the necessary and fundamental 

differences between these two elements of the total force? 

•	 Promote cooperation and proper interrelationships among the chief 

institutions responsible for homeland defense and homeland security? 

•	 Clarify lines of authority and align responsibility and accountability? 

•	 Build organizational structures with clear roles and missions? 

•	 Establish resource allocation and policymaking processes and 

procedures that are equitable, are inclusive, and take into account the 

full range of inputs, including those of governors? 

•	 Ensure that military command structures and manning decisions are 

based on national security requirements, merit, and capability rather 

than on a desire to preserve historic service or component turf? 

Applying these criteria, we make findings, conclusions, and recommendations on six topic 

areas that address the problems and proposals raised by the National Guard Empowerment 

Act: 

A. 	The Defense Department’s Role in the Homeland 

B. 	The Role of States and Their Governors 

C. 	The National Guard Bureau 

D. 	U.S. Northern Command 

E. 	Reserve Policy Advice 

F. 	Reserve Component Officer Promotion 

Our conclusions dealing only with the specific proposals of the 2007 National Defense 

Authorization Act and National Defense Enhancement and Guard Empowerment Act can be 

found in Appendix 1 of this report. 

Our analysis has been informed by 12 days of public hearings, more than 300 interviews 

with officials and other subject matter experts, and the analysis of documents and other 

data supplied at the Commission’s request. 

While this report recommends major changes to some government institutions, the 

recommendations are not intended to provide an evaluation of how the leaders of those 

institutions have performed. The leaders of DOD and the other government elements whose 

reorganization we advocate are serving with distinction. However, some are working 

within the strictures and constraints of policies and institutions that, in many instances, 

have not been updated since shortly after World War II and are in urgent need of reform. 

Other institutions, such as NORTHCOM and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES vii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 

are relatively new and still building their capacities. Moreover, efficient unity of effort 

among departments and agencies is impeded by a lack of clarity and mutual understanding 

of roles, missions, and spheres of authority in the homeland mission set, as well as the 

conflicts over turf common to all governments and any administration. 

II. THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 

A. The National Guard and Reserves in Today’s Security 

Environment 

The first step in ensuring that the National Guard and Reserves are properly organized, 

equipped, trained, compensated, and supported is to understand the strategic environment 

in which they must operate and the capabilities necessary to meet national security 

objectives. 

America faces the most diverse, complex, uncertain, and unpredictable security 

environment in our history, consisting of many different threats, each of which may require 

a U.S. military response, alone or in coordination with an interagency and intergovernmental response. Such threats include 

•	 The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that constitute a 
 

growing threat across the globe, including to the U.S. homeland, and 
 

the potential access to such weapons by individuals or terrorist groups 
 

who wish to use them indiscriminately on civilian populations. 
 

•	 The “long war”—enduring threat of violent Islamic extremists who 

want to control populations and geographic areas, attack U.S. soil, 

and harm U.S. interests and values throughout the world. 

•	 Pandemic disease, whether natural or man-made, and natural dis­
 

asters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods, that can threaten 
 

and harm populations in magnitudes that can equal or exceed the 
 

losses incurred by war. 
 

•	 Failed states and numerous ethnic, tribal, and regional conflicts 
 

throughout the world that can endanger global stability. 
 

•	 The potential for an emerging world power to engage the United 
 

States and our allies in traditional peer-to-peer conflict. 
 

The modern threat environment requires that the United States bring to bear all 

instruments of national power to achieve national security objectives. Among these 

instruments is the U.S. military, including the National Guard and Reserves, which must 

possess the multitude of capabilities necessary to meet the array of traditional, irregular, 

catastrophic, and disruptive threats to America both at home and abroad. These capabilities 

are 

viii COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

•	 The ability to engage any adversary, sustain the fight, and win on the 

battlefield in many different kinds of environments and circumstances. 

•	 The ability to prevent and recover from warfare through peacekeeping, stability operations, capacity building, and civil support 

activities. 

•	 The ability to respond to the national security requirements arising 

from an adversary’s use of a weapon of mass destruction. 

•	 The ability to support civil authorities at all levels of government in 

responding to domestic emergencies, where military manpower, assets, 

and capabilities must be used to save lives or property, secure communities, or mitigate consequences or recover from major disaster. 

B. The Current State of the National Guard 

The proposals we have been asked to consider focus mainly on the status of the National 

Guard. However, the Army and Air National Guard are only two of seven reserve 

components. In this section, we evaluate the status of the Guard as part of the reserves in 

their totality, in order to place in context our subsequent recommendations, which focus on 

the National Guard, but which are broader in scope than the National Guard 

Empowerment Act provisions. The Commission makes the following observations with 

regard to the status of the Guard and Reserves: 

•	 The National Guard and Reserves are at a high operational tempo, 

playing a key role, and performing well, across an array of missions: 

warfighting, peacekeeping and stability operations, and civil support. 

•	 The practice known as cross-leveling, which primarily involves ground 

combat forces, has degraded unit cohesion and, therefore, overall 

military effectiveness. 

•	 The failure to utilize the Army’s Individual Ready Reserve in any 

meaningful way has contributed to the degree of cross-leveling that 

has occurred to date. 

•	 Over the past decade, from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2006, the 

number of prior active duty personnel enlisting in the reserves has 

steadily decreased in all the reserve components. 

•	 The long-term viability for both recruiting and retention remains 

highly problematic. Despite an upturn in reserve component recruiting for fiscal year 2006 (reversing a falling trend that had lasted 

several years), polling data from young people, their parents, and 

other youth influencers show that favorable attitudes toward military 

service continue to decline. On the retention side, surveys of spouses 

in all pay grades and all reserve components show a significant drop 

in support for reserve service. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES ix 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

•	 Increasing levels of financial inducements have been necessary to
 

meet recruiting and retention goals for both active and reserve 
 

components. 
 

•	 While the operational tempo of all the reserve components has 
 

increased substantially, resourcing has not kept pace. 
 

•	 The lack of sufficient and ready equipment is a problem common to 

active and reserve components. In particular, the equipment readiness 

of the Army National Guard is unacceptable and has reduced the 

capability of the United States to respond to current and additional 

major contingencies, foreign and domestic. 

•	 The administration’s FY 2008 budget seeks large increases for
 

National Guard equipment. However, DOD historic budget data show
 

that Army plans for projected funding increases for the Army National
 

Guard are not reliably carried through. 
 

•	 Despite the extraordinarily high operational tempo for the reserve 

component, many of the underlying laws, regulations, policies, funding 

mechanisms, pay categories, mobilization processes, and personnel 

laws have not been modified to support its evolution into an 

operational force. 

In conclusion, DOD has declared that we have an operational reserve without also making 

the changes necessary to ensure that such a change is sustainable. We believe that the 

current posture and utilization of the National Guard and Reserve as an “operational 

reserve” is not sustainable over time, and if not corrected with significant changes to law 

and policy, the reserve component’s ability to serve our nation will diminish. 

x COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

III. COMMISSION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. The Defense Department’s Role in the Homeland 

Conclusion: Although the current Department of Defense Strategy for Homeland 

Defense and Civil Support states that securing the U.S. homeland is “the first among 

many priorities,” the Defense Department in fact has not accepted that this 

responsibility requires planning, programming, and budgeting for civil support 

missions. 

Finding: The Department of Defense does not explicitly budget and 

program for civil support missions because the Department views them as derivative of its wartime missions. 

This is a flawed assumption. 

Finding: The Department of Homeland Security does not have a 

National Guard presence sufficient to promote necessary 

levels of cooperation. 

Finding: The commander of U.S. Northern Command does not 

sufficiently advocate for the full range of civil support 

requirements affecting the National Guard and Reserves. 

Neither do the Chiefs or Vice Chiefs of the Army and Air 

Force. 

Finding: The National Response Plan and related preparedness 

efforts have not been translated adequately into Department 

of Defense programming and budgeting requirements. 

Finding: The Department of Homeland Security has not identified 

the requirements that the Department of Defense must 

meet to adequately perform domestic civil support 

missions. 

Finding: The system for funding and equipping the National Guard 

under both state and federal status, including for homelandrelated missions, is inadequate in that requirements for 

civil support are rarely considered when Department of 

Defense funding is prioritized. 

Finding: The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping 

the National Guard for its domestic missions. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES xi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

Recommendations: 

1.	 The Secretary of Homeland Security, with the assistance of the Secretary 

of Defense, should generate civil support requirements, which the 

Department of Defense will be responsible for validating as appropriate. 

The Department of Defense should include civil support requirements in 

its programming and budgeting. In a new advisory role, the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau should advise the U.S. Northern Command 

commander, the Secretaries of the Air Force and Army, and, through the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense regarding 

gaps between federal and state emergency response capabilities. 

2.	 The Department of Defense (including combatant commands and the 

National Guard Bureau) and Department of Homeland Security 

Headquarters should exchange representatives to improve the knowledge 

of National Guard and Reserve capabilities; to improve planning, 

training, and exercising; and to assist the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with generating requirements for military civil support missions. 

The Commission recommends that a plan to exchange personnel be 

developed and implemented by the Secretary of Defense and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security within 180 days. The Commission notes 

the urgency of this recommendation. 

3.	 The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security should 

jointly submit an annual report to Congress on those civil support 

requirements generated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and those 

validated as well as funded by the Secretary of Defense, and the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau should play a role in the preparation of that 

report as directed by the Secretary of Defense. 

4.	 The commander of U.S. Northern Command should advocate for civil 

support requirements in the Department of Defense’s capabilities 

development, requirements generation and validation, and programming 

systems. The military services should ensure that civil support requirements are included in their respective budget processes. 

5.	 The budget information for National Guard training and equipment for 

military assistance to civil authorities and other domestic operations 

should be included in appropriate sections of the Department of the Army 

and Department of the Air Force budget documents, respectively. There 

should not be separate budget documents for National Guard training 

and equipment for military assistance to civil authorities and other 

domestic operations. 

xii COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

B. The Role of States and Their Governors 

Conclusion: The priorities of the states and their governors are not adequately 

considered in the Department of Defense’s policy and resourcing decisions related to 

the National Guard, even though governors are, and likely will continue to be, the 

leaders of most domestic emergency response efforts involving the National Guard. 

Finding: Governors do not have a formal mechanism to consult 

with the Department of Defense on decisions affecting the 

National Guard of their state, including how the National 

Guard is organized, manned, trained, equipped, and 

utilized. 

Finding: There is no established process whereby governors can 

have operational control over federal military assets within a state to respond to emergencies. 

Recommendations: 

6.	 Congress should establish a bipartisan Council of Governors composed of 

10 governors, with bipartisan co-chairs, appointed by the President in 

consultation with the National Governors Association, to meet and advise 

the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 

White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the 

National Guard and civil support missions. The Council should meet at 

least semiannually or as otherwise requested by the Secretary of Defense 

and the Secretary of Homeland Security or the co-chairs. 

7.	 Laws and procedures should be put into place to enable the President of 

the United States and a governor to consent in advance that National 

Guard officers called to federal duty are not relieved of their National 

Guard state commission, can continue to command National Guard 

troops, and are exempt from the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act. 

8.	 As part of Department of Defense efforts to develop plans for 

consequence management and support to civil authorities that account 

for state-level activities and incorporate the use of National Guard and 

Reserve forces as first military responders (see Recommendation 19), the 

Department of Defense should develop protocols that allow governors to 

direct the efforts of federal military assets responding to an emergency 

such as a natural disaster. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES xiii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

C. The National Guard Bureau 

Conclusion: The National Guard Bureau and other elements of the Department of 

Defense are not properly structured to fully integrate the National Guard into 

domestic contingency planning, training, exercising, and operations. 

Finding: Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard Bureau 

has assumed increased responsibilities for homelandrelated missions. This trend will continue in the future. 

Finding: The global war on terrorism has placed increased demands 

on and created new missions for the National Guard to 

provide forces for both overseas and domestic missions. 

Finding: Under its current structure, the National Guard Bureau is 

not optimized to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with U.S. Northern Command, the Joint Directorate 

of Military Support, Joint Forces Command, and the 

Department of Homeland Security with regard to 

domestic civil support missions. 

Finding: National Guard forces are no longer the Cold War 

strategic reserve they were when the National Guard 

Bureau was established. The joint bureau structure of the 

National Guard Bureau is not sufficiently flexible to adjust 

to their increased use for domestic and overseas missions. 

Finding: The Chief of the National Guard Bureau’s detailed 

understanding of the status and capabilities of National 

Guard forces would best be utilized by better integrating 

the Chief and the National Guard Bureau into the 

workings of U.S. Northern Command, the joint command 

in charge of most Title 10 homeland defense and civil 

support activities. 

Recommendations: 

9.	 The National Guard Bureau should be made a joint activity of the 

Department of Defense, rather than a joint bureau of the Army and Air 

Force. This designation should not change the National Guard Bureau’s 

relationship with the Army and Air Force related to Title 10 matters and 

planning and budgeting for Title 32 mission requirements. 

10. The statute authorizing the National Guard Bureau Charter should be 

amended to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a senior 

advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, through the 

Chairman, to the Secretary of Defense, for matters pertaining to the 

xiv COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 

National Guard in its nonfederal role. The charter also should be revised 

to create an advisory relationship between the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau and the commanders of the combatant commands for the 

United States, and between the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

11. The statute authorizing the National Guard Bureau Charter should be 

amended to include the Bureau’s responsibility for “Facilitating and 

coordinating with other Federal agencies, with Combatant Commands, 

and with the several States on the use of the National Guard not in active 

Federal service,” and other such changes as necessary to implement the 

spirit and letter of the Commission’s recommendations. The National 

Guard Bureau should not become an operational command. 

12. Immediately after enactment of the statutory changes suggested above, 

the Secretary of Defense should draft a new charter for the National 

Guard Bureau, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Army and Air 

Force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the 

statutory changes suggested in Recommendations 10 and 11; the charter 

should be reviewed periodically to ensure that it is updated appropriately. 

13. The grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau should be increased 

to general, O-10, and the position should be reevaluated periodically to 

ensure that the duties required to be performed by the CNGB remain 

commensurate with grade O-10. 

14. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau should not be a member of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

15. The current position of Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff for National Guard Matters should not be eliminated. 

D. U.S. Northern Command 

Conclusion: U.S. Northern Command does not adequately consider and utilize all 

military components—active and reserve, including the National Guard—in planning, 

training, and exercising and in the conduct of military operations while in support of 

a governor, in support of another lead federal agency, or in the defense of America. 

Finding: The commander of U.S. Northern Command is responsible for the planning, exercising, and command and control 

of assigned and apportioned Title 10 forces in response to 

a domestic emergency. The National Guard Bureau coordinates the movement of nonfederalized National Guard 

forces. This arrangement can impair the coordination of 

the military response to disaster. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES xv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

Finding: In accordance with Department of Defense policy, U.S. 

Northern Command’s primary mission has been homeland 

defense, while civil support has been treated as a lesser 

included mission. 

Finding: U.S. Northern Command is staffed predominantly by 

active duty personnel who are not fully aware of the 

capabilities that the reserve component can bring to civil 

support missions. 

Recommendations: 

16. Because U.S. Northern Command is a command with significant 

responsibility for domestic emergency response and civil support, a 

majority of U.S. Northern Command’s billets, including those for its 

service components, should be filled by leaders and staff with reserve 

qualifications and credentials. Job descriptions for senior leaders and 

other key positions at U.S. Northern Command should contain the 

requirement of significant Reserve or National Guard experience or 

service. 

17. Either the officer serving in the position of the commander or the officer 

serving in the position of deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command 

should be a National Guard or Reserve officer at all times. 

18. There should be only one U.S. deputy commander at U.S. Northern 

Command. 

19. U.S. Northern Command should develop plans for consequence 

management and support to civil authorities that account for state-level 

activities and incorporate the use of National Guard and Reserve forces 

as first military responders. 

E. Reserve Policy Advice 

Conclusion: The Secretary of Defense does not have mechanisms to generate and 

receive the best possible advice on reserve policy matters. The Reserve Forces Policy 

Board is not structured to obtain and provide to the Secretary of Defense a wide range 

of independent advice on National Guard and Reserve matters because of the nature 

of its membership, and because it is subordinated to other offices within the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense. 

Finding: Statutes establishing the Reserve Forces Policy Board and 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 

Affairs conflict about which organization has the primary 

responsibility to provide advice to the Department of 

xvi COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

Defense leadership on National Guard and Reserve 

matters. 

Finding: Uncertainty about which entity has the primary responsibility for making recommendations to the Secretary of 

Defense involving National Guard and Reserve matters 

creates conflicting lines of communication and hinders 

integrated decision making. 

Finding: The organization and membership of the Reserve Forces 

Policy Board and the limits on the topics it may consider 

prevent decision makers from obtaining the wide range of 

inputs necessary for them to formulate appropriate and 

sustainable policies. 

Recommendation: 

20. To improve the quality and timeliness of independent policy advice to the 

Secretary of Defense, the Reserve Forces Policy Board statute should be 

amended to create instead a Reserve Policy Board, composed of 20 

members appointed by the Secretary of Defense from outside the 

Department of Defense. The chairman of the Reserve Policy Board 

should have extensive knowledge of and experience with the National 

Guard and Reserves. 

F. Reserve Component Officer Promotion 

Conclusion: National Guard and Reserve general and flag officers do not have the 

opportunities to achieve the joint experience and education necessary to be seriously 

considered for O-9 and O-10 positions. This disparity in opportunity must change. 

Policies must be put into place that recognize the constraints of a reserve component 

and provide reserve component personnel adequate opportunities to obtain joint 

education and joint experience. 

Finding: Reserve component officers often serve in a joint environment in positions for which they currently do not receive 

joint duty credit. 

Finding: There are general and flag officers in the National Guard 

and Reserves who are qualified to hold the rank of O-10. 

Finding: Joint Professional Military Education (JPME I & II), required for full joint qualification, is difficult for reservists 

and national guardsmen to obtain. 

Finding: Reserve component members do not have adequate opportunity to gain qualifying joint experience. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES xvii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

Finding: Those reserve component general and flag officers who do 

not have the opportunity to meet the joint standards 

imposed by Goldwater-Nichols are often considered less 

well qualified for senior positions than their active duty 

counterparts. These reserve component general and flag 

officers often have valuable civilian experience that is not 

counted. 

Finding: Any attempt to increase the number of reserve component 

officers serving in joint billets of importance and responsibility must be predicated on increased opportunity, at midgrade, to gain Joint Professional Military Education and 

joint experience qualifications. Gradually, all officers 

should be held to the same standards, although the path to 

qualifications may vary for reservists. 

Recommendations: 

21. The Department of Defense should modify joint experience qualifications
 
 

and Joint Professional Military Education delivery methods in ways that 
 
 

significantly enhance the opportunities for reserve component officers. 
 
 

This should include consideration of credit for the quality of reserve 
 
 

component experience, not simply the quantity. 
 
 

22. The Department of Defense should strive to ensure that Reserve and 
 
 

National Guard flag and general officers have the opportunity to serve in 
 
 

joint assignments, obtain joint experience, and acquire joint qualifi­
 

cations to compete for promotion to O-9 and O-10 positions, including 
 
 

combatant commanders and senior joint and service positions. Reserve
 
 

and National Guard flag and general officers should be routinely con­
 

sidered for these positions, a practice that is not now the case. 
 
 

23. The President of the United States should not be required to certify that
 
 


all eligible reserve component officers were considered for promotions to 
 
 

the grade of O-9. 
 
 

IV. THE PATH FORWARD 

The conclusions and recommendations in this report address primarily those issues 

associated with the National Guard Empowerment Act. The Commission’s final report will 

be more comprehensive with respect to the National Guard and the other reserve 

components as we address the full spectrum of the Commission’s charter, including the 

reserve components’ roles and mission, purposes, capabilities, organization and structure, 

command and control, training, readiness, equipment, mobilization, compensation and 

benefits, career paths, and funding. 

Our effort will include building on the organizational reforms here—such as undertaking 

an examination of the reserve structures within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

xviii COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
 

military departments, and the services to ensure that they are optimal for achieving 

national security objectives—and reviewing personnel and mobilization policies. The 

Commission also intends to examine the grade structure of reserve component senior 

officers to ensure that their duties and responsibilities are described accurately and are 

current with regard to the requirements necessary to support the global war on terrorism, 

both overseas and domestically, and to examine whether the National Guard and the other 

reserve components are adequately funded to properly support mission requirements for 

both overseas and domestic missions. 

As the Commission continues with our work, information may come to light that causes us 

to modify some of our findings, conclusions, or recommendations in this document; we will 

highlight any such modifications in our final report. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES xix 

INTRODUCTION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves was established by the Ronald 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005. Congress chartered the 13-member 

body to conduct a comprehensive, independent assessment of the reserve components of 

the United States. The purpose of the assessment is expressed in the following mission 

statement: 

To identify and recommend changes in policy, law, regulation, and practice to ensure that 

the National Guard and Reserves are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and 

supported to best meet the national security requirements of the United States. 

The United States Congress, through the Commission’s founding statute and subsequent 

legislative modifications, has directed the panel to deliver three separate reports to the 

House and Senate Armed Services Committees: 

•	 An initial organizational report due within 90 days of the Commission’s 

first official meeting. 

•	 A second report providing our recommendations and supporting 

analyses on a set of legislative proposals bearing predominantly on 

matters related to the National Guard, no later than March 1, 2007. 

•	 A concluding report providing our final assessments, findings, and 

recommendations, no later than January 31, 2008. 

The first of these reports, detailing our organizational structure, the scope of our activities, 

and the progress of our work, was submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 

House Armed Services Committee, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on June 5, 

2006. The report is available on the Commission’s Web site, www.cngr.gov. 

The report we submit herewith is the second of our three products, and responds to the 

instructions set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(P.L. 109-364). The law directed the Commission to report, no later than March 1, 2007, on 

the advisability and feasibility of 17 proposals bearing mainly on the status and activities of 

the National Guard Bureau, its Chief, and related matters. 

The issues Congress asked the Commission to address in Public Law 109-364 are, for the 

most part, provisions that appeared in freestanding legislation titled the National Defense 

Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 (S. 2658/H.R. 5200), 

introduced in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. 

Recently the bills were reintroduced in the 110th Congress as the National Guard 

Empowerment Act of 2007 (S. 430/H.R. 718). 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 1 
 

 

INTRODUCTION 
 
 

IMPETUS FOR THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION 
 
 

When they introduced S. 2658 and H.R. 5200, the sponsors of the legislation, Senators Kit 

Bond and Patrick Leahy in the Senate and Representatives Tom Davis and Gene Taylor in 

the House, identified a set of specific problems that they argued the National Defense 

Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act would remedy. These significant 

problems fall into three broad groups: 

•	 The Department of Defense (DOD) and the parent services of the 
 


National Guard have not adapted to the significant role of the 
 


National Guard in the post-9/11 security environment. 
 


•	 Decision-making processes within DOD do not adequately consider 
 


the interests of the National Guard and do not always include 
 


National Guard participation and input at the appropriate level. 
 


•	 DOD’s failure to appropriately consider National Guard interests and 
 


funding requirements has produced a National Guard that is not ready 
 


to meet current and emerging missions. 
 


The authors of the legislation cite the enormous contribution that National Guard units 

have made not only in responding to day-to-day emergencies under their state authorities 

but also in providing military manpower and capabilities to support major national 

contingencies, including post-9/11 homeland security initiatives, the wars in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, the response to major natural disasters such as Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and 

many other security operations. The proponents point out that in this era of a “long war” 

against terrorism and of enhanced threats to the homeland—including the potential use of 

weapons of mass destruction, as well as the possibility of a pandemic—the National Guard 

will be an increasingly vital part of our overall national security, homeland security, and 

emergency response tool kit.1 

Witnesses before the Commission also spoke of this changing role for the National Guard 

both at home and in its participation in overseas missions. Major General Raymond F. Rees 

testified that “[f]or decades, the readiness of National Guard units to perform that domestic 

role has been a by-product—a second order effect—of resources invested in its role as a 

reserve force. The post 9/11 world, however, has added a new level of expectations for its 

operational use here in the homeland.”2 

However, the proponents of the act believe that the National Guard is hampered in its 

ability to perform its missions by Cold War structures and that it lacks institutional power 

within the Pentagon to match its increasingly important role. They assert that planning for 

the reserve components often takes place in a joint decision-making environment, such as 

the Quadrennial Defense Review or the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, or 

1

 Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record 152, no. 47 (April 26, 2006):
 
 


S3593–S3597.
 
 


2

 Major General Raymond F. Rees, Adjutant General, State of Oregon, prepared testimony before the CNGR, 
 
 

Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, December 14, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/
 
 


ReesTestimony1206.pdf), p. 3. 
 
 

2 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

INTRODUCTION 
 
 

in decision-making forums, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, where the interests of the 

reserve components are represented by their respective services. A consistent theme of the 

proponents is that the reserve components are not adequately funded because the Guard is 

not allowed to contribute adequately to discussions about force structure, personnel, 

equipment, and readiness, and that Guard interests are given short shrift in these 

processes.3

 The result was that “[w]ith respect to the domestic civil support mission of the 

Guard, decision makers who do not fully understand these paramount state missions are 

making the decisions that affect the governors’ abilities to respond appropriately to natural 

and man-made disasters.”4 

Perhaps the most glaring symptom of the need for reform is the state of National Guard 

readiness and equipping. The Commission has collected information from a wide variety of 

sources indicating that National Guard readiness has been reduced by chronic equipment 

shortages. In testimony before the Commission, Janet St. Laurent, Government 

Accountability Office Director, Capabilities and Management, stated, “The Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve currently have shortages in the equipment they need to train and 

deploy and, in the case of the Army National Guard, to respond to domestic emergencies.”5 

Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker also acknowledged the situation; as he 

explained, “To make reserve component units combat ready, we had to pool personnel and 

equipment from across the force. We also cascaded older equipment to the reserve 

components.”6

 The Army’s decision to quadruple funding for the Army National Guard by 

2011, with more than $21 billion for ground systems procurement and $1.9 billion in 

aviation equipment, is in part validation that the concerns raised by the proponents of the 

National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act have merit.7 

3 Timothy J. Lowenberg, Adjutant General, State of Washington, pointed to “(1) the BRAC 2005 withdrawal of 

state National Guard aircraft responsible for moving 1 out of every 2 soldiers and airmen and 1 out of every 

3 short tons of equipment that were airlifted into the Gulf Coast states after Hurricane Katrina hit land fall in 

August 2005, (2) the January 2006 elimination of force structure authorizations and budget authority for 34,000 

Army and Air National Guard positions, (3) the removal of $1.2 Billion in military equipment and supplies from 

Army National Guard units [leaving the Army National Guard with less than 34 percent of its authorized and 

required equipment], (4) the July 2006 removal of two years’ worth of Governor and Adjutant General–validated 

military construction projects from the Future Years Defense Plan, and (5) the Defense Department's request for 

legislation giving the President authority to take control of a State’s National Guard away from the Governor in 

the event of any ‘serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe’” (statement before the House 

Homeland Security Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity 

Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology, August 8, 2006). See also Senator Patrick 

Leahy on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2007, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record 152, 

no. 125 (September 29, 2006): S10808–S10809; General Richard Cody, USA, Vice Chief of Staff, testimony 

before the House Armed Services Committee, June 13, 2006. 4

 Senators Kit Bond and Patrick Leahy, prepared remarks before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, 

March 8, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Bond-Leahy.pdf), p. 1. 

5

 Janet St. Laurent, GAO Director of Defense Capabilities and Management, prepared statement before the 

CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Issues, September 21, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing918-21/ 

ReserveCommissiontestimonyGAO.pdf), p. 6. 

6

 General Schoomaker, prepared testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National 

Guard, December 14, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/General%20Schoomaker%2014%20DEC%20Record 

%20Version.pdf), p. 4. 

7 Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army, prepared statement before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed 

Changes to the National Guard, January 31, 2007 (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/ 

SecArmy%27s%20Testimony%20--%20Commission%20on%20the%20National%20Guard%20and%20Reserve%20­

-%20Record%20Version.pdf), p. 3. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 3 
 

 

INTRODUCTION 
 
 

The Commission’s own investigation of the specific events identified by the proponents of 

the legislation as examples of National Guard exclusion from deliberation and decisional 

processes leads us to believe that National Guard leaders did participate in many of the 

discussions contributing to these decisions. Nevertheless, the divisive outcomes, poor state 

of National Guard readiness, and discord generated clearly warrant an examination of 

whether DOD has mechanisms in place to properly consider and incorporate National 

Guard priorities, especially those unique to the Guard’s dual status. Together, these 

problems bring into question the adequacy of the posture of the National Guard to meet 

current and emerging requirements. They provide a convincing case for changing the 

present organization of the National Guard within the overall structure of the Department 

of Defense and for improving coordination and planning for homeland defense and civil 

support missions. The question then becomes, how best to effect the desired changes? 

As one of the sponsors declared: “The men and women of the National Guard have earned 

the right to be represented at the highest levels of the Department of Defense” and “to 

ensure the appropriate representation, manpower, training and equipment are provided to 

the National Guard for their future missions at home and abroad.”8

 Another of the bill’s 

architects described it as designed to give the National Guard the “institutional muscle 

commensurate with [its] missions.”9

 We agree that improvement in this area is critically 

needed, and ask, what is the right kind of institutional muscle to achieve this objective and 

the overarching goal of improving national security by enhancing overall military 

effectiveness? 

APPROACH 

To inform its work, the Commission held a series of public hearings and received 

compelling testimony from experts and officials who offered the full range of viewpoints on 

the proposals of the National Guard Empowerment Act and related issues. We conducted 

interviews and received briefings on the many aspects of the issues, and we studied relevant 

documents, data, and other inputs requested of the Department of Defense, think tanks, 

academia, and other relevant stakeholders, experts, and authorities. Transcripts of the 

public hearings are available on the Commission’s Web site. 

This information-gathering process produced a useful set of criteria by which to evaluate 

the proposed changes bearing on the National Guard. We asked, do the reforms 

1. 	 Improve the ability of the National Guard to meet both its overseas and homeland 

responsibilities as required by U.S. military, defense, and homeland security 

strategies? 10 

8

 Statement of Representative Thomas Davis, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record 152, no. 47 (April 26,
 
 


2006): E613–E615. 
 
 

9

 Senator Leahy, Congressional Record (April 26, 2006), p. S3597. 
 
 10 See the prepared witness statements before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, March 8–9, 2006, of 
 
 

David S. C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (www.cngr.gov/hearing308­
 


9/Chu.pdf), p. 8; Andrew F. Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (www.cngr.gov/ 
 
 

hearing308-9/Krepinevich.pdf), p. 4; and General Robert Magnus, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps
 
 


(www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Magnus.pdf), p. 11. 
 
 

4 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 
 
 

2. 	 Enhance the ability of the National Guard to be a reserve force overseas, backing 

up the active force, and an operational force in the homeland, backed up by the 

active force? 11 

3.	 	Build jointness among the military services as envisioned by the GoldwaterNichols Act? 12 

4. 	 Further integrate the active and reserve components to promote military effectiveness while respecting the necessary and fundamental differences between these 

two elements of the total force? 13 

5. 	Promote cooperation and proper interrelationships among the chief institutions 

responsible for homeland defense and homeland security? 14 

6. 	 Build organizational structures with clear roles and missions? 15 

7. 	 Establish resource allocation and policymaking processes and procedures that are 

fair, inclusive, and take into account the full range of inputs, including those of 

governors? 16 

Using these criteria, the Commission envisions a National Guard that is properly organized 

and structured to operate in the joint-warfighting environment; brings unity of effort to 

federal and state emergency response capabilities; participates in an integrated, more 

systemic and interagency approach to solving problems; and benefits from a greater role in 

national security decision-making for our nation’s governors. 

11 See the prepared witness statements before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, March 8, 2006, of 

Congressman Ike Skelton (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Skelton.pdf), p. 3, and Senator Ben Nelson 

(www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Nelsontestimony.doc), p. 4. 

12 See the prepared witness statements of General Lance Smith, USAF, Commander U.S. Joint Forces 

Command, before the CNGR, Hearing with Combatant Commanders, October 5, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/ 

hearing1005/General%20Smith%20testimony.doc), p. 4; Major General Roger P. Lempke, President, Adjutants 

General Association of the United States and Adjutant General, Nebraska, before the CNGR, Hearing on 

Changes to the National Guard, December 14, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/ 

Lempke%20Testimony%2014%20Dec%2006.pdf), p. 4. 13 See the prepared witness statements before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, March 8–9, 2006, of 

Admiral Robert F. Willard, USN, Vice Chief of Naval Operations (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Willard.doc), p. 

4; General Richard A. Cody, USA, Vice Chief of Staff (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Cody.pdf), p. 2; Senator John 

Warner (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Witness%20Statement%20Sen.%20Warner%20Comm%20on%20NG%20 

and%20Reserve%208%20Mar%2006%20V4.doc), p. 2; and Congressman Skelton, p. 2. 14 See the prepared witness statement of Admiral Willard, p. 7, and the prepared witness statements before the 

CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, December 13–14, 2006, of David S. C. Chu, Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and Thomas F. Hall, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Reserve Affairs (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/Chu-Hall%20Statement.pdf),p. 11, and General Peter J. 

Schoomaker, USA, Chief of Staff (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/ General%20Schoomaker%2014%20DEC% 

20Record%20Version.pdf), p. 7. 

15 See the prepared witness statements before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, March 8, 2006, of 

Senator Nelson, p. 5, and Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno, USA, Assistant to the Chairman, Joint 

Chiefs of Staff (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Odierno.pdf), p. 4. 16 See National Governors Association, letter to Major General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (ret.), Chairman of the 

CNGR, January 26, 2007. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 5 
 

INTRODUCTION 
 
 

In evaluating proposed reforms, the Commission also believes that the Goldwater-Nichols 

Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 is instructive for our work. GoldwaterNichols sought to improve military effectiveness by modernizing organizational structures 

and relationships within the Department of Defense, improving the quality of military 

advice, increasing the power of combatant commanders, reaffirming civilian control of the 

military, and increasing jointness among the military services. This legislation helped 

transform and modernize the military services. 

The organizational structures within the Department relating to the reserve components, 

including particularly the National Guard Bureau, were not altered by Goldwater-Nichols. 

Many of the proposals in the legislation we have been asked to consider reflect the strain 

caused by outdated structures and policies. Thus, an important objective of the Commission 

is to ensure that reforms to the reserve components further and are consistent with the 

Goldwater-Nichols reforms. 

Although we believe that reforms are needed to increase the influence of the National 

Guard in DOD’s decisions on policy and resourcing, we think that this reform effort will 

necessarily have implications beyond the proposals in the legislation; we therefore 

recognize the significant role played by governors of states, as well as the role of other 

Defense Department commands such as U.S. Northern Command and of other federal 

agencies, most notably the Department of Homeland Security. This wider purview is 

critical, because military power is only one aspect of U.S. capabilities at the federal, state, 

and local levels. In reporting to Congress on the National Defense Enhancement and 

National Guard Empowerment Act, the Commission delivers its findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations in this broader context, including needed reforms affecting the National 

Guard as a critical member of the entire national security team. 

6 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 

II. THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 

A. THE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS 

FOR THE RESERVE COMPONENT 

The Commission believes that the first step in ensuring that the National Guard and 

Reserves are properly organized, equipped, trained, compensated, and supported is to 

understand the strategic environment in which they must operate. 

THE THREAT IN THE POST-9/11 ERA 

The United States today faces strategic national security challenges that are far different 

than those of a generation ago. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, crystallized the 

sea change in the nature of the threats we face, changes that began to become more evident 

following the end of the Cold War. 

U.S. strategy and military resources must be ready to address a broad range of scenarios 

and contingencies posed by existing and aspiring regional powers; violent Islamic 

extremists; growing weapons proliferation; local conflicts and humanitarian crises that 

threaten to spark wider instability; transnational threats, including organized crime, drug 

trafficking, pandemic flu, and natural disasters; and domestic homeland security threats, 

including terrorist acts and natural disasters. 

National security and strategy documents focus on the need to protect the homeland, and 

they underscore that the nation is engaged in a “long war” against terrorism that will make 

it increasingly important that our armed forces possess diverse, complex, and specialized 

skills.1

 Owing to the varied civilian backgrounds of service members, many of these 

capabilities may uniquely reside in the reserve component; and because the National 

Guard, in particular, is forward deployed throughout the United States, that force is 

especially critical to the homeland mission set. 

Even before 9/11, the use of the National Guard and Reserves was on the rise, and reliance 

on these forces to achieve national security objectives is likely to increase. Missions in 

which National Guard units have been heavily involved include wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, stability operations, counterterrorism, natural disasters, homeland security, 

domestic disaster relief, border protection, and narcotics interdiction. 

The Commission does not presume to know if or when the historically high demand on the 

Guard and Reserves will abate. Nor do we know how future threats might evolve, requiring 

1 Quadrennial Defense Review Report ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense,] 2006), pp. v–ix. See also 

National Security Strategy of the United States of America ([Washington, DC: The White House,] 2006), National 

Defense Strategy of the United States of America ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense], 2005), and Strategy 

for Homeland Security and Civil Support ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense], 2005). 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 7 
 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

the reserve components to take on new roles and missions. The testimony we have received 

from a wide variety of experts on the evolving security environment and its implications for 

the National Guard and Reserves was best summarized by Senator John Warner: 

The continuing operational demands placed on Guardsmen, Reservists 

and their families, at home and abroad, during a time of transformational 

change for the Armed Forces have raised critically important questions 

about the appropriate roles for the state National Guards and our Reserve 

Forces. Careful consideration needs to be given to the missions assigned to 

the Guard and Reserves, to the level of resources and equipment that must 

be provided for their use, and other career paths and benefits that should 

be available to Guardsmen and Reservists.2 

TRANSFORMATION AND BUDGET 

The Commission recognizes that our recommendations are not being formulated in a 

vacuum. Several factors of national importance are influencing the scope and pace of 

change, including the ongoing effort to transform the Department of Defense and the 

realities of the national budgeting process. 

Right now, the Defense Department is seeking to make U.S. forces more agile and 

expeditionary by leveraging technological advances, “adjusting the U.S. global military 

force posture,” and emphasizing “the ability to surge quickly to trouble spots across the 

globe.”3

 Together with all other components, the National Guard and Reserves are 

undergoing transformation, and further reforms affecting them must take account of this 

reality. 

Like all participants in the federal budget process, the reserve components must compete 

for scarce resources. Reserve funding requirements are planned, programmed, and 

budgeted for in each service’s budget process and are considered as part of total force 

requirements.4

 Finding sufficient funding for these requirements will remain an ongoing 

challenge, given the tight fiscal environment, competing budget priorities, and the demands 

on DOD in allocating its resources. We realize that policymaking is often driven by resource 

constraints and that trade-offs are necessary. Our recommendations will reflect what 

courses we believe are optimal for achieving national security objectives. 

The world is and will remain a dangerous place. The courage and skill of America’s brave 

men and women in uniform will be needed on many missions across the globe. Given the 

national security environment, the role played by the National Guard and the Reserves will 

become increasingly vital. In the best tradition of the citizen-soldier, national guardsmen 

and reservists will confront enemies, whether they are nation-states or terrorists; defuse 

regional conflicts; stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; confront such 

2 Senator John Warner, statement provided to the CNGR, March 2006. 
 
 3 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (2006), p. v. 
 
 4

 Derived from information provided by Air National Guard Directorate and Army Program Analysis and 
 
 

Evaluation Directorate, November 2006. 
 
 

8 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

transnational threats as crime, drugs, and pandemics; provide humanitarian comfort to the 

victims of natural disasters; help stabilize and build countries in transition; and provide 

homeland defense and civil support here at home. 

As it always has, the United States will continue to promote human freedom, dignity, and 

greater economic opportunity. To pursue those ends, the nation must be able to identify 

precisely what is expected of our National Guard and Reserves in meeting the demands of 

the 21st century. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves is committed to 

helping Congress and the administration gain essential perspectives on these vital issues. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 9 
 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

B. THE CURRENT STATE OF THE NATIONAL GUARD 
 


The Commission believes that to properly assess the need for and desirability of reforms to 

the National Guard and its institutions, it is vital to establish a baseline and to clearly 

comprehend the status of the National Guard with respect both to the other reserve components and to the active component. Key indicators such as manpower levels, mission, 

utilization, recruitment, retention, incentive levels, equipment, and funding contribute to an 

overall understanding of the posture and health of the force. 

There is no doubt that the reserve components are today being employed as an operational 

force. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, in its report The Future of the 

National Guard and Reserves, finds: “Employing the Reserve Component as part of the 

operational force is mandatory, not a choice. DoD cannot meet today’s operational requirements without drawing significantly on the Reserve Component.”1

 There also seems little 

question about the Department of Defense’s intent to continue to employ them operationally. Dr. David S. C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

described how the shift from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve has gradually 

taken place since the 1990 involuntary mobilizations for Operations Desert Shield and 

Desert Storm. He also described how the reserve components, as envisioned in the most 

recent Quadrennial Defense Review, will become even more operational—specifically, 

“more accessible and more readily deployable” in the future.2 

Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno, then Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, defined an operational reserve for the Commission: “Current terminology defines 

an operational Reserve as a trained, predominantly part-time force, a portion of which is 

mission-tasked and engaged at all times. This force, a part of which is designed, structured, 

missioned and resourced to conduct operational missions on a continuous basis, assumes 

full-time roles and functions. The remainder of the force, then, is readily available to be 

placed on Active duties to conduct operational missions as needed.”3 

De facto use of the reserve components as an operational force and the declarations that it 

is so do not ensure that such use is feasible or sustainable. A crucial question that must be 

answered before determining the need for reform and the scope of any change required is 

whether the current posture of the National Guard is sustainable. 

The Commission recognizes that we are reviewing the National Guard during a time of 

increased operational tempo. Whether such a tempo remains high for the indefinite future 

depends on events we cannot anticipate. We must be careful about drawing conclusions 

based on a status that, along with current contingencies, may change. However, as we have 

pointed out, U.S. national security plans anticipate that the fight against violent Islamic 

1

 Christine E. Wormuth, Michèle A. Flournoy, Patrick T. Henry, and Clark A. Murdock, The Future of the
 
 


National Guard and Reserves: The Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase III Report (Washington, DC: Center for 
 
 

Strategic and International Studies, 2006), p. ix. 
 
 2

 Dr. David S. C. Chu, prepared witness statement before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, March 8, 
 
 

2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Chu.pdf), pp. 5–6. 
 
 

3

 Lieutenant General Odierno, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, transcript of 
 
 

March 8, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/pdf/0308cngr.pdf), p. 95. 
 
 

10 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

extremism will be a “long war”—and as our analysis of the security environment demonstrates, it would be imprudent for us to assume that the operational tempo of current forces 

will necessarily diminish and remain lower in the long run. Certainly the trends since the 

first Iraq war are the ever-increasing reliance on and utilization of the reserve component. 

MANPOWER/FORCE STRUCTURE 

The reserve component consists of the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Air National 

Guard, Air Force Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve. 

Since the end of the Cold War, the size of both the active and reserve components has 

decreased significantly, with a concomitant reduction in reserve force structure as well, as 

illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The totals have gone from 2.2 million to 1.4 million active 

duty personnel and from 1.2 million to 800,000 Selected Reservists. 

Source: Briefings prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (OASD-RA), 

March 13, 2006; January 2007, slide 8. 

Figure 1. End-Strength Trend (Actual Strengths, FY 1986 – FY 2006) 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 11 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Overall, the reserve component constitutes a major portion of the nation’s military force 

capability for current and future contingencies. As shown in Figure 3, the Ready Reserve— 

which includes both the Selected Reserve, whose members train regularly, and the Individual 

Ready Reserve, a prior-service manpower pool with no training requirements—provides 

44 percent of the total force. 

Source: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (OASD/RA) Briefing, slide 16, dated 

January 24, 2007 (www.dod.mil/ra/documents/RA%20101%20FY%2006.ppt). 

Figure 2. Reserve Component Force Structure 

12 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Source: The OASD-RA, December 2006. 

Figure 3. Total Force — 2.4 Million 

MISSION 

The core mission of “each reserve component is to provide trained units and qualified persons available for active duty in the armed forces in time of war or national emergency[.]”4 

Although they regularly perform missions in support of the active component, the Army and 

Air National Guard, under their state and other authorities, also have a unique 

responsibility—providing military assistance during state and national emergencies and 

maintaining the defense and security of the homeland. 

The Army National Guard participates in both missions through the utilization of its 

brigade combat teams, supporting brigades, and smaller or specialized units. At this time, 

Army National Guard soldiers are participating in the global war on terror in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Horn of Africa; “man[ning] air defense 

batteries in [Washington, DC] and [the] ballistic missile interceptor site in Alaska”; carrying 

out “peacekeeping operations in the [Balkans] and the Sinai”;5

 and working alongside the 

4

 10 U.S.C. §10102. 
 
 

5

 Prepared combined witness statement of Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau;
 
 


Lieutenant General Clyde A. Vaughn, Director, Army National Guard; and Major General Charles Ickes II, 
 
 

Acting Director, Air National Guard, before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense, 
 
 

Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Posture, April 26, 2006 (www.ngb.army.mil/media/transcripts/ 
 
 

ngb_written_testimony.doc), p. 11. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 13 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Border Patrol in “Operation Jump Start.”6

 Overall, as shown in Figure 4, the Army National 

Guard provides 38 percent of the total Army force structure. 

Source: National Guard Bureau Overview briefing to House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee staff, 

January 9, 2007, slide 17. 

Figure 4. National Guard Force Structure Contribution 

The Air National Guard supports domestic and overseas missions through the use of 

tankers, airlift aircraft, fighters, air defense, and JSTARS (the Joint Surveillance Target 

Attack Radar System). At this time, Air National Guard members fly air sovereignty 

missions over America’s cities, serve in state rapid reaction forces, and “provide extensive 

[homeland security capabilities] with...communications, ground transportation, and 

chemical-biological-radiological detection units.”7

 The men and women of the Air Guard 

also serve in Air Guard RED HORSE (Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational 

Repair Squadron Engineer) teams and EMEDS (Expeditionary Medical Support), “both of 

which proved extremely valuable during Hurricane Katrina.”8

 As also shown in Figure 4, 

the number of Air National Guard aircraft represents 34 percent of the total number of Air 

Force aircraft. 

Each state has at least one weapons of mass destruction civil support team (WMD-CST). As 

Guard witnesses explained to Congress, “The WMD-CSTs are joint units, consisting of both 

Army and Air Guard personnel. [This gives] each state and territory the capability of rapidly 

assisting civil authorities in detecting and responding to a WMD attack.”9 

6

 “Fact Sheet: Operation Jump Start: Acting Now to Secure the Border,” White House Office of the Press 
 
 

Secretary, August 3, 2006 (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060803-7.html). 
 
 7

 Prepared witness statement of Lieutenant General Blum, Lieutenant General Vaughn, and Major General
 
 


Ickes II, pp. 11, 13. 
 
 

8 Prepared witness statement of Lieutenant General Blum, Lieutenant General Vaughn, and Major General 
 
 

Ickes II, p. 13. 
 
 

9 Prepared witness statement of Lieutenant General Blum, Lieutenant General Vaughn, and Major General 
 
 

Ickes II, p. 13. 
 
 

14 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

In addition to these WMD-CSTs, the Army and Air National Guard have developed, funded, 

and manned 12 regional chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive 

(CBRNE) Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFPs). These units are capable of 

providing mass casualty decontamination, medical treatment, security, and urban search 

and extraction in contaminated environments.10 

Figures 5 and 6 graphically depict the National Guard’s contributions to the nation’s 

defense and security around the world. 

Source: National Guard, “2007 Posture Statement,” January 2007, p. 12. 

Figure 5. ARNG Contributions Worldwide 

(as of FY 2007) 

10 Prepared witness statement of Lieutenant General Blum, Lieutenant General Vaughn, and Major General 

Ickes II, p. 13. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 15 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Source: National Guard, “2007 Posture Statement,” January 2007, p. 19. 

Figure 6. ANG Contributions Worldwide 

(as of FY 2007) 

Given the wide range of missions that they perform, augmenting the ability of the active 

force to participate in any warfight, the Army and Air National Guard remain cost-effective 

for their parent services, as Figure 7 shows. To date, the Commission has not seen any 

credible analysis that would counter the long-held conviction that the Guard and Reserve 

components are a bargain for the taxpayer. 

16 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Source: National Guard Bureau Overview briefing to House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee staff, 

January 9, 2007, slide 17. 

Figure 7. National Guard Share of Budget 

INCREASED OPERATIONAL UTILIZATION 

Following the force drawdown after the Vietnam War, the nation’s military forces were 

structured for the continuing Cold War against Soviet and other Communist expansionism 

that had determined U.S. military and foreign policy since the late 1940s. The United States 

maintained a large active duty military presence in Europe as a NATO first responder to the 

threat of a large number of armored Soviet divisions. Backing up the active forces stationed 

both overseas and in the United States was a sizable strategic reserve force, including 

reserve component combat divisions, that would augment and reinforce—after a lengthy 

train-up period. 

From the end of the Korean War in 1953 until 1990, reservists were involuntarily activated 

for federal service only three times: 148,034 reservists, for the Berlin Crisis from 1961 to 

1962; 14,200, for the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962; and 37,643, for the Vietnam War and 

USS Pueblo crisis from 1968 to 1969. In comparison, 857,877 reservists were involuntarily 

activated for the Korean War.11 

Reserve utilization began to change, however, with the involuntary reserve call-up for 

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990–91 that affected 238,729 reservists. 

Additional involuntary activations continued throughout the 1990s and into the new 

century for Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the low-intensity conflict in Iraq;12 they culminated 

with Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, 

11 Lawrence Kapp, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, CRS Report RL30802 (updated
 
 


January 18, 2006), p. 8. 
 
 

12 Kapp, Reserve Component Personnel Issues, pp. 8–9. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 17 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

which involved the involuntary activation of more than 590,000 reserve component 

members.13 

Although the reserve component presence in Iraq has decreased from its peak of more than 

40 percent of the force in 2004,14 the overall reserve contribution in both peacetime and 

contingency operations remains quite high (see Figure 8). The use of reserve component 

personnel increased from 12.7 million duty days in fiscal year 2001 to 68.3 million duty 

days in fiscal year 2005. For reasons discussed later in this report, the Commission believes 

that the force cannot be sustained over the long term at this level of utilization. 

Source: Briefing prepared for the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) by the OASD-RA, January 2007, slide 3. 

Figure 8. DOD Reserve Contributions in Both Peacetime and Contingency 

Operations 

13 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Services Daily Mobilization Report, February 10, 2007. 14 Congressman Duncan Hunter, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, opening statement at hearing 

on Army and Marine Corps Troop Rotations for Operation Iraqi Freedom 3 and Operation Enduring Freedom 6 

and the Mobilization of the Individual Ready Reserve, Operations and Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq, House 

Armed Services Committee, July 7, 2004, 108th Congress, 2nd sess., p. 702; Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Reserve Affairs Thomas F. Hall, FY2007 Posture Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee 

Subcommittee on Personnel, March 30, 2006, p. 6. 

18 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Cross-Leveling 

The reliance on the reserve components was succinctly summarized by the Department of 

Defense in its fiscal year 2002 Emergency Supplemental Request to Congress: “Today, the 

DOD cannot implement the National Security Strategy without National Guard and 

Reserve forces. During the past several years, a smaller Total Force has led to an increased 

role for the Reserve Components. The National Guard and Reserve members are fullfledged members of the nation’s defense team, and sustained military operations cannot 

succeed without their support and participation.”15 In mobilizing the reserve components, 

DOD has attempted to reconcile competing readiness and personnel requirements in such a 

manner as to create an unsustainable process of forming units. Taken together, the 

implementation of the President’s Partial Mobilization Authority, which capped 

mobilization at 24 months cumulative; DOD’s policy of one-time-only involuntary mobilization; the reliance on volunteerism; and a mismatch between the reserve components’ 

end-strength and organizational structure have forced the Army and Marine Corps to 

cobble together reserve fighting units by using individual volunteers borrowed from other 

units around the country. This practice, known as cross-leveling, has deleterious effects on 

unit cohesion, training, and readiness and on the ability of the reserve components to 

provide support to the families of mobilized reservists. One battalion commander testified 

before the Commission that “cross leveling is evil.”16 

In testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Lieutenant 

General H Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, used the example of the 

162nd Infantry Brigade of the Oregon Army National Guard to illustrate the harmful effects 

of these practices: “When one battalion from the 162nd Infantry was alerted for an overseas 

mission, volunteers from the other two battalions jumped into the deploying one. Months 

later, a second battalion received a mission. By the time the third battalion received its 

mission to fight in Iraq, there were few soldiers still in it—they had been piecemealed away. 

If all three battalions had a predictable schedule this could have been avoided.”17 

Reserve component units were brought up to strength with individual volunteers from 

other units rather than with the Individual Ready Reserve, which was established to meet 

just such requirements. Policy guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness directed, “Involuntarily recal[l] the Individual Ready Reserve only after 

considering Selected Reserve members and volunteers.”18 When he was Chief of the Army 

Reserve, Lieutenant General James R. Helmly charged that such policies, which emphasized individual voluntary mobilizations over the existing Army Reserve unit structure, 

15 Department of Defense, “FY 2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on Terrorism,” March 

2002, p. 6. 

16 Lieutenant Colonel Mark Smith, USMCR, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Readiness: Battalion 

Commanders, Recently Returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, transcript of September 21, 2006, hearing 

(www.cngr.gov/hearing918-21/transcript4.pdf), p. 42. 17 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Defense, January 18, 2007, pp. 5–6. 

18 Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness memo to Secretary of Defense, “Force Deployment 

Rules for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom,” July 30, 2004. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 19 
 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

“threaten to distort the very nature of service in the Reserve Components.”19 When asked by 

the Commission about the use of cross-leveling, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness David S. C. Chu explained that the issue results from “a difference in 

perspective between the operational chain of authority in the military service and the 

personnel community.”20 

During its hearings and investigations, the Commission has received compelling evidence 

about the large number of units from which soldiers have had to be drawn in order to make 

a single unit deployable. General Robert Magnus, Assistant Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, described to the Commission how the First Battalion, Twenty-Fifth Marines (1/25) 

was sourced: “261 Reserve Marines from 2/25 and Headquarters Company, 25th Marines 

had to be activated to fully man 1/25, thereby requiring essentially two battalions worth of 

[U]SMCR Marines to make one that can activate and deploy at strength.” General Magnus 

recognized that “this causes cascading negative effects on sourcing future OIF [Operation 

Iraqi Freedom] requirements,” as providing marines to the deploying battalion delayed 

reconstitution of the 2/25 for more than a year.21 Another such example comes from the 

756th Transportation Company of the California Army National Guard, which was 

mobilized on July 26, 2005. Of the 170 individual mobilization requirements, only 7 were 

available within the company; 163 had to be cross-leveled into the unit. Soldiers came from 

65 units and 49 locations. More than 100 soldiers needed additional qualification training 

in their military occupational specialty.22 

The negative impacts of cross-leveling are significant. Cross-leveled units take a longer time 

to train for deployment and have less unit cohesion, and unit members’ families are less 

able to reach out to family support services, which may only be available several states 

away. In testimony before the Commission, General Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army Chief 

of Staff, urged the Department of Defense to put an end to the policies that drive crossleveling,23 and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has taken steps toward stopping this 

practice. In a memorandum issued in January 2007, Secretary Gates limited the involuntary mobilization period to a maximum one year at any one time but permitted service 

discretion to “exclude individual skill training required for deployment, and postmobilization leave” from this period. The memo further prescribed that the “planning 

objective for involuntary mobilization of Guard/Reserve units will remain a one year 

mobilized to five years demobilized ratio” and directed that a new compensation program 

be established to incentivize both active and reserve component service members for more 

frequent deployment.24 The degree to which the Secretary’s guidance is successfully implemented could have a major impact on both recruiting and retention. 

19 Lieutenant General Helmly, memorandum to the Army Chief of Staff, “Readiness of the United States Army
 
 


Reserve,” December 20, 2004. 
 
 

20 Under Secretary Chu, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard,
 
 


transcript of December 13, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/1213cngr-panel1.pdf), p. 9. 
 
 21 General Magnus, prepared witness statement before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Mission of the Guard
 
 


and Reserves, March 9, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing308-9/Magnus.pdf), p. 15. 
 
 22 FORSCOM Mobilization Conference, September 27, 2006, slide 29. 
 
 23 General Schoomaker, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, 
 
 

transcript of December 14, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/1214cngr-panel2.pdf), pp. 13–15. 
 
 24 Defense Secretary Robert Gates, memorandum, “Utilization of the Total Force,” January 19, 2007. 
 
 

20 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Cross-leveling to equip units for training and deployment has similar adverse impacts and 

is driven by the same causes as personnel cross-leveling, with the addition of two significant factors. First, many of the systems in the inventory of the reserve components are 

older and sometimes outdated items that are not deployable to Iraq or Afghanistan. Second, 

much of the modern equipment that they possess is left in theater for the use of follow-on 

units, further degrading unit readiness at home.25 

Figure 9a reveals the extent of cross-leveling within the Army National Guard. Figure 9b 

represents the number of National Guard units, by year, required to contribute equipment 

to fill the needs of one deploying unit. The Commission views the reliance on cross-leveling 

as a key indicator of the status of the reserve components. This reliance reveals whether the 

reserve components are organized to meet their evolving mission requirements and 

whether DOD is recognizing the existing reserve component structure when it seeks to 

mobilize its reserve. The Commission notes the new Secretary of Defense’s memorandum, 

which is an initial attempt to mitigate the impact of cross-leveling. The Commission will 

closely monitor the implementation of the Secretary’s policy change and will further 

address this issue in its final report on reserve component mobilization policy. 

Note: Equipment includes items from National Guard and other Army and theater sources. 

Source: Staff analysis of data provided by National Guard Bureau, Readiness and Logistics Divisions, January 

2007. 

Figure 9a. Average Percent Cross-Leveled to Build Deployable Army Guard Unit 

25 Janet St. Laurent, GAO Director of Defense Capabilities and Management, prepared statement before the 

CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Issues, September 21, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing918-21/ 

ReserveCommissiontestimonyGAO.pdf), p. 6. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 21 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Note: Average Number of Army National Guard Units Contributing Equipment to Fill One Deploying Unit 

Source: Data provided by National Guard Bureau Logistics Division, January 2007. 

Figure 9b. Average Number of Army National Guard Units Contributing 
 
 

Equipment to Fill One Deploying Unit 
 
 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION 

Historically, the reserve components have recruited heavily from individuals with previous 

active duty service—“prior service” recruits—who have already acquired military skills and 

training. This pattern is particularly strong in the air and naval components and less 

marked in the ground force components (particularly the Marine Corps Reserve). As 

Table 1 makes clear, over the past decade, from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2006, all the 

DOD reserve components have seen a decline in the proportion of prior service enlistments. 

In several cases, including the Army National Guard, the decline is by more than 20 

percentage points. The share of prior service enlistments has steadily decreased in the Army 

National Guard from almost two out of three in fiscal year 1997 to just over one out of 

three last year. For the Air National Guard, while the figures are less dramatic, the share of 

prior service enlistments has decreased from more than two out of three in fiscal year 1997 

to only one out of two in fiscal year 2006. The Department’s stop-loss policies, the desire of 

service members leaving active duty not to participate and be subject to future 

deployments, and the smaller size of the overall force to draw from have resulted in fewer 

prior service enlistments in all reserve components. Prior service personnel are very 

desirable from the perspective of both capabilities and cost, as they are already highly 

trained and experienced. 

22 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Source: Derived from Reserve Component (Selected Reserve) Enlisted Recruiting data provided by the Office 

of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (Manpower and Personnel), October 27, 

2006. 

Table 1. Prior Service Recruits as Percentage of Total 

The level of success or difficulty in recruiting and retention is one indicator of the 

sustainability of the force, particularly at a time of high operational use. Fiscal year 2005 

was a particularly difficult year, as nearly all the reserve components fell short of their 

recruiting goals: the Army National Guard by 20 percent, Army Reserve by 16 percent, Air 

National Guard by 14 percent, and Navy Reserve by 15 percent.26 This decline was reflected 

in strength levels, with reserve components achieving only 95.2 percent of end-strength 

attainment, as shown in Figure 10. 

26 Recruiting data provided by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 

(Manpower and Personnel), October 27, 2006. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 23 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Source: Briefing prepared for the SecDef by the OASD-RA, January 2007, slide 5. 

Figure 10. Selected Reserve End-Strength Achievement Rates 

(FY 1987 – FY 2006) 

In addition, the share of enlistees with high school diplomas declined from 92 percent in 

fiscal year 2004 to 85 percent in fiscal year 2005. DOD-wide, the percentage of reserve 

component recruits scoring in the top 50 percent on the Armed Forces Qualification Test 

(AFQT) declined from 70 to 63 percent during the same time period.27 

Although initial results appeared problematic for fiscal year 2006, all of the reserve components but one achieved at least 95 percent of their recruitment objective. Some 

components showed considerable improvement from the previous year. The Army National 

Guard, for example, achieved 99 percent of its objective in fiscal year 2006, compared to 

80 percent in fiscal year 2005. But while the Army Reserve achieved 95 percent of its 

objective, only 59 percent of new recruits scored 50 percent or higher on the AFQT, a 

decline of 8 percentage points from fiscal year 2005 and 11 percentage points from fiscal 

year 2004.28 As discussed below, the recent success in meeting targets came at a price. 

Polling data of young people and their influencers suggest that the future for recruitment 

remains problematic. Twice a year, DOD conducts polls to measure youths’ perceptions of 

27 Recruiting data provided by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 
 
 

(Manpower and Personnel), October 27, 2006. 
 
 

28 Recruiting data provided by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 
 
 

(Manpower and Personnel), October 27, 2006. 
 
 

24 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

the military and their propensity to enlist. Similarly, on a regular basis DOD also surveys 

influencers’ perceptions and their likelihood to recommend military service to youth.29 As 

Figure 11 indicates, the proportion holding a favorable view of the military has continued 

to decline since November 2001, with the exception of a temporary bump upward in June 

2003. An arrow upward or downward indicates a statistically significant change. 

Note: Arrows indicate statistically significant change from previous poll. 

Source: Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies (JAMRS) December 2005 Youth Poll 10 Findings 

Presentation, slide 7 (available at www.dmren.org). 

Figure 11. Favorability of Reserve Components 

For influencers, both parents and non-parents, the war on terrorism has had a negative 

impact, with 59 percent reporting they are less likely to recommend military service—a 

statistically significant increase from six months before (see Figure 12). 

29 Department of Defense, Youth Poll Wave 10—December 2005, Overview Report, JAMRS [Joint Advertising, 

Market Research and Studies] Report No. 2006-006, July 2006, and Influencer Poll Wave 5—December 2005, 

JAMRS Report No. 2006-007, June 2006, available at www.dmren.org. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 25 
 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Note: Arrows indicate statistically significant change from previous poll. 
 
 

Source: JAMRS December 2005 Influencer Poll, slide 16. 
 
 

Figure 12. The War on Terrorism and Attitudes Toward Military Service 

Perhaps the most compelling data, however, come from the June 2006 youth poll, the 

results of which are graphed in Figure 13. It reveals that the propensity of young men to 

join the military, which was at 21 percent in 2005, declined sharply to 14 percent in 2006. 

When the data for young women are included, total youth propensity to enlist declined 

from 15 to 10 percent.30 

30 Barbara A. Bicksler and Lisa G. Nolan, “Recruiting an All Volunteer Force: The Need for Sustained 

Investment in Recruiting Resources,” Policy Perspectives 1, no. 1 (September 2006): p. 7, fig. 6. 

26 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Note: Arrows indicate statistically significant change from previous poll. 
 

Source: Department of Defense, Youth Attitude Tracking Study, 1985–1999, and Youth Poll, 2001–2006. 
 

Figure 13. Military Propensity of 16- to 24-Year-Olds 

Attrition, one of the primary indicators of retention, has remained relatively stable, varying 

by less than one percentage point since fiscal year 2002. For fiscal year 2006, the reserve 

component attrition rate was 18.4 percent, the lowest since fiscal year 1991 (see Figure 14). 

Shortages exist within some specialties and year groups, however, as will be discussed in 

greater detail in the Commission’s final report. But we wish to note briefly the presence 

here, as in the recruiting survey data, of troubling indicators with respect to future 

retention trends. The December 2005 Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) survey of 

spouse/significant other favorability to continued participation in the National Guard and 

Reserves shows a continued downward trend—a 3 percentage point decline from June to 

December 2005 and an 18 percentage point decline since May 2003 (see Figure 15). 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 27 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Source: Briefing prepared for the SecDef by the OASD-RA, January 2007, slide 6. 

Figure 14. Key Individual Indicators (Gains and Losses) 

Note: Margins of error range from ±1% to ±4%. 

Source: “December 2005 Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Component Members: Leading Indicators,” 

Defense Manpower Data Center Survey Note, No. 2006-003 (April 25, 2006). 

Figure 15. Spouse/Significant Other Favorability Toward Participation, by Reserve 

Component 

28 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

Similarly, the National Military Family Association’s Cycles of Deployment Survey, conducted April–September 2005, reported “that Army National Guard and Reserve families 

reported the greatest stress concerning deployment length. Their servicemembers typically 

experience family separations of close to eighteen months[.]...These families are quick to 

point out they are experiencing the longest family separation of any Service families and 

that length of these deployments is having a detrimental effect.”31 

As noted previously, recruiting and retention success have come at a price of increasing 

levels of inducement. In the National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2003, 

2005, and 2006, Congress significantly increased enlistment and affiliation bonuses to 

$20,000, increased prior service and reenlistment bonuses to $15,000, and also created a 

new critical skills retention bonus of $100,000 for the reserve components.32 As Table 2 

demonstrates, the Army’s expenditures for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for the 

active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve have grown significantly. 

Source: CBO, Recruiting, Retention, and Future Levels of Military Personnel, CBO Study, Pub. No. 2777 

([Washington, DC:] Congressional Budget Office, 2006), p. 8, table 1-4. 

Table 2. Army Spending on Reenlistment and Enlistment Bonuses 

(Millions of Current Dollars) 

Operational tempo also affects employers, the other major influencer of whether service 

members remain in the reserve component. Many employers have been highly supportive of 

their National Guard and Reserve employees, but, for others, the absence of employees 

activated for service has presented a major challenge. As the director of the Congressional 

Budget Office told Congress, 

31 National Military Family Association, “Report on the Cycles of Deployment: An Analysis of Survey Responses
 
 


from April through September, 2005” (www.dtic.mil/dacowits/docs/apr2006/NMFACyclesofDeployment9.pdf), 
 
 

pp. 7–8. 
 
 

32 Public Law 107-314, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, October 28, 2002, §617; Public
 
 


Law 108-375, NDAA for FY05, October 28, 2004, §§618, 619; Public Law 109-163, NDAA for FY06, January 6, 
 
 

2006, §§631, 633, 634, 640, 641. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 29 
 

 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 

Some businesses may absorb the loss of personnel at little cost, but others 

may experience slowdowns in production, lost sales, or additional 

expenses as they attempt to compensate for a reservist’s absence. A 

smaller number yet may find that they are unable to operate for lengthy 

periods—or at all—without their reservist and may experience financial 

losses or insolvency. Such problems are likely to be more severe for: 

• Small businesses that lose essential (key) employees; 

• Businesses that require workers with highly specialized skills; and 

• Self-employed reservists.33 

In “Employers More Reluctant to Hire Reservists,” published January 19, 2007, in Navy 

Times, the staff writer Karen Jowers cites an informal poll conducted by Workforce 

Management magazine. The Web poll noted, “Last week the Pentagon issued a new rule 

that extends the limit on the length of time that a member of the National Guard or military 

reserves can spend on active duty. This move could influence hiring decisions made by 

employers since the employer may not have a good expectation of how long a citizen 

soldier in its employ may be gone if called up for active duty. Although there are laws in 

place to guard against hiring discrimination and other issues regarding members of the 

National Guard and reserves, violations of these laws can be difficult to prove.” The survey 

then posed the following question: “If you, as an employer, knew that a military reservist or 

National Guard member could be called up and taken away from their job for an 

indeterminate amount of time, would you still hire a citizen soldier?”34 According to Navy 

Times, 51 percent of those who responded to this informal, online poll said that they would 

not hire the reservist. 

Commenting on this poll during a recent hearing before the Senate Committee on Small 

Business and Entrepreneurship, Theodore L. Daywalt, CEO and President of VetJobs, 

noted: “These results are indicative of a trend among companies nationally to not want to 

hire members of the Guard and Reserve due to the extended use by the Department of 

Defense of their Guard and Reserve employees. The trend to not supporting Guard and 

Reserve employees is directly correlated to when the term Strategic Reserve was changed 

to Operational Reserve. If they are operational, they are not really a reserve.”35 The 

Commission plans to address employer issues in more detail in its final report. 

Overall, if the reserve component, including the National Guard, continues its high 

operational tempo, current indicators cast considerable doubt on the future sustainability of 

recruiting and retention, even if financial incentives continue to increase. 

33 Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, Congressional Budget Office, “How Reserve Call-Ups Affect Civilian Employers,” 
 
 

prepared statement before the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight, Committee on Small 
 
 

Business, September 29, 2005 (www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/66xx/doc6665/09-29-Reservists.pdf), p. 2. 
 
 34 “Hiring National Guard or Military Reservists,” Workforce Management, at www.workforce.com. 
 
 35 Theodore L. Daywalt, prepared witness statement before the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
 
 

Entrepreneurship, January 31, 2007 (http://sbc.senate.gov/testimony/070131-Daywalt-testimony.pdf), p. 10. 
 
 

30 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

DEFENSE SPENDING AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET 
 

As discussed in following section, the level of total spending by the Department of 

Defense—and the competition for those often-constrained resources—affects the ability of 

the reserve components to fulfill mission requirements. This resource competition has 

become increasingly contentious because of the high rate of equipment utilization in Iraq 

and Afghanistan for both active and reserve forces and the growing cost to replace that 

equipment. 

It is useful to examine the level of defense spending within the broader context of the 

federal budget and the overall productivity of the nation’s economy, looking not only at the 

percentage share but also at outlays in current dollars. We see that federal spending on 

national defense was almost half of all federal spending in 1962. At that time, defense 

spending represented almost 10 percent of our $567.6 billion gross domestic product 

(GDP). By the mid-1990s, federal spending on defense represented approximately 16 

percent of all federal spending and approximately 3 percent of GDP, as illustrated in Figure 

16. Federal spending on defense represented 20 percent of all federal spending and 4.1 

percent of our $13,061.1 billion GDP in 2006. 

Source: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007, Historical Tables 

(www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf), pp. 46–54. 

Figure 16. National Defense Spending Relative to Federal Outlays and GDP 

Figure 17 shows federal spending on national defense in dollar terms instead of percentages. The lower line represents the actual amount of money, in millions of then-year 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 31 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

dollars, spent annually on national defense. However, the upper line, which factors in 

inflation and normalizes the national defense budget to constant 2007 dollars, reveals the 

post–Cold War decline in the early 1990s and the upward trend over the past several years. 

Source: Data from National Defense Budget Estimate for FY 2007, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) (www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/fy2007_greenbook.pdf), p. 81; Budget of the 

United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 46–54. 

Figure 17. U.S. Spending on National Defense (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted) 

PROCUREMENT FUNDING 

The Commission heard testimony from the reserve component Chiefs that the funding they 

received for personnel and operations has generally been adequate, though more would 

have been welcome.36 However, funding for equipment has continued at a low level that 

does not reflect the increased role of the reserve components in undertaking operational 

missions (such as in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan) and in supporting their active 

component (such as providing drill sergeants, conducting exercises, and augmenting 

headquarters staff). 

36 See, e.g., Lieutenant General John Bradley, Chief, United States Air Force Reserve, testimony before CNGR, 

Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Issues, transcript of July 9, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/July%2019/ 

transcript 0719.pdf), p. 27, and Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau, prepared 

statement before CNGR, Hearing on Homeland Defense/Homeland Security, May 3, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/ 

hearing503-4/Blum.pdf), p. 4. 

32 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

The Selected Reserve makes up approximately 37 percent of the total force, yet the reserve 

components receive approximately 3 percent of equipment funding and approximately 

8 percent of the DOD budget.37 The disparity is particularly acute in the Army, where the 

Army Reserve and Army National Guard constitute 52 percent of the total force but 

received only 9.3 percent of equipment funding between 2001 and 2006. Congressionally 

added funds in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account (NGREA) amounted to 

an additional 1.78 percent for Army reserve components during this period.38 

The shortage of equipment funding extends across all Army components, including the 

active component. In December 2006, the Commission heard testimony from General Peter 

J. Schoomaker that Army investment accounts were underfunded by $100 billion; as a 

result, the Army started the war in Iraq with nearly $56 billion in equipment shortages.39 

In his testimony before the Commission in January 2007, Lieutenant General Blum 

emphasized the shortfall in Army equipment funding. He stated: “The units that are overseas are magnificently equipped. You can’t tell the difference—active, guard, reserve — 

overseas by their equipment....However, having said that, 88 percent of the forces that are 

back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard. 

And in the Air National Guard, for the last three decades, they have never had a unit below 

C2 in equipment readiness.”40 

This lack of procurement has created a cycle of steadily increasing need to cross-level 

equipment to deploying units from non-deployed reserve component units. According to a 

January 2007 Government Accountability Office report, the National Guard’s equipment 

inventories in the United States have decreased because of overseas operations, particularly 

in the Army National Guard.41 While the GAO found that most state National Guard leaders 

judged that they had adequate resources within their states to respond to typical state 

missions, these leaders also expressed concerns about having enough equipment to respond 

to large-scale natural or man-made disasters such as Hurricane Katrina or those described 

in the Homeland Security Council’s National Planning Scenarios. These 15 scenarios, 

which describe potential catastrophes, are used for planning purposes and to develop an 

understanding of which capabilities will be required to respond to the disasters. 

The GAO found that before current overseas operations began, the majority of the Army 

National Guard’s combat forces were supplied with 65 to 79 percent of their required 

equipment. As of November 2006, non-deployed Army National Guard forces nationwide 

still had about 64 percent of the total amount of dual-use equipment they are authorized to 

37 Briefing prepared for the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
 
 

Reserve Affairs (OASD-RA), January 2007, slide 2. 
 
 

38 Staff analysis of budget documents from Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
 
 


(www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/), P1 and P1R documents, fiscal years 2002–07.
 
 
 39 General Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, prepared witness statement before the CNGR, Hearing 
 
 

on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, December 14, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/
 
 


General%20Schoomaker%2014%20DEC%20Record%20Version.pdf), p. 4. 
 
 

40 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, 
 
 

transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-1.pdf), p. 9. 
 
 41 GAO, Reserve Forces: Actions Needed to Identify National Guard Domestic Equipment Requirements and 
 
 

Readiness, GAO 07-60 (Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government
 
 


Reform, and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on National Security and International Relations, 
 
 

House of Representatives), January 2007, p. 2. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 33 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

have, including authorized substitute items, based on their warfighting missions. However, 

inventory levels of the different types of dual-use equipment varied widely, and the average 

inventory level by type of equipment was roughly 42 percent nationwide.42 

According to the GAO, 

To improve the equipment readiness of National Guard units, DOD and 

Congress have several initiatives under way. For example, DOD plans to 

use $900 million Congress provided in the Department of Defense 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 to procure equipment for the 

Army National Guard and Air National Guard that is useful for both 

warfighting and domestic missions, such as communications gear, tactical 

vehicles, trucks, and engineering equipment....DOD also plans to use $290 

million that Congress provided in the Department of Defense 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to procure additional National 

Guard and Reserve equipment. The conference report accompanying the 

act states that the conferees intend for $150 million of the $290 million to 

go toward equipping the National Guard. Furthermore, the conferees 

directed that $2.94 billion of procurement funds provided in Title IX of the 

act be available for the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, and 

that $500 million of these funds should be used specifically to meet the 10 

core capabilities identified by the National Guard Bureau as essential to 

support domestic missions.43 

For procurement in future years, the Army has budgeted approximately $21 billion for 

fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to modernize the Army National Guard ground systems 

procurement and another $1.9 billion for their aviation systems.44 These funds are intended 

to fund dual-use equipment as well as to help fill long-standing equipment shortages, and 

they represent a fourfold increase in funding over fiscal years 2003–09. 

PROGRAM FUNDING IN FUTURE YEARS 

Department of Defense Budget Justification Books for Procurement covering the years 

1999–2005 reveal that the actual funding in the budget year is sometimes reduced 

significantly from the amounts identified several years earlier in the program.45 For 

example, the fiscal year 2001 budget submission showed that the Army planned to fund 

$1.346 billion in fiscal year 2004 for Army National Guard procurement. However, 

according to the fiscal year 2006 budget submission, in fiscal year 2004 the Army actually 

spent only $578.4 million in the Army National Guard procurement account. 

Similarly, the fiscal year 2001 budget projected $1.625 billion to be spent for the Army 

National Guard in fiscal 2005. However, the fiscal year 2006 budget request showed that 

42 GAO, Reserve Forces, p. 26. 
 
 43 GAO, Reserve Forces, p. 30. 
 
 44 Schoomaker prepared witness statement, pp. 4–5. 
 
 

45 Staff analysis of data from the OSD Comptroller Web site (www.dod.mil/comptroller/), Procurement 
 
 

Programs (P1-R) Reserve Components by Fiscal Year. 
 
 

34 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

only $660.9 million was planned for Army National Guard procurement in fiscal year 2005. 

Figure 18 graphically shows the disparity. 

Source: Staff analysis of data from the OSD Comptroller Web site (www.dod.mil/comptroller/), Procurement 

Programs (P1-R) Reserve Components by Fiscal Year. 

Figure 18. Army National Guard Procurement Budget 

(Projections vs. Actual Funding) 

Additional review of the Army National Guard procurement account shows that this 

difference from programming to budget was atypically extreme in the years 2003–05. 

Nevertheless, there are examples of procurement reductions in the other reserve 

components as well. Beyond the budget data, distribution of new equipment will be studied 

for our final report to determine if equipment intended for reserve component units are 

diverted to active component organizations. These data raise concern that the amounts the 

Army has programmed for its reserve components over the years 2008–13 may similarly be 

reduced as each budget year approaches. 

On January 11, 2007, Secretary of Defense Gates announced that he was recommending an 

end-strength increase of 92,000 personnel in the active Army and Marine Corps over the 

next five years: 65,000 in the Army and 27,000 in the Marines. The Secretary’s proposal 

would make permanent the temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers and 5,000 marines.46 In 

addition, the Secretary recommended an increase of 8,200 in the Army National Guard and 

46 DOD News Release, No. 029-07, January 11, 2007 at www.defenselink.mil/Releases/ Release.aspx?ReleaseID 

=10388. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 35 
 

THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

6,000 in the Army Reserve.47 These end-strength increases are reflected in the President’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2008.48 This growth in future end-strength, unless adequately 

funded in the future, could lead to similar shifting of the approximately $21 billion 

currently planned for modernizing the Army National Guard to other budget priorities. 

OUTDATED LAWS, POLICIES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS 

The Commission believes that the state of the reserve components, outlined above, is largely 

the result of using the National Guard and Reserves operationally under laws, policies, 

rules, and regulations that were designed to man, train, equip, and mobilize a strategic 

reserve force. The Department of Defense has declared that the reserve components are 

operational, yet the framework in which they are used is still fundamentally structured on 

Cold War notions of infrequent use of a strategic reserve. 

The corrosive and ever-growing practice of cross-leveling personnel and equipment to form 

combat units for deployment is the direct result of employing the reserve components 

operationally under outdated mobilization laws and Cold War equipping policies. The 

steady degradation of the readiness of non-deployed Guard units, which diminishes their 

capabilities to respond to both state and federal emergencies here in the United States, is 

the product of a pre-9/11 mind-set that support to civil authorities is a secondary capability 

to be provided on an “as available” basis and of DOD’s policy that has resulted from that 

mind-set.49 

Antiquated practices for getting reserve component soldiers into the fight, which are based 

on the “mobilize, train, deploy” construct of a bygone era, add inefficient months to 

mobilization timelines. These in turn prolong family separations and increase worries about 

recruiting and retention, as spouses view service in the reserve component in an 

increasingly negative light. 

In his testimony to our Commission in March 2006, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Reserve Affairs Thomas Hall stated, “I might add that good news in this town never quite 

gets out, but in the past two years there have been 120 provisions in the law that have been 

changed that affect the Guard and Reserve.”50 But the Commission finds that most of those 

changes, such as implementation of the “Operational Reserve” duty status category and 

changes to mobilization authorities under Title 10, merely ease the Department’s access to 

reserve component personnel without addressing the problems outlined above that have 

been caused by their increasing operational use. The laws, policies, rules, and regulations 

need to be reformed in order to create a reserve force that is both capable of performing the 

47 Department of the Army, “Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Budget Estimates, February 2007, National Guard Personnel,
 
 


Army” (www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/fy08-09/ngpa.pdf), p. 5; Department of the Army, “Fiscal Year 2008/
 
 


2009 Budget Estimates, February 2007, Reserve Personnel, Army” (www.asafm.army.mil/budget/ fybm/fy08­
 


09/rpa.pdf), p. 8. 
 
 

48 “President Bush’s FY 2008 Defense Budget Submission,” February 5, 2007, at www.dod.mil/comptroller/
 
 


defbudget/fy2008/2008_Budget_Rollout_Release.pdf. 
 
 

49 See DOD Directive 3025.1, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities,” January 15, 1993: “DoD Components 
 
 

shall not procure or maintain any supplies, materiel, or equipment exclusively for providing MSCA in civil
 
 


emergencies, unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense” (p. 7). 
 
 50 Assistant Secretary Hall, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Roles and Missions, transcript of March 8,
 
 


2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/pdf/0308cngr.pdf), p. 99. 
 
 

36 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 
 

duties our nation desires and expects of it and is sustainable in the long term. The 

Commission will provide its full assessment and findings and recommendations on the 

broad scope of these problems in its final report. 

Overall, based on its review and analysis of the current state of the National Guard, the 

Commission makes the following observations: 

•	 The National Guard and Reserves are at a high operational tempo, 

playing a key role, and performing well, across an array of missions: 

warfighting, peacekeeping and stability operations, and civil support. 

•	 The practice known as cross-leveling, which primarily involves the 
 

ground forces, has degraded unit cohesion and, therefore, overall 
 

military effectiveness. 
 

•	 The failure to utilize the Army’s Individual Ready Reserve in any 

meaningful way has contributed to the degree of cross-leveling that 

has occurred to date. 

•	 Over the past decade, from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2006, the 
 

number of prior active duty personnel enlisting in the reserves has 
 

steadily decreased in all the reserve components. 
 

•	 The long-term viability for both recruiting and retention remains highly 
 

problematic. Despite an upturn in reserve component recruiting for 
 

fiscal year 2006 (reversing a falling trend that had lasted several 
 

years), polling data from young people, their parents, and other youth 
 

influencers show that favorable attitudes toward military service 
 

continue to decline. On the retention side, surveys of spouses in all pay
 

grades and all reserve components show a significant drop in support 
 

for reserve service. 
 

•	 Increasing levels of financial inducements have been necessary to
 

meet recruiting and retention goals for both active and reserve 
 

components. 
 

•	 While the operational tempo of all the reserve components has in­
 

creased substantially, resourcing has not kept pace. 
 

•	 The lack of sufficient and ready equipment is a problem common to 
 

active and reserve components. In particular, the equipment readiness 
 

of the Army National Guard is unacceptable and has reduced the 
 

capability of the United States to respond to current and additional 
 

major contingencies, foreign and domestic. 
 

•	 The administration’s FY 2008 budget seeks large increases for
 

National Guard equipment. However, DOD historic budget data show
 

that Army plans for projected funding increases for the Army National
 

Guard are not reliably carried through. 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 37 
THE CONTEXT FOR OUR REPORT 
 

•	 Despite the extraordinarily high operational tempo for the reserve 

component, many of the underlying laws, regulations, policies, funding 

mechanisms, pay categories, mobilization processes, and personnel 

laws have not been modified to support its evolution into an 

operational force. 

In conclusion, DOD has declared that we have an operational reserve without also making 

the changes necessary to ensure that such a change is sustainable. We believe that the 

current posture and utilization of the National Guard and Reserve as an “operational 

reserve” is not sustainable over time, and if not corrected with significant changes to law 

and policy, the reserve component’s ability to serve our nation will diminish. 

38 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


III. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT’S ROLE IN THE HOMELAND 

While the National Guard plays a vital role in homeland security, it is not the only element 

of the Department of Defense to do so. The active and other reserve components also 

perform important duties, as does the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM). In addition, 

the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies are deeply involved in 

maintaining the nation’s homeland security. To improve military effectiveness and the role 

of the National Guard, it is important to understand how all these elements work together 

to protect the United States domestically. 

According to the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the Defense Department 

contributes to homeland security in three ways: military missions overseas, homeland 

defense, and civil support.1

 Military missions overseas, such as Operation Enduring 

Freedom, aid homeland security by neutralizing threats where they originate. “Homeland 

defense” missions involve the “protection of US sovereignty, territory, domestic population, 

and critical defense infrastructure against external threats or aggression, or other threats as 

directed by the President.”2

 An example of a homeland defense mission is the air defense of 

U.S. territory against hostile aircraft.3 

1 National Strategy for Homeland Security ([Washington, DC: Office of Homeland Security,] 2002), p. 13. 2 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense,] 2005), p. 5. 3

 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” Joint Publication 3-26, August 2, 2005, p. III-4. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 39 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, and Civil Support 

In order to understand how the federal government protects the homeland, it is important to 

have a clear definition of homeland defense, homeland security, and civil support. 

• 	 	 Homeland defense is defined as “the protection of U.S. sovereignty, territory, domestic 

population, and critical defense infrastructure against external threats or aggression, or 

other threats as directed by the President.”4 

• 	 	 Homeland security is defined as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks 

within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the 

damage and recover from attacks that do occur.”5 The statutory definition of homeland 

security also includes the “carry[ing] out of all functions of entities transferred to the 

Department [of Homeland Security], including by acting as a focal point [in handling] 

natural and man-made crises and emergency planning.”6 

• 	 	 Civil support is defined as “DOD support, including [the use of] federal military forces, 

the Department’s career civilian and contractor personnel, and DOD agency and 

component assets, for domestic emergencies and for designated law enforcement and 

other activities.”7 

The Department of Defense (DOD) takes the lead, assisted by other federal agencies when 

necessary, for homeland defense missions.8

 In contrast, when carrying out civil support 

missions, the Defense Department aids other federal agencies carrying out homeland 

security missions.9

 Examples of civil support missions include support to search-and-rescue 

missions, support to law enforcement, and assistance in disaster response, such as the 

military response to Hurricane Katrina.10 

The Defense Department’s role is distinct from that played by the Department of Homeland 

Security. DHS is the primary agency responsible for “homeland security,” which is defined 

as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce 

America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks 

that do occur.”11 DHS’s statutory mission also includes “carry[ing] out all functions of 

entities transferred to the Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding 

natural and manmade crises and emergency planning.”12 Three examples of homeland 

security missions are guarding the border against infiltration by terrorists, securing critical 

4 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, p. 5.
 
 
 5 National Strategy for Homeland Security, p. 2.
 
 
 6

 6 U.S.C. §111(b)(1)(D). 
 
 

7 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, pp. 5–6. 
 
 8 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, p. 5; Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” p. viii. 
 
 9 Civil support (also called defense support to civil authorities) has been given a variety of other labels in the past, 
 
 

such as military assistance to civil authorities (Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, pp. 5–6; 
 
 

National Strategy for Homeland Security, p. 13). 
 
 10 See, e.g., The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned ([Washington, DC: The White House,] 
 
 

2006), p. 54. 
 
 

11 National Strategy for Homeland Security, p. 2. 
 
 12 6 U.S.C. §111(b)(1)(D). 
 
 

40 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


infrastructure, and coordinating the government response to a disaster, whether natural or 

man-made. 

Broadly speaking, protecting the people and territory of the United States is the mission of 

the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the rest of the 

federal government. Homeland defense, homeland security, and civil support are each part 

of that broader mission and often overlap with one another. As a result, how a task or 

mission is defined—whether it is considered to be homeland defense, homeland security, or 

civil support—generally determines which agency assumes the responsibility for 

performing that task or mission. Agencies have therefore created definitions that narrow 

their responsibilities. The resulting “stovepiping” of those responsibilities has detracted 

from the federal government’s ability to protect the people and territory of the United 

States. 

CIVIL SUPPORT AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

Currently, the federal official with the responsibility to “identify gaps between federal and 

state capabilities to prepare for and respond to emergencies” and to recommend programs 

and activities that could address such gaps is the Secretary of Homeland Security.13 The 

basis for this responsibility has been found in Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 

(HSPD-8) and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, although recent legislation appears to 

have transferred this responsibility to the newly reconfigured Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), an agency under the Department of Homeland Security.14 

Mechanisms used to identify gaps have included the National Preparedness System (NPS), 

which mandates that the FEMA administrator (acting on behalf of the President) develop 

an assessment system evaluating the preparedness of the state and federal governments.15 

Preparedness efforts such as this are designed to maximize the nation’s ability to respond 

13 S. 2658/H.R. 5200 §2(c)(3) §10503a (a)(1); interview with George Foresman, Under Secretary for 

Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security, November 17, 2006. In response to a question from 

Chairman Punaro asking who is responsible for establishing requirements for civil support, Under Secretary 

Foresman stated that the “overall requirements in terms of the national preparedness goal and in terms of our 

national preparedness structure is a responsibility that’s assigned to the Secretary of Homeland Security. But 

having said that, there are component pieces, such as military support to civil authorities—what we’re going to 

[be] doing [in] the law enforcement arena, the public health arena—that are the domain of the relevant 

federal agencies who work with their counterparts [in DHS]” (testimony before the CNGR, Hearing 

on the Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of December 13, 2006, hearing [www.cngr.gov/ 

hearing121314/1213cngr-panel1.pdf], p. 54). 

14 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (December 17, 2003); Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002; 

Public Law 109-295, October 4, 2006, §611; 6 U.S.C. §314. 15 6 U.S.C. §744. Under Secretary Foresman described the components of the NPS at the Commission’s 

December hearing: “The National Preparedness Goal describes the preparedness end-state that we want. The 

National Preparedness Goal utilizes and references standard planning tools, that include the National Planning 

Scenarios, the Universal Task List and the Target Capabilities List. Together these tools provide a consistent 

way for entities across the Nation to work together to achieve the National Preparedness Goal. The Universal 

Task List and the Target Capabilities List inform communities and States what they can do to bolster their 

preparedness by providing guidance on specific tasks and capabilities. The National Planning Scenarios provide 

a basis for a consistent approach for planning for disasters regardless of the scope and size of the specific 

scenario” (prepared witness statement before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, 

December 13, 2006 [www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/13DecForesmanCNGRTestimonyFINAL%5B1%5D.pdf], p. 4). 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 41 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


under its emergency response plan, known as the National Response Plan.16 In addition, 

DHS has performed the Nationwide Plan Review of 2005–06, in which more than 1,000 

emergency management and homeland security officials evaluated over 2,700 emergency 

operations plans and related documents in 56 states and territories and 75 urban areas over 

a six-month period.17 The Commission has found no indication that the National Response 

Plan, the Nationwide Plan Review, and related preparedness efforts have resulted in 

additional requirements or funding for DOD. 

Under Secretary George Foresman, who heads DHS’s Preparedness Directorate, testified at 

the Commission’s December 2006 hearing that the United States has approximately two 

million state and local first responders, a number roughly comparable to the size of the 

armed forces. Consistent with the laws and policies enacted following 9/11, DHS has been 

enhancing the ability of these first responders to operate “across jurisdictional boundaries,” 

significantly increasing the nation’s ability to marshal a civilian force to respond to 

disasters.18 If successful, this effort should reduce the need to call on DOD for assistance. 

Nevertheless, in the event of another catastrophe equal to or greater than Hurricane 

Katrina, DOD will be required to provide civil support on a major scale and therefore must 

be prepared to do so. 

According to the National Strategy for Homeland Security, two ways in which the Defense 

Department contributes to homeland security are domestic missions—homeland defense 

and civil support.19 While DOD explicitly trains and equips its forces for homeland defense, 

it does not do the same for civil support missions, instead relying primarily on “dualcapable forces” for civil support activities.20 Joint Publication 3-26, “Homeland Security,” 

describes this policy: “The US military organizes, trains, and equips forces primarily to 

conduct combat operations. Inherent within the combat capabilities of the Services, is the 

military’s ability to rapidly respond to assist civil authorities for domestic emergencies such 

as disasters, authorized law enforcement, and other activities that exceed the capability of 

civilian agencies.”21 To put it another way, civil support missions are currently viewed as 

derivative, or as a “by-product,” of training for warfighting.22 

This policy of treating the capability to perform civil support missions as derivative of the 

warfighting capability has also shaped how the National Guard is trained and equipped. 

16 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8, §3; Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (February 28, 
 
 

2003). 
 
 

17 Nationwide Plan Review Phase 2 Report ([Washington DC: Department of Homeland Security,] 2006), pp. vii–
 
 


ix, 70–78. (This review was separate from that undertaken for the 2006 Homeland Security Grant Awards and 
 
 

had no effect on the awarding of grant money; see DHS, “Fact Sheet: Nationwide Plan Review,” June 16, 2006
 
 


[www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0928.shtm].)
 
 
 18 Under Secretary Foresman, prepared witness statement, pp. 2–3. 
 
 19 National Strategy for Homeland Security, p. 13. 
 
 20 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, pp. 38, 39: “Currently, the Department accounts for
 
 


homeland defense activities through a variety of disparate programs and funding lines in every Military
 
 


Department and combatant command and numerous initiatives under the purview of the Office of the Secretary
 
 


of Defense....DOD will maintain a ready, capable, and agile command and control structure, along with
 
 


competently trained forces, to assist civilian authorities with catastrophic incident response. However, with the
 
 


exception of a dedicated command and control element (currently the Joint Task Force–Civil Support) and the 
 
 

National Guard’s WMD Civil Support Teams, DOD will continue to rely on dual-capable forces for consequence 
 
 

management and other defense support of civil authorities.” 
 
 

21 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” p. IV-2. 
 
 22 CNGR staff meeting with ASD-HD staff, October 24, 2006. 
 
 

42 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


The National Guard, like the active component and other reserve forces, is “trained and 

equipped primarily for warfighting missions in the forward regions and approaches.”23 But 

under its state authorities the National Guard is also tasked with being a state’s military 

responder, a key element of state response to emergencies. The National Guard Bureau has 

attempted to reconcile these two mission sets by identifying the “essential 10” warfighting 

capabilities inherent in National Guard units for Title 10 missions, but also essential for 

missions on the homeland.24 

Securing the homeland is, properly, the Defense Department’s top priority. In fact, it is the 

first strategic objective listed in the current National Defense Strategy.

25 As destructive as 

Hurricane Katrina was, it is all too likely that the nation will have to confront similar, or 

even larger, catastrophes in the future.26 Natural disasters can endanger lives and destroy 

property to an extent that equals or exceeds the damage inflicted by war. Indeed, the 

Homeland Security Council has developed 15 National Planning Scenarios that contemplate natural and man-made catastrophes with high loss of life. These scenarios are used to 

develop an understanding of which capabilities will be required to respond to the 

disasters.27 One scenario, the detonation of a 10-kiloton improvised nuclear device, would 

cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars in property 

damage. Another, a biological attack using pneumonic plague, would kill thousands and 

sicken even more.28 In addition, the Defense Department’s own Strategy for Homeland 

Defense and Civil Support considers the very real possibility of multiple, simultaneous 

chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive (CBRNE) attacks on the 

United States.29 Catastrophes such as these would most likely overwhelm state and local 

governments’ ability to respond, and will require a massive effort by the federal government. As demonstrated by the response to Hurricane Katrina, the United States military’s 

civil support missions will be an indispensable part of this effort. This is not to say that 

DOD should “become the default manpower resource for other federal agencies or state or 

local governments” in every disaster.30 Nor should DOD assume the lead role in disaster 

response more generally, displacing DHS. The point instead is that DOD can be expected to 

play a major, and in some scenarios the preeminent, role in responding to catastrophes or 

23 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, p. 35. 
 
 24 National Guard Bureau, Office of Legislative Liaison, “National Guard Equipment Requirements: ‘Essential 
 
 

10’ Equipment Requirements for the Global War on Terror,” March 16, 2006. 
 
 25 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense,] 2005), 
 
 

p. 7; see also Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, p. 35 (“Securing the US homeland is the first
 
 


among many priorities outlined in the National Defense Strategy”). 
 
 26 In his 2007 Annual Threat Assessment, then Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte stated that al 
 
 

Qaeda continues to “plot attacks against our Homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass
 
 


casualties”; see Annual Threat Assessment of the Director of National Intelligence ([Washington, DC: Office of the 
 
 

Director of National Intelligence,] 2007), p. 2. 
 
 

27 National Planning Scenarios ([Washington, DC: Homeland Security Council,] 2005), p. ii. In its recent report, 
 
 

CSIS noted that DOD has not developed official civil support requirements reflecting the operational challenges
 
 


posed by these scenarios (Christine E. Wormuth, Michèle A. Flournoy, Patrick T. Henry, and Clark A. Murdock, 
 
 

The Future of the National Guard and Reserves: The Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase III Report [Washington,
 
 


DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2006], p. 69). 
 
 28 National Planning Scenarios, pp. 1-1, 4-1 to 4-7. 
 
 29 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, p. 19. 
 
 30 Prepared witness statement of David S. C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and
 
 


Thomas F. Hall, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, before the Commission on the National
 
 


Guard and Reserves, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, December 13, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/ 
 
 

hearing121314/Chu-Hall%20Statement.pdf), p. 11. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 43 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


other extreme circumstances. This expectation is recognized by the White House’s report 

on the response to Hurricane Katrina, which suggests that the National Response Plan be 

revised to address circumstances under which it would be necessary for DOD to take the 

lead in the federal response to a catastrophe.31 

The Defense Department’s position is that civil support is a “lesser included” element of its 

warfighting capability.32 According to this view, if DOD is prepared to fight a major war, it 

is prepared to respond to a disaster or emergency at home. The Commission believes that 

this position is flawed. Preparing for and responding to emergencies and disasters is not 

simply a subset of another capability. 

Finding: The Department of Defense does not explicitly budget and 

program for civil support missions because the Department views them as derivative of its wartime missions. 

This is a flawed assumption. 

THE NATIONAL GUARD: STATUS AND COMMAND 

Both state and federal military forces may be called on to respond to a disaster.33 A state’s 

military forces—its National Guard—may respond under the state emergency plan. In fact, 

the National Guard is often the first (and only) military responder to an event.34 Such 

activity occurs under the orders of the governor—the “commander in chief” of National 

Guard units not in federal service—in accordance with state law. This is called state active 

duty and does not require the approval of the Defense Department. State active duty 

operations are paid for by the state and may range from such routine operations as 

providing security following a minor flood to massive operations such as the response to a 

hurricane. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, National Guard forces acting 

under state orders may also be paid for by the federal government under 32 U.S.C. §502(f), 

a situation often referred to as being in “Title 32” status.35 For a summary of state and 

federal roles, see Table 3. 

31 “[Recommendation 22:] DOD and DHS should develop recommendations for revision of the NRP to delineate 

the circumstances, objectives, and limitations of when DOD might temporarily assume the lead for the Federal 

response to a catastrophic incident. Katrina demonstrated the importance of prior planning for rapid and 

complex response efforts. DOD should develop plans to lead the Federal response for events of extraordinary 

scope and nature (e.g., nuclear incident or multiple simultaneous terrorist attacks causing a breakdown in civil 

society)” (The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, p. 94). 32 General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed 

Changes to the National Guard, transcript of December 14, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/ 

hearing121314/1214cngr-panel2.pdf), p. 24. 

33 Civil support operations do not solely involve disaster response. They can also include military support to law 

enforcement agencies, counterterrorism support, counter-drug operations, and other missions where state and 

local government has been overwhelmed (Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” pp. IV-4–7). 34 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” p. II-13. 35 Steve Bowman, Lawrence Kapp, and Amy Belasco, Hurricane Katrina: DOD Disaster Response, CRS Report 

RL33095 (January 24, 2006), pp. 7–8. 

44 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


* The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. §1385, prohibits the direct use of federal military troops for 

domestic civilian law enforcement except where authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. This 

act applies to the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, which are reserve components of the 

armed forces under 10 U.S.C. §10101. 

Source: GAO analysis (GAO-07-60,p.10) 

Table 3. Comparison of National Guard State and Federal Roles 

If a state has an insufficient number of National Guard assets to respond to a particular 

disaster, it may request assistance from other states’ National Guards. Such forces operate 

in state active duty under the command of the requesting state.36 States are able to use the 

Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) to request National Guard forces 

from other states, but, as the response to Katrina showed, the EMAC process is 

cumbersome for the large-scale movement of troops. States therefore would be likely to 

instead rely on the National Guard Bureau (NGB) to coordinate the movement of National 

Guard forces, as was done in Hurricane Katrina.37 

Whereas National Guard units in state active duty or Title 32 status can respond to a 

disaster under state law, federal military forces (including National Guard units placed 

under federal control) respond in a federal civil support capacity. Under the Stafford Act 

and the National Response Plan, a state’s governor may request assistance from the federal 

government when the state’s (including its local government’s) capabilities have been 

overwhelmed and federal assistance is needed.38 If the federal government agrees to the 

request, the federal response will be coordinated by DHS through FEMA.39 DOD’s usual 

36 Bowman, Kapp, and Belasco, Hurricane Katrina: DOD Disaster Response, p. 8. 
 
 37 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still
 
 


Unprepared, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., May 2006, pp. 507-8. 
 
 38 42 U.S.C. §5170; National Response Plan, p. 15. 
 
 39 6 U.S.C. §314; Public Law 109-295, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2007, October 4, 
 
 

2006, §611. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 45 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


role (using Title 10 military forces) is referred to in the 2004 National Response Plan as 

“defense support to civil authorities” (DSCA). When DOD is providing DSCA, it is acting 

not as the lead responder to a disaster but in support of another agency leading the 

response.40 

U.S. Northern Command is the joint command in charge of Title 10 homeland defense and 

civil support activities.41 It does not command National Guard forces in state active duty or 

Title 32 status, but can do so if the President places them under federal control.42 Like 

NORTHCOM, the National Guard Bureau does not command National Guard forces in 

state active duty or Title 32 status. Unlike NORTHCOM, it does not ever command forces. 

Instead, the NGB’s role is to facilitate the execution of domestic missions by National 

Guard units in Title 32 status.43 Consequently, NORTHCOM may be thought of as the Title 

10 command for homeland defense and civil support, while the NGB may be thought of as 

the “Title 32 coordinator” for multistate National Guard domestic missions. 

Despite the National Guard’s vital role in responding to emergencies, it does not appear to 

have a significant presence at the Department of Homeland Security. At the Commission’s 

January 31, 2007 hearing, Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau, testified that he had a “very informal relationship” with DHS and “all I have is 

LNOs [liaison officers] over there and we have to put the LNOs over there at a very secondor third-tier level. There’s no flag officers over there....I would think that the National 

Guard should have a much closer liaison with them, frankly, because they will be the 

federal lead agency that we would be in support of[.]” He further testified that he had no 

personnel on the DHS planning staff or in DHS’s operations center.44 

Finding: The Department of Homeland Security does not have a 

National Guard presence sufficient to promote necessary 

levels of cooperation. 

40 National Response Plan, pp. 41–42. 
 
 41 U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Pacific Command play similar roles for those parts of the homeland that 
 
 

fall within their area of operations (Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” pp. II-7–11). 
 
 42 USNORTHCOM Staff Working Paper Executive Summary, “Establishment of National Guard Regional 
 
 

Headquarters to Coordinate Multi State Mission Execution,” provided to Commission staff on August 31, 2006.
 
 
 43 “National Guard Bureau Joint Staff Manual” [Draft] ([Arlington, VA: National Guard Bureau,] 2004), p. M-8. 
 
 44 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, 
 
 

transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-1.pdf), pp. 26–27. 
 
 

46 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


RESOURCING THE HOMELAND MISSION 

The process of identifying requirements for the Department of Defense begins at the highest 

levels.45 The National Security Strategy and the strategies derived from it, such as the 

National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy, are the basis for all 

requirements.46 Analysis of these strategies informs the development of the Joint Strategic 

Capabilities Plan (JSCP) and Joint Operating Concepts (JOCs). These documents are the 

primary source in assigning responsibility for certain capabilities among the combatant 

commanders, service Chiefs, and defense agencies.47 In those assignments, they address the 

missions of the Army and the Air Force and the need for strong homeland defense and civil 

support capabilities within the Department of Defense. The 2005 National Defense Strategy 

of the United States of America strikes a balance between overseas and domestic 

requirements and places a high priority on defending the U.S. homeland as the first 

consideration in the sizing and shaping of United States military forces.48 

The 2004 National Military Strategy of the United States of America describes the interplay 

between requirements for overseas warfighting and domestic military capabilities: 

Our first line of defense is abroad and includes mutually supporting 

activities with US allies to counter threats close to their source. Closer to 

home, the Armed Forces use their capabilities to secure strategic air, land, 

sea and space approaches to the United States and its territory. When 

directed, the Armed Forces employ military capabilities at home to protect 

the nation, the domestic population and critical infrastructure from direct 

attack. Protecting the United States also requires integrating military 

capabilities with other government and law enforcement agencies to 

manage the consequences of an attack or natural disaster.49 

These strategy documents form the basis for all requirements, including equipment and 

funding requirements, within the Department of Defense.50 The transition from policy 

guidance to operational implementation and requirements definition is best illustrated in 

the Department of Defense’s Joint Operating Concepts. The concepts describe the military 

capabilities of the joint force required to implement national security objectives in the next 

45 Section 529(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 requires the Commission to report on 

“The adequacy of the Department of Defense processes for defining the equipment and funding necessary for 

the National Guard to conduct both its responsibilities under title 10, United States Code, and its responsibilities under title 32 United States Code, including homeland defense and related homeland missions.” 46 Military requirements are “established need[s] justifying the timely allocation of resources to achieve a 

capability to accomplish approved military objectives, missions, or tasks” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Department of 

Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms,” Joint Publication 1-02, April 12, 2001 [as amended through 

January 5, 2007], p. 340). 

47 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3100.01A, “Joint Strategic Planning System,” 

September 12, 2003; “The National Military Strategy is guided by the goals and objectives contained in the 

President’s “National Security Strategy” and serves to implement the Secretary of Defense’s “National Defense 

Strategy of the United States of America” (National Military Strategy of the United States of America 

[Washington, DC: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2004], p. viii). 48 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense,] 2005), p. 

20. 
 
 49 National Military Strategy of the United States of America (2004), p. 2. 
 
 50 CJCSI 3100.01A, “Joint Strategic Planning System,” pp. A-1 to A-3. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 47 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


15 to 20 years.51 The Department is developing a family of four Joint Operating Concepts, 

now in various stages of development, that demonstrate the full range of capabilities that 

may be required by the National Guard, both as integral Army and Air Force components 

and as nonfederalized forces under the control of a governor: (1) deterrence operations; 

(2) major combat operations; (3) military support to stabilization, security, transition, and 

reconstruction operations; and (4) homeland defense and civil support.52 The capabilities 

required of both the Army and Air National Guard, in their Title 10 warfighting role, are 

outlined (though not specifically assigned to these components) in the first three concepts. 

The fourth singles out the National Guard as a unique force, with federal and nonfederal 

responsibilities and the task of coordinating the activities of military forces in either status 

when operating in the homeland.53 

The services, combatant commands, and defense agencies translate the capabilities they 

require into funding requirements, which are then validated for the resource allocation 

process. Validation may be accomplished internally by the service. This is the usual method 

when the requirement is relatively small and not of interest to the joint community.54 The 

joint path to requirement validation requires that the sponsor present the requirement to 

the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), a group usually consisting of the 

Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, representatives of the services, and 

others acting in an advisory capacity.55 The JROC ensures that the proposed requirement 

truly addresses an assigned capability, considers joint interests efficiently, and is not 

redundant with other requirements. 

Once a requirement is validated, it must still compete successfully in the resource 

allocation process to be funded. This process is largely conducted inside the services as 

each builds its program objective memorandum (POM). The chances of JROC-validated 

requirements being funded may improve if they are resourced in the service POMs. The 

Secretary of Defense may direct services to resource certain requirements through the 

Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), which is also informed by the Chairman’s Program 

Advice (from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). Combatant commanders influence 

service POMs through their integrated priorities lists (IPLs) reflected in joint programming 

guidance.56 After reviewing completed service POMs for conformance to strategic plans, the 

CJCS sends an assessment to the Secretary of Defense, who may direct changes to the 

service plans by issuing a program decision memorandum (PDM).57 

Currently, no one in this process has the responsibility of advocating for funding for 

homeland security or civil support–related missions. In his testimony to the Commission, 

Lieutenant General Blum stated that NORTHCOM, in particular, does not regularly 

advocate requirements for the NGB’s Title 32 mission: “NORTHCOM...will not advocate 

requirements...for the Title 32 piece that the Guard provides....[When] I’m trying to equip 

or train these CBRNE enhanced response force packages, I run into brick walls...because 

they say...this is not a Title [10] Army thing, we’re not going to pay for this. So now we have 

51 DOD, “Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept” (2004), p. 1. 
 
 

52 DOD, “Homeland Defense and Civil Support Joint Operating Concept” (draft, 2006). 
 
 53 DOD, “Homeland Defense and Civil Support Joint Operating Concept,” pp. 15, 56, 57. 
 
 

54 CJCSI 3170.01E, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System,” May 11, 2005. 
 
 55 CJCSI 5123.01, “Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council,” November 9, 2006. 
 
 56 CJCSI 3100.01A, “Joint Strategic Planning System,” p. D-4. 
 
 57 CJCSI 3100.01A, “Joint Strategic Planning System,” p. D-3. 
 
 

48 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


a capability that the nation is denied because of all of our organizational impediments that 

we have in the way.”58 

Finding: The commander of U.S. Northern Command does not 

sufficiently advocate for the full range of civil support 

requirements affecting the National Guard and Reserves. 

Neither do the Chiefs or Vice Chiefs of the Army and Air 

Force. 

The National Guard Bureau does not have standing access to the JROC. Its Title 10 warfighting requirements are brought to this process by the appropriate staff of the Army or the 

Air Force, as the Guard’s requirements are subsets of those of the larger total force. 

Requirements that have unique applicability to the Guard’s homeland role, performed in 

both federal and state status, are more difficult to put before the JROC. The National Guard 

Bureau has succeeded in gaining access to the JROC only when there has been intense 

political interest in a certain program or congressional direction to the Department. 

Several recent examples of unique National Guard requirements that have been validated 

through the JROC process include 

•	 The equipping of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) civil support 
 


teams. 
 


•	 Communications equipment designed to be compatible with civilian 
 


(local, state, and federal) emergency response agencies. 
 


•	 Command and control organizations for CBRNE incident response, 
 


such as U.S. Northern Command’s Joint Task Force–Civil Support.59 
 


The current planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBES) process does not 

address resourcing for civil support missions, because requirements for such missions are 

not generated. Unlike requirements for warfighting, there now exists no official process for 

generating requirements for civil support missions.60 As noted above, civil support is 

currently viewed as a “by-product” or a derivative of the Defense Department’s warfighting 

mission.61 

Two mechanisms exist that begin to address the lack of a requirements generation 

process—the Homeland Security Council’s 15 “National Planning Scenarios” and the 

NGB’s “essential 10.” Nevertheless, within DOD, the definition of a requirement is the 

58 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, 
 
 

transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-1.pdf), p. 26. 
 
 59 CNGR staff meeting with National Guard Bureau Joint Staff representatives, November 27, 2006; Lieutenant 
 
 

General H Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau, letter to Major General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (ret.), 
 
 

Chairman, CNGR, November 30, 2006, p. 5. 
 
 

60 Wormuth et al., The Future of the National Guard and Reserves, p. 69. 
 
 61 CNGR staff meeting with ASD-HD staff, October 24, 2006. In a letter to the Commission, the Center for
 
 


Strategic and International Studies notes that “To the extent that requirements for the Guard’s role in
 
 


MACA/DSCA do exist, it is primarily because Congress ultimately directed DOD to provide funding for such 
 
 

requirements” (John J. Hamre and Christine E. Wormuth, Center for Strategic and International Studies, letter 
 
 

to Major General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC [ret.], Chairman, Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, 
 
 

December 14, 2006, Attachment A, p. 7). 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 49 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


first—and a critical—step in the PPBES cycle. Lieutenant General Blum testified that no 

mechanism exists for setting civil support requirements, echoing a similar assertion in the 

National Guard Association of the United States’ January 16, 2007, submission to the 

Commission.62 The absence of a requirements definition process represents a critical 

weakness in resourcing for civil support missions. 

The Commission is aware of no mechanism to translate the National Response Plan or 

related preparedness efforts into requirements or additional resources for DOD. 

Furthermore, during its December 13, 2006, hearing, the Commission repeatedly 

questioned witnesses from both the Department of Defense and the Department of 

Homeland Security about how requirements for civil support are developed and who has 

that responsibility, but was unable to identify the responsible individual or department. 

During his testimony, in response to a request for a copy of such a requirements document, 

DHS Under Secretary for Preparedness George Foresman noted: “I think this is a takeaway 

for us, to sit down with our partners in DOD—Guard, active, Reserve, everybody—to sit 

down with our partners, look at our requirements generation process and make sure we’ve 

got a comparable one, because I can’t tell you that there is a document that defines the 

requirements for the Guard in the context of a homeland defense mission, but I also can’t 

tell you that that there is not.”63 This lack of a requirements generation process is a critical 

shortfall in the nation’s preparedness efforts. Despite a number of changes to law and 

policy, it is still unclear whether the nation possesses the capabilities necessary to respond 

to a catastrophic disaster.64 

Finding: The National Response Plan and related preparedness efforts 

have not been translated adequately into Department of 

Defense programming and budgeting requirements. 

Finding: The Department of Homeland Security has not identified 

the requirements that the Department of Defense must 

meet to adequately perform domestic civil support 

missions. 

Commission research has highlighted the difficulty in tracking Guard and Reserve 

equipment funding through the lengthy PPBES process, which was developed when the 

reserve components were a seldom-used strategic reserve. The Commission has received 

extensive testimony on equipment shortfalls within the reserve components, and Reserve 

and National Guard proponents believe that there are multiple opportunities for funding 

originally requested for reserve component equipment to be diverted to other “more 

pressing” needs.65 The ability to track such diversions is often limited because of the lack of 

62 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony before the CNGR, transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing, p. 34; Major 

General R. Martin Umbarger, National Guard Association of the United States, letter to Major General Arnold 

L. Punaro, USMC (ret.), Chairman, CNGR, January 16, 2007, pp. 16–17. 
 
 63 Under Secretary Foresman, testimony before the CNGR, transcript of December 13, 2006, p. 72; see also pp. 
 
 

40, 54–57, 62, 70–76. 
 
 

64 GAO, Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and Accountability Will Improve the 
 
 

Effectiveness of the Nation’s Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System, GAO-06-618 (Report to Congressional
 
 


Committees), September 2006, pp. 37–38. 
 
 

65 On equipment shortfalls, see testimony of Janet St. Laurent, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, 
 
 

Government Accountability Office, before the CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Issues, transcript 
 
 

of September 21, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing918-21/transcript4.pdf), pp. 15–17; on diversion of
 
 


50 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


transparency during the execution phase. Congress partially addresses shortfalls by adding 

specific items of equipment to a separate National Guard–Reserve equipment account. 

The PPBES process is managed within each service through multiple work groups— 

beginning at the O-3/O-4 level66 and ending at the service Chief of Staff/military department 

Secretary level—before the final decision is transmitted to the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and then to the Office of Management and Budget for further modifications and 

fine-tuning. Sponsors of the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 (S. 2658/H.R. 5200) have argued that the interests of the National Guard 

are not adequately represented at the most senior levels in the decision-making process.67 

Commission research indicates that the reserve components are usually involved at all 

stages of the internal service/military department process up to the endgame decisions 

about where cuts must fall. 

The Commission concludes that the system of funding and equipping the National Guard 

under both state and federal status, including homeland-related missions, is inadequate. 

Because they are not formally established, requirements for homeland security, specifically 

support to civil authorities, are rarely considered when funding is prioritized. Even though 

the National Guard is well represented in the process, requirements for the functions that 

are unique to the Guard in its homeland role have little chance of success in the service and 

DOD resource allocation processes. Only strong pressure from Congress has in recent cases 

counteracted this disadvantage. The lack of consideration given these requirements is the 

result of the Department’s policy of viewing civil support as a mission derivative of warfighting.68 

Finding: The system for funding and equipping the National Guard 

under both state and federal status, including for 

homeland-related missions, is inadequate in that requirements for civil support are rarely considered when Department of Defense funding is prioritized. 

Finding: The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping 

the National Guard for its domestic missions. 

reserve component equipment, see testimony of Lieutenant General H Steven Blum before the CNGR, Hearing
 
 


on Homeland Defense/Homeland Security, transcript of May 3, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing503­
 


4/0509natguard2.pdf), p. 39. 
 
 

66 Respectively, captain or major in the case of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps; lieutenant or lieutenant
 
 


commander in the case of the Navy. 
 
 

67 Senator Leahy, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record 152, no. 1 (September 29, 2006): S10808–
 
 


S10809.
 
 


68 In fact, this reluctance is codified in DOD Directive 3025.1, “Military Support to Civil Authorities (MSCA),” 
 
 

§4.4.8.2, January 15, 1993, which states that “DoD Components shall not procure or maintain any supplies, 
 
 

materiel, or equipment exclusively for providing MSCA in civil emergencies, unless otherwise directed by the 
 
 

Secretary of Defense” (p. 7). The Commission anticipates that if DOD begins to explicitly budget and program 
 
 

for civil support missions, this directive will need to change; it is currently undergoing major revision, but
 
 


according to the staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security 
 
 

Affairs (ASD-HD&ASA), this specific policy is not expected to change).
 
 


COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 51 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Conclusion: Although the current Department of Defense Strategy for Homeland 

Defense and Civil Support states that securing the U.S. homeland is “the first among 

many priorities,” the Defense Department in fact has not accepted that this 

responsibility requires planning, programming, and budgeting for civil support 

missions. 

Recommendation: 

1.	 The Secretary of Homeland Security, with the assistance of the Secretary
 
 

of Defense, should generate civil support requirements, which the
 
 

Department of Defense will be responsible for validating as appropriate. 
 

The Department of Defense should include civil support requirements in 
 

its programming and budgeting. In a new advisory role, the Chief of the
 
 

National Guard Bureau should advise the U.S. Northern Command 
 

commander, the Secretaries of the Air Force and Army, and, through the
 
 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense regarding 
 

gaps between federal and state emergency response capabilities. 
 

The Commission believes that the responsibility for identifying and filling gaps in 

emergency response capabilities should remain in the Department of Homeland Security. 

As part of this process, DHS should identify the specific gaps that can best be filled by 

Defense Department civil support activities. It can define these gaps as requirements and 

submit them to the Department of Defense. DOD would then have the responsibility to 

validate those requirements it deems appropriate and feed them into the DOD 

programming and budgeting process.69 

This proposal would ensure that DHS retains its position as the federal agency responsible 

for coordinating national preparedness. It would also take advantage of DHS’s nationwide 

perspective on preparedness. In addition, the proposal would make DHS responsible for 

identifying gaps in capabilities that can best be filled by DOD civil support, while giving 

DOD the responsibility to determine the best way to fill those gaps once the appropriate 

requirements have been validated. Thus DOD would have the flexibility to respond to 

DHS’s requirements in a way that prioritizes them appropriately with DOD’s other 

missions. 

Recommendation: 

2.	 The Department of Defense (including combatant commands and the
 
 

National Guard Bureau) and Department of Homeland Security Head­
 

quarters should exchange representatives to improve the knowledge of 
 

National Guard and Reserve capabilities; to improve planning, training, 
 

and exercising; and to assist the Secretary of Homeland Security with 
 

generating requirements for military civil support missions. The
 
 

Commission recommends that a plan to exchange personnel be developed
 
 

69 The Commission believes that this reallocation of responsibilities will necessitate the revision of DOD 

Directive 3025.1, “Military Support to Civil Authorities.” 

52 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

and implemented by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security within 180 days. The Commission notes the urgency 

of this recommendation. 

Although national guardsmen are placed in DOD’s offices responsible for domestic response 

and as part-time liaisons at the Department of Homeland Security, information sharing is 

not always coordinated and at times, NORTHCOM and the Bureau are left out of important 

meetings and deliberations on homeland issues.70 The Joint Staff currently places a 

National Guard general officer as director of the Joint Directorate of Military Support 

office. The Joint Directorate reports through the J-3 to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff and serves as a focal point for coordination with combatant commands, the services, 

and the National Guard. National guardsmen also assist by serving in billets on the staff of 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs 

(ASD-HD&ASA), but the Joint Staff, ASD-HD&ASA, and DHS lack full-time NORTHCOM 

representation in critical areas such as planning and exercising.71 

The Commission believes that DHS would benefit if it were to acquire staff from the NGB 

and NORTHCOM (and other appropriate combatant commands). By enhancing DHS’s 

insight into the capabilities DOD can bring to support DHS’s mission, such staff will greatly 

improve the federal government’s capacity for preparedness and response. This perspective 

will be especially valuable in assisting DHS in its generation of civil support requirements 

for DOD. Similarly, assigning DHS personnel to DOD would provide DOD with valuable 

information on what will be expected of it during civil support missions. 

Recommendation: 

3.	 The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security should
 
 


jointly submit an annual report to Congress on those civil support 
 
 

requirements generated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
 
 

those validated as well as funded by the Secretary of Defense, and the
 
 


Chief of the National Guard Bureau should play a role in the
 
 


preparation of that report as directed by the Secretary of Defense. 
 
 

Proposed section §10503a of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would give the Chief of the NGB the 

responsibility to “identify gaps between federal and state capabilities to prepare for and 

respond to emergencies” and to recommend to the Secretary of Defense National Guard 

programs and activities to address such gaps.72 The legislation would also give the NGB a 

number of new powers to facilitate the filling of those gaps once identified, including 

validating state civil support requirements.73 Section 2(b)(4) of the bill amends section 

10504 of Title 10, Chapter 1011 (dealing with the National Guard Bureau) to require the 

CNGB to submit an annual report to Congress on (1) state civil support requirements 

validated under the CNGB’s new responsibilities in new §10503a during the previous fiscal 

year, (2) the validated civil support requirements for which funding is to be requested in the 

70 Memorandum for the Record (MFR), NORAD-NORTHCOM Trip After-Action Report, January 25, 2006; MFR,
 
 


National Guard Bureau, November 27, 2006. 
 
 

71 MFR, Commissioner site visits to DHS Headquarters, April 7 and June 16, 2006. 
 
 72 S. 2658/H.R. 5200 §2(c)(3); see proposed 10 U.S.C. §10503a(a). 
 
 73 S. 2658/H.R. 5200 §2(c)(3); see proposed 10 U.S.C. §10503a(b). 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 53 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


next fiscal year under new §10544, and (3) the validated civil support requirements for 

which funding will not be requested in the next fiscal year under new §10544. 

The Commission’s alternative to this proposal would require the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to generate civil support requirements for the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary 

of Defense would, in turn, choose which requirements to validate in DOD’s budget and 

programming process. In concert with this alternative to proposed §10503a, the Commission 

proposes the following reporting requirement. The Secretaries of Homeland Security and 

Defense should submit a joint report on the civil support requirements generated by DHS 

for DOD, also specifying which of those requirements DOD chose to validate and which it 

requested to be funded in its budget. In addition to making more visible DOD’s civil support 

mission and the role DHS sees for DOD, such a report would also force DHS and DOD to 

work together on a strategy on how best to use DOD’s civil support capabilities to 

strengthen the nation’s homeland security efforts. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

should be able to provide substantial input into this report. 

Recommendations: 

4.	 The commander of U.S. Northern Command should advocate for civil
 
 

support requirements in the Department of Defense’s capabilities develop­
 

ment, requirements generation and validation, and programming systems.
 
 

The military services should ensure that civil support requirements are 
 
 

included in their respective budget processes. 
 
 

5.	 The budget information for National Guard training and equipment for 
 
 

military assistance to civil authorities and other domestic operations
 
 

should be included in appropriate sections of the Department of the
 
 

Army and Department of the Air Force budget documents, respectively. 
 
 

There should not be separate budget documents for National Guard
 
 

training and equipment for military assistance to civil authorities and
 
 

other domestic operations.
 
 

Section 2(c)(4) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would add a new section 10544 to Title 10, Chapter 

1013 of the United States Code (“Budget Information and Annual Reports to Congress”). 

This section would require the budget justification materials submitted to Congress in 

support of the President’s budget to specify separate amounts for training and equipping 

the National Guard for purposes of civil support and for other domestic operations during 

the fiscal year. The Commission recommends against this proposal on the grounds that 

most civil support missions are performed using “dual-use” equipment and that the 

designation of certain training and equipment as civil support–related would likely be 

arbitrary and would not help Congress provide meaningful oversight on this matter. 

The Commission has recommended instead that DOD explicitly budget and program for 

civil support. If that recommendation is implemented, budgeting and appropriation will be 

no different for civil support than for any other DOD mission. 

54 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


B. THE ROLE OF STATES AND THEIR GOVERNORS 
 


As the chief executives of their states, governors are vested with a primary responsibility to 

protect the life and property of their citizens, and are the senior civilian officials in charge 

of most emergency preparedness and disaster response efforts in our nation. As the 

commanders in chief of their respective state National Guard units not in federal status 

(Title 10), governors have a major interest in how their state National Guard units and 

personnel are trained, equipped, and utilized. And as commanders in chief, they are 

responsible for their Guard before and after its use, whether the units are deployed on a 

state mission, a federal mission, or a combination of both. 

America’s national military strategy recognizes the key role played by the reserve 

components of the U.S. military in protecting the homeland. The Defense Department’s 

Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support states that the reserve components are 

especially suited for performing civil support and related domestic missions and 

recommends a “focused reliance” on them for homeland defense and civil support 

missions.1 

Such a focused reliance makes sense given the widespread distribution of reserve forces, 

particularly the National Guard. The National Guard is located in all 54 states and 

territories. It is typically a major state emergency responder and a vital part of the state’s 

ability to protect its people and property from disaster and to recover after disaster has 

struck.2

 Indeed, in many states, the adjutant general, who is in military command of 

National Guard units in state status, heads the state’s emergency response agency.3 

Along with the other reserve components, the National Guard is forward deployed in 3,200 

communities throughout the nation. In addition, it routinely exercises with other state and 

local first responders, such as police, fire, and emergency medical personnel, and is deeply 

embedded in communities across the nation.4

 As Major General R. Martin Umbarger, 

Adjutant General for the State of Indiana, told the Commission, “We know the nation’s 

first responders by name—the police chiefs, the sheriffs, the fire chiefs—the incident 

commanders.”5

 For this reason, the National Response Plan establishes that local and state 

governments possess the primary responsibility to respond to emergencies, and the federal 

government is called on only when the event outstrips the resources and capacities of state 

and local authorities. In most cases, the National Guard is the military’s first responder 

force. 

The National Guard is unique in that it serves both state and federal authorities. When in 

federal (Title 10) status, the Army National Guard acts as a reserve component of the Army, 

and the Air National Guard is a reserve component of the Air Force, commanded by the 

President. When in state status, the Army and Air National Guard operates under the orders 

1 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2005), p. 35. 
 
 2

 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” Joint Publication 3-26, August 2, 2005, pp. II-11 to II-13. 
 
 3

 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” p. II-13. 
 
 4 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, p. 35. 
 
 5

 Major General Umbarger, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard,
 
 


transcript of December 14, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/1214cngr-panel3%20(2).pdf), p. 6. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 55 
 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


of the governor. The governor can command Guard troops in either state active duty (paid 

by the state) or Title 32 (paid by the federal government).6 

In recent years, the ability of governors to draw on National Guard forces has expanded 

through the adoption by all states and territories of the Emergency Management Assistance 

Compact (EMAC), an interstate agreement that allows the governor of one state to send 

National Guard troops to another state to assist the governor receiving those forces in 

responding to an emergency. During the response to Hurricane Katrina, approximately 

50,000 National Guard troops from 54 states and territories supported Gulf Coast states 

through EMAC. They were joined by 20,000 federal military personnel.7 

The dual nature of the National Guard creates tensions between their federal and state 

commanders. While states are free to provide resources to their National Guard units, most 

funding for the force comes from the federal government, mainly the U.S. Departments of 

the Army and Air Force. At the Commission’s December hearing, Under Secretary for 

Personnel and Readiness David S. C. Chu and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 

Affairs Thomas F. Hall testified that the federal government pays roughly 90 percent of the 

annual cost for the National Guard, while the states pay the remaining 10 percent.8 

Notwithstanding these funding realities, the manning and equipping of the National Guard 

is of paramount importance to the governors. With the recent major deployments of 

National Guard units to conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, governors have 

become increasingly concerned about whether their National Guard forces will be available 

to respond to emergencies at home. Governors perceive a lack of coordinated planning for 

the use of nonfederal forces, insufficient coordination of state and federal emergency 

response capabilities, inadequate funding to re-equip Guard units returning from active 

duty abroad, a lack of dual-use equipment, and insufficient consultation with governors by 

the Department of Defense in advance of decisions affecting the National Guard.9 

Governor Michael F. Easley of North Carolina testified before the Commission about 

various state missions for which the National Guard has been used in North Carolina, 

including ice storms and hurricanes. Governor Easley expressed his concern over shortages 

in National Guard equipment, remarking, “A Guard unit cannot be effective without the 

right tools.” Governor Easley expressed the view that enlarging the federal role for the 

National Guard would reduce its ability to respond effectively to state missions.10 Governor 

Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware testified before the Commission that the Department of 

6 National Governors Association, letter to Arnold L. Punaro, Chairman, CNGR, June 15, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/
 
 


hearing615/NGA--National%20Guard%20Commission%20Statement.pdf), p. 2. 
 
 7 The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned ([Washington, DC: The White House,] 2006), p. 43;
 
 


GAO, Hurricane Katrina: Better Plans and Exercises Need to Guide the Military’s Response to Catastrophic 
 
 

Natural Disasters, GAO-06-808T (Statement for the Record to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional
 
 


Threats and Capabilities, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives), May 2006, pp. [ii], 2, 6. 
 
 8

 Under Secretary Chu and Assistant Secretary Hall, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes
 
 


to the National Guard, transcript of December 13, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/ hearing121314/1213cngr­
 


panel1.pdf), p. 37. 
 
 

9

 National Governors Association, letter to Chairman Punaro, January 26, 2007. 
 
 10 Governor Easley, prepared statement before the CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Issues, June
 
 


15, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing615/Easley.doc), pp. 2–3. 
 
 

56 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Defense needs to work with her and other governors in a “collaborative manner to best 

determine force structure requirements.”11 

Governor George E. Pataki of New York said in a written statement that he has called out 

the National Guard 49 times since 1995. Although the New York National Guard was able 

to meet all mission requirements in each instance, at the time of his statement the New 

York National Guard reported having only 52 percent of critical equipment necessary for 

state emergencies. Of that, 20 percent was deployed to Iraq or was replaced by substitute 

equipment. He cited High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (Humvees) as an 

example of the kind of equipment critical to homeland missions, pointing out that the New 

York National Guard had available only 33 percent of its authorized allocation. Governor 

Pataki expressed support for integrating the National Guard leadership into force structure 

planning and decision making in order to address these equipment requirement shortfalls 

and to generate predictable deployment cycles for National Guard units.12 

Governor M. Michael Rounds of South Dakota wrote to the Commission expressing his 

concern about the adequacy of Army National Guard funding and end-strength, the 

sufficiency of the requirements of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) for National 

Guard assets to support homeland defense missions, the adverse effect of Air National 

Guard force structure cuts, the effects of the Army Force Generation Model, and 

mobilization issues. Governor Rounds reported that the South Dakota National Guard has 

more than $20 million worth of equipment in need of replacement.13 

Governor John H. Lynch of New Hampshire addressed the role of the National Guard in 

homeland security—an area in which, he noted, the National Guard, not the active 

component, serves as an operational force. The National Guard works as a “frontline firstresponder” in domestic emergencies and therefore “must be the lead military element with 

command and control authority.”14 

Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana, in her letter to the Commission, 

highlighted the lack of full-time manning for National Guard units, which she said hampers 

the ability to provide administrative support and equipment maintenance. She identified 

ongoing equipment shortages in the Louisiana National Guard, including Humvees, helicopters, medium and heavy tactical trucks, and generators, as a major concern. She noted 

that such equipment is vital to both federal and state service, and recommended that such 

requirements be fully funded.15 

Beyond the input that individual governors have provided to the Commission expressing 

concern about the status of National Guard personnel and equipment, the National 

Governors Association (NGA) has written repeatedly to the Department of Defense and 

11 Governor Minner, prepared witness statement before the CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve 
 
 

Issues, June 15, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing615/Minner.pdf), p. 3. 
 
 12 Governor Pataki, prepared witness statement before the CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve 
 
 

Issues, June 15, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing615/Pataki-CNGR%20testimony%20final.pdf), pp. 3–4, 6. 
 
 13 Governor Rounds, letter to Arnold L. Punaro, Chairman, CNGR, April 3, 2006. 
 
 14 Governor Lynch, letter to Arnold L. Punaro, Chairman, CNGR, May 17, 2006. 
 
 15 Governor Blanco, letter to Arnold L. Punaro, Chairman, CNGR, March 30, 2006. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 57 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Congress concerning proposals that would affect the National Guard.16 The NGA has 

stressed the need for the National Guard to be “properly equipped, efficiently trained, and 

fully staffed to meet its responsibilities.” NGA representatives have called on the Secretary 

of Defense to “work with the nation’s Governors in determining the future role of the Guard 

in homeland defense and other domestic missions.”17 

In a letter to the Commission dated January 26, 2007, the NGA urged that several fundamental principles guide efforts to enhance the National Guard: (1) the dual mission should 

be preserved and promoted, (2) the National Guard should receive training and equipment 

to handle both its state and federal missions, and (3) employers who support National 

Guard men and women should be supported—for example, through tax relief.18 

In a letter dated February 5, 2007, to Senators Leahy and Bond, the NGA urged the repeal 

of Section 1076 of the National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364), which expanded 

the President’s authority to federalize the National Guard during certain emergencies and 

disasters. The NGA complains that this portion of the NDAA was drafted “without consultation with governors and without full discussion or debate regarding the ramifications 

of such a change on domestic emergency response.” They also express concern that the 

provision could cause confusion about who has primary responsibility during a domestic 

emergency.19 

The volume, substance, and tenor of the communications between the state governors and 

the Commission, as well as other evidence, suggest that although consultation between 

Department of Defense officials and governors on matters related to the National Guard 

does occur, it is not sufficient. 

Under current practice, the states provide input to the Department of Defense about issues 

affecting the National Guard primarily by communications from the state adjutants general 

to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, who, as 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau, serves as this primary channel of communication, 

testified that there is no formal mechanism through which governors can consult directly 

with senior civilian leadership in the Defense Department on matters related to the 

National Guard’s state missions.20 General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, also commented on the lack of any formal consultation process for governors.21 

16 National Governors Association, letter to Senators Bill Frist and Harry Reid and to Representatives J. Dennis
 
 


Hastert and Nancy Pelosi, August 6, 2006. See also Public Law 109-364, National Defense Authorization Act for
 
 


Fiscal Year 2007, October 17, 2006, §1076. 
 
 17 Governor Mike Huckabee and Governor Janet Napolitano, National Governors Association, statement
 
 


submitted for the record before the CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserves (www.cngr.gov/
 
 


hearing615/NGA--National%20Guard%20Commission%20Statement.pdf), June 15, 2006, pp. 2, 4.
 
 
 18 Governor Michael F. Easley and Governor Mark Sanford, Co-Leads on the National Guard, NGA, letter to 
 
 

Arnold L. Punaro, Chairman, CNGR, January 26, 2007. 
 
 19 National Governors Association, letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Christopher Bond, February 5, 2007; 
 
 

Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau, testified that this provision was evidence 
 
 

that the Department of Defense has not met governors “halfway” and that its passage “doesn’t breed confidence 
 
 

and trust” between governors and DOD (testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the
 
 


National Guard, transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing [www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-1.pdf], p. 23). 
 
 20 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony, transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing, pp. 23, 31. 
 
 21 General Pace, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of
 
 


January 31, 2007, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-3.pdf) p. 15. 
 
 

58 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


The size of the Army and Air National Guard as a proportion of the total end-strength of the 

active and reserve components, and the increasing importance of the National Guard 

operationally for both overseas and homeland-related missions in today’s security environment, means that decisions affecting the force have greater significance than ever before for 

both the Department of Defense and governors. This reality points to the need for a more 

formalized arrangement by which governors may interface with executive branch decision 

makers who ultimately make important decisions with direct implications for state 

governments. 

Finding: Governors do not have a formal mechanism to consult 

with the Department of Defense on decisions affecting the 

National Guard of their state, including how the National 

Guard is organized, manned, trained, equipped, and 

utilized. 

Though not dispersed as extensively as the National Guard, active duty military and other 

reserve component units and personnel are also located in states and territories across the 

nation. Like the National Guard, these other federal military components, particularly the 

reserves, contain capabilities vital to civil support and emergency response, such as 

military police, chemical decontamination, transportation, and medical units.22 In fact, 

General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff for the Army, told the Commission that the 

Army Reserve is the nation’s “first Title 10 responder” to disasters and emergencies, 

echoing the description of the National Guard as the nation’s “first military responder.”23 

The active components also have numerous capabilities useful in responses to a disaster. 

However, unlike the National Guard, neither the federal military reserve units nor the 

federal active duty military units report to the state’s governor; their chain of command 

ultimately goes to the President. Federal military components also differ from the National 

Guard because, except in limited circumstances, they respond to a disaster only as part of a 

federal civil support mission at the request of a lead federal agency, such as the Department 

of Homeland Security.24 

Thus, in some scenarios two separate military forces—the state National Guard and the 

federal military—will be responding to the same disaster under two separate chains of 

command, one state and one federal. This was the case after Hurricane Katrina, when 

approximately 20,000 federal military personnel responded to the Gulf Coast commanded 

by federal military officers in a chain of command through NORTHCOM to the President. 

At the same time, some 50,000 National Guardsmen in state (Title 32) status deployed to the 

region pursuant to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact among the states. 

22 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support, p. 35. 
 
 23 General Schoomaker, testimony before the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, Hearing on 
 
 

Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of December 14, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/
 
 


hearing121314/1214cngr-panel2.pdf), p. 6; Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” p. II-13. 
 
 

24 Lieutenant General John. A. Bradley, Chief, Air Force Reserve, and Commander, Air Force Reserve 
 
 

Command, prepared witness statement before the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, hearing on 
 
 

National Guard and Reserves issues, July 19, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/July%2019/Bradley%20Testimony.doc),
 
 


pp. 15–17. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 59 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


One way to enhance the ability to achieve unity of effort in a domestic emergency response 

is through dual-hatted command. When officers are dual-hatted, they are able to command 

both Title 10 and Title 32 forces. They exercise command authority over their Title 10 forces 

in a line of command that runs from the forces, through the officer, and ultimately to the 

President. Simultaneously, they exercise command authority over their Title 32 forces in a 

line of command that runs from those forces, through the officer, and ultimately to the 

governor. 

An effort was undertaken during the first week after Hurricane Katrina made landfall to 

appoint a dual-hatted commander in Louisiana, but these attempts failed. Paul McHale, the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs, later 

testified that in his view, a dual-hat command—while appropriate for preplanned security 

events—was not a suitable mechanism to achieve the unity of effort necessary to effectively 

respond to a major disaster.25 

According to Lieutenant General Blum, since Hurricane Katrina, every state and territory 

has established a Joint Force Headquarters, commanded by a National Guard officer, 

capable of acting as a Joint Interagency Task Force for the purpose of coordinating federal 

and state military and civilian agency disaster response efforts.26 While these headquarters 

could provide the infrastructure to exercise unity of effort, DOD does not have policies, 

procedures, and plans in place to allow governors to exercise operational control over 

federal military assets within a state for emergency response purposes. 

Finding: There is no established process whereby governors can 

have operational control over federal military assets within a state to respond to emergencies. 

The American people fully expect that all military forces that are available and can help 

respond to a disaster will do so without unnecessary delays. In time of need, the public, 

who pays for the military and whom our armed services are pledged to serve, does not care 

whether the military personnel who come to their aid are active duty or from the National 

Guard or Reserves. 

Conclusion: The priorities of the states and their governors are not adequately 

considered in the Department of Defense’s policy and resourcing decisions related to 

the National Guard, even though governors are, and likely will continue to be, the 

leaders of most domestic emergency response efforts involving the National Guard. 

25 Assistant Secretary McHale, testimony before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, hearing on Hurricane Katrina and the Defense Department Response, February 9, 2006. 26 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony before the CNGR, transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing, pp. 43–44. 

60 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Recommendation: 

6.	 Congress should establish a bipartisan Council of Governors composed
 
 

of 10 governors, with bipartisan co-chairs, appointed by the President in 
 
 

consultation with the National Governors Association, to meet and
 
 

advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
 
 

and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to 
 
 

the National Guard and civil support missions. The Council should meet
 
 

at least semiannually or as otherwise requested by the Secretary of
 
 

Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security or the co-chairs. 
 
 

The Commission’s recommendation to create the Council of Governors on the National 

Guard was undertaken with one overarching goal in mind—to establish a formal and 

permanent channel of communication through which governors could regularly provide 

direct input concerning National Guard–related issues, particularly those involving the 

homeland, to the highest levels of the executive branch. 

Outside advice to the Secretaries and the President from governors who have experience 

with and knowledge of the National Guard, particularly in its state role, should lead to 

better-informed decisions about the range of National Guard issues that have ramifications 

for the states. With respect to the Department of Defense, the existence of the Council of 

Governors should provide the Secretary with a convenient forum through which to receive 

advice. It also would make governors aware of pending matters affecting the National 

Guard and the other reserve components, so that claims of surprise and lack of consultation 

by state authorities in the wake of the public announcement of controversial decisions, 

including ones related to resourcing and budgeting, should be minimized—itself an 

important goal to foster public trust. 

With respect to the Department of Homeland Security, the Commission believes the 

Council of Governors would provide a convenient way to inform governors about changes 

to the National Response Plan and to integrate them into the planning process as necessary. 

Similarly, the Council of Governors should provide the Homeland Security Council with a 

convenient, situationally available sounding board as that body pursues the development 

and implementation of homeland security policies. 

The Council of Governors would be modeled structurally after similar high-level advisory 

bodies, such as the Defense Science Board and Defense Business Board. However, in 

recognition of the fact that there are 54 state and territorial governors and of their 

significant responsibilities, the Commission recommends that only 10 governors, no more 

than 5 of whom should be from the same political party, be appointed to serve on the 

Council of Governors. 

The Commission recommends that the President be responsible for appointing governors to 

serve on the Council of Governors on the National Guard, in consultation with the National 

Governors Association. The Commission further recommends that co-chairmen, one from 

each major political party, be selected by the President. Terms of service would be for two 

years, but serving governors could be reappointed to additional terms. The Commission 

recommends that the council meet with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security 

at least semiannually, more frequently as necessary, subject to the call of either 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 61 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


departmental Secretary or the chairmen of the council. The Commission recommends that 

the Council of Governors meet with the Homeland Security Council at the invitation of the 

President (who chairs the Homeland Security Council) or at the request of both co-chairs of 

the Council of Governors. The Commission recommends that the Council of Governors be 

exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

The Commission views the Council of Governors as an effective way to give the states, 

through a representative set of their chief executives, a truly meaningful venue through 

which to tell the senior leadership of the executive branch about issues of concern related 

to the National Guard. 

Recommendation: 

7.	 Laws and procedures should be put into place to enable the President of 
 
 

the United States and a governor to consent in advance that National
 
 

Guard officers called to federal duty are not relieved of their National 
 
 

Guard state commission, can continue to command National Guard
 
 

troops, and are exempt from the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act. 
 
 

Presently, a National Guard service member is relieved of duty in the National Guard 

whenever the service member is placed on Title 10 active duty, except when (1) the service 

member is an officer, (2) the officer is a commander of a National Guard unit, (3) the 

President authorizes such service in both duty statuses, and (4) the state or territorial 

governor consents.27 DOD has not issued directives or instructions concerning the section 

of law implementing such “dual-hatting.” It has been employed in a few limited instances, 

such as national political conventions, preplanned security events, and the stand-up of the 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, a mixed active component–National Guard 

Air Force unit. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requires 

the Commission to examine the advisability and feasibility of implementing the provisions 

of section 544 of H.R. 5122, as passed by the House of Representatives in May 2006, which 

would expand the circumstances in which National Guard officers who have been ordered 

to active duty may continue to simultaneously perform National Guard duties. 

Section 544 would change the law so that any National Guard officer, not just a 

commander, may remain on duty in the National Guard while serving on federal active 

duty. Section 544 also would permit the President and the state or territorial governor to 

give the authorization and consent in advance of calling the officer to active duty to allow 

for the smooth succession of command. Finally, §544 would allow all National Guard 

officers on federal active duty, not just commanders, to perform any duty authorized by the 

laws of that officer’s state without regard to the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibitions against 

participation in civilian law enforcement activities. 

The Commission recommends that Congress approve the changes made by §544 subject to 

the following conditions. First, to the extent possible, state and federal authorities should 

27 32 U.S.C. §325. 

62 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


agree in advance under what circumstances the dual-hatted National Guard officers will be 

acting under Title 10 authority versus under state authority in carrying out their mission. 

Second, provision should be made regarding which authority, state or federal, will ordinarily 

exercise primary military justice jurisdiction. Third, the source of funding should be clear 

in advance of the activation. Fourth, some mechanism should be in place to account for 

special pays, promotion eligibility, health care entitlements, and other emoluments of 

service that may vary according to whether the person is in a state or federal duty status. 

Finally, it should be clear under what terms consent for the dual status may be withdrawn 

by federal or state officials. 

These changes are consistent with the increasing operational use of the National Guard. As 

more National Guard units are mobilized and deployed for operational missions, as active 

and reserve component personnel and units are commingled to meet operational exigencies, and as they operate in mutually supportive state and federal roles in homeland 

defense and civil support missions, it makes sense to increase the ability and ease with 

which National Guard officers may command units and operations composed of active 

component and National Guard personnel. 

Recommendation: 

8.	 As part of Department of Defense efforts to develop plans for con­
 

sequence management and support to civil authorities that account for 
 
 

state-level activities and incorporate the use of National Guard and
 
 

Reserve forces as first military responders (see Recommendation 19), the 
 
 

Department of Defense should develop protocols that allow governors to
 
 

direct the efforts of federal military assets responding to an emergency
 
 

such as a natural disaster. 
 
 

The guiding principle of emergency management doctrine in the United States is that 

problems should be solved at the lowest level possible. Therefore, unless their use would 

compromise national security, all military resources that may be needed to respond to a 

contingency—whether National Guard (in state active duty of Title 32) or active duty or 

reserve (in Title 10), and whether within the state or in another state—should be included 

in the state’s emergency response planning. As part of that planning, federal and state 

authorities should develop policies and procedures regarding the nature of the command 

relationship under which the troops will operate during particular contingencies. These 

agreements should be entered into before the crisis, rather than in an ad hoc manner while 

lives and property are at stake—as happened after Hurricane Katrina. 

This recommendation requires no changes to existing statutes. Current military doctrine 

explicitly allows members of the United States armed forces to serve under the operational 

control of foreign commanders, with the President retaining ultimate command over 

U.S. forces.28 If the command relationship with the President can be maintained while 

American troops are operating under the control of foreign commanders, we see no 

28 “In all multinational operations, even when operating under the operational control (OPCON) of a foreign 

commander, US commanders will maintain the capability to report separately to higher US military authorities 

in addition to foreign commanders” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Joint Operations,” Joint Publication 3-0, September 

16, 2006, p. II-5). 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 63 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


convincing reason why it cannot be maintained while troops are under the control of a state 

governor acting through the adjutant general. Governors routinely command National 

Guard troops from another state in a disaster response. Again, if governors can be trusted 

to command National Guard soldiers from their own state or from other states, as 

customarily occurs in disaster response, then they can be trusted to command federal active 

and reserve component forces as well. 

The assignment of active duty personnel to Title 32 National Guard commands is not novel. 

Federal law specifically authorizes that both enlisted members and commissioned officers 

may be detailed for duty with a state National Guard.29 In fact, Title 10 officers detailed in 

this fashion may accept a commission in the National Guard.30 Federal forces under the 

control of a governor would still be subject to the same restrictions placed on the Title 10 

military, such as Posse Comitatus law enforcement restrictions. 

We are not suggesting that it is necessary for federal military forces to be involved in a 

response under all circumstances or for all disasters. However, when federal military 

capabilities are needed to respond to an emergency, their involvement should not alter the 

fundamental approach to emergency management. The fact that a particular capability 

needed for the response resides in a federal active duty or reserve unit should not be an 

impediment to its use to preserve life or property. In most instances, such federal military 

forces should operate under the direction of state officials. 

One way to accomplish such an operation is through the use of dual-hatted commanders, 

who simultaneously hold ranks in the state National Guard and the federal, Title 10 military. 

They are therefore able to command both federal and state forces simultaneously.31 The 

Commission finds that dual-hatting has been a useful tool in coordinating federal and state 

civil support missions and, as discussed above, suggests that it be expanded for use in 

appropriate circumstances. 

But dual-hatted command is not a panacea for coordinating federal and state military 

capabilities in civil support activities. As long as there are two chains of command passing 

through that one commander—one from the President and one from the governor—there is 

the potential for confusion and conflict. This reality makes it imperative that state and 

federal authorities agree in advance about the full range of circumstances under which 

federal forces would be subject to state control. 

Therefore, state and federal officials should plan cooperatively for those situations where 

federal forces could be under the direction of a governor. This planning requires resolving a 

number of issues, such as who pays for the use of federal assets in a response and what is 

the precise nature of the command relationship. 

Since the President exercises ultimate federal command authority over federal troops,32 

Title 10 forces cannot be formally turned over to a governor in all respects. However, there 

are established command relationships that would allow the National Guard officer to 

29 32 U.S.C. §315. 
 
 30 32 U.S.C. §315. 
 
 

31 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” Joint Publication 3-26, August 2, 2005, p. II-9. 
 
 32 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Unified Action Armed Forces (UNAAF),” Joint Publication 0-2, July 10, 2001, p. xv. 
 
 

64 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


“command” Title 10 troops with the consent of both the President and the governor. If the 

President, or the President’s designee,33 agrees to do this, an order would be issued placing 

the Title 10 forces under the operational or tactical control of the governor. 

In a temporary situation such as a disaster response, a military organization could be 

“attached” to another organization for “operational” or “tactical” purposes, with 

“administrative control,” including disciplinary authority, being retained by the parent 

organization. Such divisions between operational, tactical, and administrative control are 

commonplace in the military operating environment. If a Title 32 commander were exercising control over Title 10 forces, this division of authority would avoid having the Title 32 

commander exercise disciplinary (Uniform Code of Military Justice) authority over his or 

her Title 10 subordinates. 

Thus, as part of emergency preparedness and response planning efforts, DOD should 

develop protocols that allow governors to direct the efforts of federal military assets 

responding to an emergency such as a natural disaster. 

33 3 U.S.C. §301. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 65 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


C. THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

HISTORY 

The constitutional basis for the modern militia system is found in Article I, section 8, of the 

U.S. Constitution: 

The Congress shall have the power... 

[clause 15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of 

the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 

[clause 16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia 

and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service 

of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment 

of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the 

discipline prescribed by Congress[.] 

In the Federal Militia Act of 1792, Congress attempted to codify a national policy regarding 

the militia. This act established a continuing military census to provide ready reserves that 

could be called into federal service if the need arose. The law created a uniform age of 

military obligation and presumed the arrangement of the state militias into organized 

units.1

 Previously, these militias had operated under the states’ complete control. 

For more than 100 years the minimalist Militia Act of 1792 governed how the militia was 

organized. But the emergence of organized reserves as a part of modern warfare in Europe 

during the second half of the 19th century created pressure for change. The modern 

National Guard arguably began in 1903 with the passage by Congress of the Militia Act.2 

The Militia Act divided the class of able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 

into an “organized militia,” to be known as the National Guard of the several states, and the 

“reserve militia,” which later statutes have termed the “unorganized militia.”3

 This law 

further required the National Guard to conform to the regular Army organizationally and 

provided that federal funds and regular Army instructors should be used to train its 

members. In effect, this legislation made the National Guard the reserve component of the 

Army. 

The National Defense Act of 1916 continued the process of increasing federal control over 

the National Guard. This law required National Guard members to take an oath to the 

President (as well as to the governor) and provided for more detailed federal regulation and 

oversight of the state Guards. Section 81 of this law established a Militia Bureau of the War 

Department under the supervision of the Secretary of War.4

 The National Defense Act of 

1

 Second Cong., 1st sess. (May 8, 1792), Chapter 33, §1. 
 
 

2

 The Militia Act of 1903 (57th Cong., 2nd sess. [January 21, 1903], Chapter 196, §3) is commonly known as the 
 
 

Dick Act; it was repealed in 1956. 
 
 

3 Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 342 n. 11 (1990). 
 
 4

 64th Cong., 1st sess. (June 3, 1916), Chapter 134, §81. 
 
 

66 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


1933 renamed the Militia Bureau the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and laid out the 

qualifications for the position of its Chief.5 

Following World War II, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947. This law 

abolished the War Department and created the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force. In addition, the act made the National Guard Bureau a joint bureau of the Army and 

Air Force. The National Guard Bureau was assigned the responsibility of being the channel 

of communication between these two departments and the several states on matters 

pertaining to the National Guard.6

 Thus, the National Guard Bureau owes much of its 

current configuration and responsibilities to this law. Today it remains a joint bureau of the 

Army and Air Force.7 

THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU’S EVOLVING ROLE 

The National Guard Bureau’s current responsibilities are contained in its charter, and the 

contours of the charter are dictated in large measure by statute. Under the Reserve Officers 

Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) of 1994, the National Guard Bureau Charter is 

written jointly by the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Air Force.8

 Among its key 

statutory duties defined in 10 U.S.C. §10503 are the responsibility to allocate unit structure, 

strength authorizations, and resources to the Army and Air National Guard; to prescribe 

training discipline and requirements; to monitor and assist the states in the organization, 

maintenance, and operation of National Guard units; to plan and administer the National 

Guard budget; and to supervise the acquisition, supply, and accounting of federal property 

issued to the National Guard.9 

The National Guard Bureau is neither a reserve component nor an operational command. 

Its chief missions are to participate in the formulation, development, and coordination of 

programs, policies, and plans pertaining to the Army and Air National Guard; to develop 

and administer certain operating programs based on guidance from the Army and Air 

Force; and to participate with and assist the states in the organization, maintenance, and 

operation of their National Guard units so as to provide trained and equipped units 

available for service to augment the active Army and Air Force in time of war or 

emergency.10 

With the advent of the global war on terror, the NGB has assumed increased 

responsibilities for domestic homeland-related missions in the wake of the terrorist attacks 

of September 11, 2001, the NGB coordinated the deployment of 11,000 members of the 

Army and Air National Guard to assist law enforcement and other federal agencies in 

securing more than 440 of America’s commercial airports.11 

5

 73rd Cong., 1st sess. (June 15, 1933), Chap. 87, §81. 
 
 6

 80th Cong., 1st sess. (July 26, 1947); see especially Chap. 343, §207. 
 
 7

 10 U.S.C. §10501. 
 
 

8

 National Guard Bureau Charter, September 1, 1995; reprinted in Appendix 5, below. 
 
 9

 10 U.S.C. §10503(1)–(6). 
 
 

10 National Guard Bureau Charter. 
 
 

11 Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau, prepared statement before the CNGB, 
 
 

Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, January 31, 2007 (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/ 
 
 

CNGB%20testimony%20to%20Commission%2031%20Jan%20Record.pdf), p. 5. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 67 
 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Today the NGB provides liaison with every governor—each a state or territorial 

commander in chief; coordinates National Guard domestic emergency response, homeland 

defense, and support to homeland security operations nationwide; supports combatant 

commanders, including the regional combatant commanders, through 54 state partnership 

programs; administers 54 Joint Force Headquarters, one for each state and territory; and 

manages the readiness and resourcing of the Army and Air National Guard for the federal 

Title 10 warfighting mission.12 The National Guard Bureau also is implementing pilot 

programs to strengthen the National Guard’s ability to respond to events involving weapons 

of mass destruction and to protect critical infrastructure.13 

As Lieutenant General H Steven Blum testified before the Commission, 

In the post-9/11 environment, such operations have increased markedly 

both by States unilaterally and by the increased use of the National Guard 

in unified state/federal missions like the airport security, G-8 summit, 

Winter Olympics, Hurricane Katrina response, border security and other 

domestic operations. The resounding success of these operations in the 

American homeland has been and will continue to be heavily dependent 

upon the unique experience of the National Guard in working effectively 

with elected civilian leaders during emergencies inside the United States— 

a highly sensitive and politically charged atmosphere. This is the unique 

and important role of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the 

security environment of America today.14 

The Chief of the National Guard Bureau possesses detailed knowledge of the status and 

capabilities of National Guard forces in the states. As noted by Lieutenant General Blum, 

the National Guard Bureau became the de facto force provider for National Guard forces in 

the response to Hurricane Katrina and contributed very positively to the overall military 

response, albeit in a somewhat ad hoc fashion. More than 50,000 Army and Air National 

Guard troops deployed to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas.15 

More recently, the National Guard was directed to assist the U.S. Customs and Border 

Patrol in “Operation Jump Start.” Since June 2006, the NGB has organized the deployment 

of approximately 6,000 Army and Air National Guard personnel in operations along 

America’s southwest border.16 The operation once again demonstrates the important role of 

the NGB in facilitating an interagency response to homeland security requirements. 

The increased use of the National Guard for diverse homeland-related operations is likely to 

continue in the future.17 However, as discussed earlier in our report, it is difficult to assess 

12 Lieutenant General Blum, letter to the Major General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (ret.), Chairman, CNGR, 
 
 

November 30, 2006, pp. 1–2, 4, 5. 
 
 

13 GAO, Reserve Forces: Actions Needed to Better Prepare the National Guard for Future Overseas and Domestic 
 
 

Missions, GAO-05-21 (Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, and Chairman, 
 
 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, House of Representatives)
 
 


November 2004, pp. 27–28. 
 
 

14 Lieutenant General Blum, letter to Chairman Punaro, pp. 4–5. 
 
 15 Lieutenant General Blum, prepared statement, p. 8. 
 
 16 Lieutenant General Blum, prepared statement, p. 11. 
 
 17 John J. Hamre and Christine E. Wormuth, Center for Strategic and International Studies, letter to Major 
 
 

General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (ret.), Chairman, CNGR, December 14, 2006, Attachment A, pp. 2–3. 
 
 

68 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


the National Guard’s preparedness to perform future homeland defense and civil support 

missions because its role in these capacities has not been fully defined, requirements have 

not been identified, and standards have not been developed against which to measure 

preparedness.18 

Finding: Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard Bureau has 

assumed increased responsibilities for homeland-related 

missions. This trend will continue in the future. 

Finding: The global war against terrorism has placed increased 

demands on and created new missions for the National 

Guard to provide forces for both overseas and domestic 

missions. 

In performing its many functions, the National Guard Bureau has maintained informal 

lines of communication with the offices of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and 

combatant commands such as U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and Joint Forces 

Command (JFCOM).19 However, the existing National Guard Bureau Charter does not 

formally establish these additional relationships and coordinating responsibilities, which 

have taken on a substantial proportion of the NGB’s time and resources. As a result, and 

because of other factors described earlier, the current organizational configuration of 

the NGB is outdated and incomplete. 

At the Commission’s hearing on January 31, 2007, Lieutenant General Blum explained that 

the last major change to the National Guard Bureau’s charter took place in 1947. Since 

that time, the Bureau has adapted to changes brought on by major reforms in the 

Department of Defense, such as the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 

Reorganization Act of 1986, as well as to the major historical events that have affected the 

government and the entire country, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.20 

It is widely known that substantial numbers of National Guard units and personnel have 

deployed to and continue to serve in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. It 

is also beyond question that the National Guard’s homeland-related missions are assuming 

increasing importance. 

Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Preparedness George W. Foresman 

testified before the Commission that “the nature of the asymmetric threat in the 21st 

century means that we need to have a better capability for protection and prevention 

missions here at home, missions that can be carried out by the National Guard in support 

of the civilian community.”21 However, the National Guard Bureau has no formal relation18 GAO, Reserve Forces, p. 20. 
 
 19 Memorandum for the Record, meeting with the National Guard Bureau staff, October 23, 2006. 
 
 20 Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau, testimony before the CNGB, Hearing on
 
 


Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/
 
 


0131cngr-1.pdf), p. 13. 
 
 

21 Under Secretary Foresman, prepared statement before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the 
 
 

National Guard, December 13, 2006 (http://www.cngr.gov/hearing121314/ 
 
 

13DecForesmanCNGRTestimonyFINAL%5B1%5D.pdf), p. 3. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 69 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


ship in law or in charter with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Similarly, state 

and local emergency first responders would like to see improved coordination between 

federal agencies in meeting homeland security requirements. As Chuck McHugh, the 

Director of the Arizona Emergency Management Agency, explained to the Commission, 

when it comes to civilian emergency response working with military assets, “It’s all about 

relationships.”22 The Commission believes that these interactions must be established on a 

more formal basis to improve cooperation and accountability. 

The White House concluded in its 2006 report on the federal response to Hurricane Katrina 

that the National Guard Bureau needs a defined role in the realm of homeland security; it 

also concluded that the Department of Defense should ensure that the National Guard 

focuses on increasing its integration with active duty forces for homeland security plans 

and activities.23 The Commission agrees. 

Finding: Under its current structure, the National Guard Bureau is 

not optimized to communicate, collaborate, and coordinate 

with U.S. Northern Command, the Joint Directorate of 

Military Support, Joint Forces Command, and the Department of Homeland Security with regard to homeland 

defense and domestic civil support missions. 

Finding: National Guard forces are no longer the Cold War strategic 

reserve they were when the National Guard Bureau was 

established. The joint bureau structure of the National 

Guard Bureau is not sufficiently flexible to adjust to their 

increased use for domestic and overseas missions. 

Finding: The Chief of the National Guard Bureau’s detailed understanding of the status and capabilities of National Guard 

forces would best be utilized by better integrating the 

Chief and the National Guard Bureau into the workings of 

U.S. Northern Command, the joint command in charge of 

most Title 10 homeland defense and civil support 

activities. 

Conclusion: The National Guard Bureau and other elements of the Department of 

Defense are not properly structured to fully integrate the National Guard into 

domestic contingency planning, training, exercising, and operations. 

22 Chuck McHugh, prepared statement before the CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Issues,
 
 


September 20, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing918-21/McHugh%20CNGR%20Hearing.pdf), p. 1.
 
 
 23 The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned ([Washington, DC: The White House,] 2006), 
 
 

p. 55. 

70 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Recommendation: 

9.	 The National Guard Bureau should be made a joint activity of the
 
 


Department of Defense, rather than a joint bureau of the Army and Air
 
 


Force. This designation should not change the National Guard Bureau’s
 
 


relationship with the Army and Air Force related to Title 10 matters and 
 
 

planning and budgeting for Title 32 mission requirements. 
 
 

The Commission researched the organizational, structural, and policy consequences of 

designating the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Department of Defense. No 

publication or package of authorities describes how to form or design a joint activity, and 

there is no such formal designation within the Department. Nevertheless, when the term 

joint activity appears, it mainly refers to an organization involving two or more services. 

Given that the National Guard Bureau routinely interacts not only with two services— 

chiefly the Army and Air Force—but with a variety of unified commands, the Joint Staff, 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Guard Bureau is a joint activity of 

the Department of Defense. 

Except to the extent discussed below, the Commission does not recommend that 

designating the National Guard Bureau a joint activity should result in any change in the 

day-to-day relationship between the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the 

Secretaries of the Army and Air Force. However, the Commission recognizes that if this 

recommendation is adopted, then the process for nominating and selecting the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau (CNGB) may likewise need to be modified. 

Recommendation: 

10. The statute authorizing the National Guard Bureau Charter should be 
 
 

amended to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a senior 
 
 

advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, through the
 
 

Chairman, to the Secretary of Defense, for matters pertaining to the
 
 

National Guard in its nonfederal role. The charter also should be revised 
 
 

to create an advisory relationship between the Chief of the National
 
 

Guard Bureau and the commanders of the combatant commands for the
 
 

United States, and between the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and
 
 

the Department of Homeland Security. 
 
 

This recommendation recognizes the increasing importance of the Department of Defense’s 

role in homeland security and homeland defense. Currently, notwithstanding the position of 

the White House and the Department’s own homeland defense strategy,24 the Department 

does not adequately make civil support a high-priority mission or resource the reserve 

components for civil support missions.25 The Chief of the National Guard Bureau could 

24 The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, Appendix A, Recommendations 24 and 27; 

Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense,] 2005), p. 35. 25 General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on the 

Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of the December 14, 2006, hearing (www.cngr.gov/ 

hearing121314/1214cngr-panel2.pd), pp. 24–25. See also GAO, Hurricane Katrina: Better Plans and Exercises 

Needed to Guide Military’s Response to Catastrophic Natural Disasters, GAO-06-643 (Statement for the Record to 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 71 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


provide the Chairman and the Secretary valuable advice across a broad spectrum of issues 

related to the use of non-federalized National Guard forces in these missions. The 

Commission notes that during its recent hearing, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, testified that he believes an advisory relationship like that proposed by the 

Commission is needed and would be beneficial to him in his role as Chairman.26 

This proposal also recognizes that the Army and Air National Guard’s role in responding to 

domestic contingencies necessarily requires extensive interaction with other organizations 

within the Department of Defense, particularly U.S. Northern Command and Joint Forces 

Command, and with DHS, as well as with state and local authorities. Making the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau a senior advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

nonfederal National Guard matters would expand access to the CNGB’s expertise, would 

maintain direct reporting, and would mitigate the difficulties inherent in the current 

structure, which requires the CNGB to work through Army and Air Force channels. The 

proposed change to the National Guard Bureau’s charter would complement the steps 

taken by the Department of Defense in moving the office of the Director of Military Support 

to the Joint Staff. This proposal would create a formal mechanism by which the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau could provide input to both the Chairman and to the Joint Staff 

with respect to the National Guard’s ability to support homeland-related operational 

requirements. It would also encourage greater unity of effort between U.S. Northern 

Command, DHS, and the National Guard units that are employed in responding to 

domestic contingencies. In the Commission’s judgment, this recommendation has the 

potential to achieve greater efficiency and better advice about the National Guard than the 

Chairman and Secretary receive under the current organizational construct. 

Recommendation: 

11. The statute authorizing the National Guard Bureau Charter should be 
 
 

amended to include the Bureau’s responsibility for “Facilitating and 
 
 

coordinating with other Federal agencies, Combatant Commands, and
 
 

with the several States on the use of the National Guard not in active
 
 

Federal service,” and other such changes as necessary to implement the
 
 

spirit and letter of the Commission’s recommendations. The National
 
 

Guard Bureau should not become an operational command. 
 
 

The Commission recommends amending the statute authorizing the National Guard 

Bureau charter to include responsibility for facilitation and coordination with federal 

agencies, the states, U.S. Northern Command, and Joint Forces Command on the use of 

nonfederalized National Guard forces for domestic contingency operations, support to civil 

authorities, and other homeland activities. Although the Commission does not believe that 

the National Guard Bureau should become an operational command, the Commission 

believes that it should assign cells of personnel to DHS, NORTHCOM, and JFCOM to assist 

in operational planning. This recommendation is consistent with the view that a more 

the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, Committee on Armed Services, 
 
 

House of Representatives), May 25, 2006, p. 16. 
 
 

26 General Pace, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of
 
 


January 31, 2007, hearing (http://www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-3.pdf), p. 11. 
 
 

72 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


integrated relationship between the NGB and these other organizations is necessary in 

order to ensure better unity of effort in responding to homeland-related contingencies. 

The Commission believes that the National Guard Bureau should continue to report to and 

work with the Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force to facilitate and 

coordinate the use of National Guard units operating in active federal service under 

Title 10. Under the Commission’s proposal, the National Guard Bureau would still retain its 

responsibilities to the Army and the Air Force in coordinating the use of national guardsmen when federalized. 

Recommendation: 

12. Immediately after enactment of the statutory changes suggested above, 
 

the Secretary of Defense should draft a new charter for the National
 

Guard Bureau, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Army and Air
 

Force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reflecting the
 

statutory changes suggested in Recommendations 10 and 11; the charter 
 

should be reviewed periodically to ensure that it is updated 
 

appropriately. 
 

The current National Guard Bureau Charter does not reflect some of the key roles and 

responsibilities that are now within the purview of the National Guard Bureau. For 

example, the current charter does not reflect the role of the NGB in coordinating the 

National Guard’s activities in drug interdiction, airport security, border security, the State 

Partnership Program, humanitarian operations, and various homeland security activities. 

It also does not take into consideration the existence of new unified commands like 

U.S. Northern Command and new offices such as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs. The current charter is simply out of date. 

The Commission concludes that the National Guard Bureau Charter should reflect the 

actual and significant responsibilities of the organization. In particular, it is important that 

the charter speak to the new roles of the National Guard Bureau in the realm of homeland 

security and to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau’s new advisory duties to the 

Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Because many of these 

responsibilities involve the National Guard’s use in its nonfederal status, the Commission 

believes that the Secretary of Defense, rather than the Secretaries of the Army and Air 

Force, should have the primary duty to draft an updated charter for the National Guard 

Bureau. 

The Commission concurs with the views on H.R. 5200 and S. 2658 of Lieutenant General 

Blum, who wrote to the Commission that “it is desirable and should be feasible for a 

charter to be promulgated by the Secretary of Defense so long as the needs of the two 

Services remain fully incorporated in the document.”27 The Commission shares this sentiment and also believes the charter should be subject to periodic review to ensure that it is 

current with Defense Department policy, strategy, requirements, and planning documents. 

27 Lieutenant General Blum, letter to Chairman Punaro, p. 6. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 73 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Recommendation: 

13. The grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau should be
 
 


increased to general, O-10, and the position should be reevaluated 
 
 

periodically to ensure that the duties required to be performed by the
 
 


CNGB remain commensurate with grade O-10. 
 
 

The Commission recommends increasing the grade of the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau to general based on the changing and expanding responsibilities of the position in 

this time of war, both those enumerated in the current National Guard Bureau statute and 

charter and the numerous other duties which should be and are performed but which are 

not described in the statute or charter. Included among the required responsibilities not in 

the current statute or charter are a formal relationship between the CNGB and the Joint 

Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the unified commands, and other federal 

agencies on nonfederalized National Guard matters, including planning and coordinating 

the use of National Guard forces in homeland-related operations and exercises. We base 

this recommendation on careful analysis of the magnitude and complexity of the combined 

duties and responsibilities required to be performed, and the significance of the decisions 

made, by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. 

The duties and responsibilities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau are not 

comparable to those of combatant commanders who exercise operational command 

authority over large numbers of personnel in major geographic areas. Nor are they directly 

comparable to the duties of the service Chiefs who, with their service Secretaries, are 

responsible for large budgets and hold ultimate responsibility to organize, man, train, and 

equip their service members under Title 10.28 

The Chief of the National Guard Bureau does, however, perform service-chief-like duties 

simultaneously for the National Guard components of two separate services, a complex 

task. The CNGB is also the primary liaison between the Department of Defense and 

governors and adjutants general of all 54 states and territories. These state officials look to 

the CNGB for guidance about the resources, training, and equipment for their National 

Guard. In addition, the CNGB serves as the conduit for information from them to DOD 

officials in the planning, programming, and budgeting processes. 

Both the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Research Division of the 

Library of Congress have examined the requirements associated with general officer 

positions. The GAO identified 16 different factors used to validate general and flag officer 

requirements, including the grade and position of superiors and subordinates; the type, 

scope, and level of function; relations with U.S. and foreign government officials and with 

the public; the number, type, and value of resources managed; geographical area of 

responsibility; authority to make decisions and commit resources; the development of 

policy; and the effect on the prestige of the nation or the armed forces.29 Similarly, the 

Federal Research Division analyzed the numbers and typical duties of three- and four-star 

billets. This study noted that neither the Chairman nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether as 

28 See 10 U.S.C. §3033 (for Army Chief of Staff); §8033 (for USAF Chief of Staff). 
 
 

29 GAO, Military Personnel: General and Flag Officer Requirements Are Unclear Based on DOD’s 2003 Report to 
 
 

Congress, GAO-04-488 (Report to Congressional Committees), April 2004, pp. 29–31. 
 
 

74 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


a collective body or as individual service Chiefs, have any command authority over 

combatant forces. Other four-star positions were assessed in terms of functional 

responsibilities, complexity of the position, and dual roles.30 The Commission’s review of 

these studies, including the criteria enumerated in the GAO study in combination with the 

required responsibilities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, supports the 

conclusion that the position should carry the grade of general. 

The Commission agrees with the position of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

expressed during his recent testimony before the Commission, that when the required 

duties of a general officer equate to those of an O-10, then the position should be so 

designated.31 The Commission concludes, based on the duties that the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau is required to perform, that the position should be designated an O-10 billet. 

The Commission recommends that the position of CNGB should be reviewed periodically to 

ensure that the duties required to be performed remain commensurate with grade of O-10. 

Furthermore, the Commission recommends that the official qualifications for the position 

of Chief of the National Guard Bureau reflect the level of experience, expertise, skills, and 

stature commensurate with the post. 

Recommendation: 

14. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau should not be a member of the
 
 


Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
 
 

The Commission does not recommend that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau be a 

member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the grounds that the duties of the members of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff are greater than those of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. For 

example, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is not responsible for organizing, 

manning, training, and equipping the National Guard to the same extent as are the service 

Chiefs of Staff. The qualifications to be selected as a service Chief of Staff also are 

materially different from and more rigorous than those for selection to be Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau. Moreover, making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a 

member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would run counter to intra- and inter-service integration 

and would reverse progress toward jointness and interoperability: making the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be fundamentally 

inconsistent with the status of the Army and Air National Guard as reserve components of 

the Army and Air Force. Finally, the Commission concludes that this proposal would be 

counter to the carefully crafted organizational and advisory principles established in the 

Goldwater-Nichols legislation. 

The Commission notes that Lieutenant General Blum, the sitting Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau, wrote to the Commission: “In practice, the fact that my position is not on 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff has in no way hindered me from responding to the President’s or to 

the Secretary of Defense’s requests for advice....An advisory role [to the JCS] limited to 

those periods when the Joint Chiefs are deliberating on matters related to the domestic 

employment of the National Guard under state command for emergencies, homeland 

30 Priscilla Offenhauer, “Increasing the Rank of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,” Federal Research 
 
 

Division, Library of Congress (February 2007), pp. 2, 3.
 
 


31 General Pace, transcript of testimony before the CNGR, January 31, 2007, pp. 6–7. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 75 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


defense and support for homeland security operations and other National Guard–specific 

matters, might be a more practical and appropriate reform.”32 

Department of Defense civilian and military leaders have recommended against placing the 

CNGB on the JCS. When asked about this issue by members of Congress, Deputy Secretary 

of Defense Gordon England said, “I believe it is a negative effect, rather than a positive 

effect. Organizationally, I think it sounds good, but it is not a good integrating approach.”33 

In his testimony before the Commission, General Pace concurred: “We spent 20-plus years, 

first kicking and dragging our feet and then embracing jointness, as directed by the 

Goldwater-Nichols Act, all to get one Army, one Navy, one Air Force, one Marine Corps, 

one Joint Force. If you make this individual a member of the Joint Chiefs, you create two 

Armies and two Air Forces. You’re going absolutely 100 percent counter to the thrust of 

Goldwater-Nichols and you will do major damage to the synergy we’ve gotten.”34 

John J. Hamre and Christine Wormuth of the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies informed the Commission: “The Chief of the National Guard Bureau should not be 

made a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff....Elevating the Chief, NGB to the Joint 

Chiefs...[would] risk sending the message that the National Guard is a separate military 

service, and it is not. If implemented,...[this] could undermine efforts to further integrate 

the National Guard, particularly the Army Guard, into the Army and Air Force and 

exacerbate longstanding AC-RC cultural tensions.”35 The Commission concurs and 

therefore recommends against this provision of the National Guard Empowerment Act. 

Recommendation: 

15. The current position of Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
 
 


Staff for National Guard Matters should not be eliminated. 
 
 

The Commission does not recommend that the position of Assistant to the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff for National Guard Matters be eliminated, regardless of the ultimate disposition of the 

companion proposal in the National Guard Empowerment Act to make the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As described above, the Commission recommends that the 

National Guard Bureau charter be revised to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

a senior advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, through him, to the 

Secretary of Defense, with respect to the nonfederal aspects of the National Guard. 

Nevertheless, the Commission believes that the position of the Assistant to the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for National Guard Matters (ACJCS-NGM) should not be 

eliminated. 

The Commission recommends keeping the position of ACJCS-NGM intact because of its 

importance to the decisions made by the CJCS and by the Joint Staff generally. The Chiefs 

of the Army Reserve, Naval Reserve, and Air Force Reserve, as well as the Director of the 

32 Lieutenant General Blum, letter to Chairman Punaro, November 30, 2006, p. 4. 
 
 33 Deputy Secretary England, transcript of testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Hearing on 
 
 

National Guard Enhancement, June 13, 2006, p. 24. 
 
 

34 General Pace, transcript of testimony before the CNGR, January 31, 2007, p. 28. 
 
 35 Hamre and Wormuth, letter to Chairman Punaro, December 14, 2006, Attachment A, p. 1.
 
 


76 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Air National Guard and a representative from the Coast Guard Reserve, unanimously favor 

retaining the current functioning of the ACJCS-NGM and ACJCS-RM. All agreed that the 

existing system was working well and that no changes were necessary.36 Lieutenant General 

Blum wrote: “It is my view that the current position of Assistant to the Chairman for 

National Guard matters should not be eliminated under any circumstances. This position 

provides invaluable coordination capabilities to the Chairman and the Joint staff and is not 

in any way a substitute for a more formal relationship between the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Further, the position [of 

ACJCS-NGM] is now and would remain an essential aid to the Chairman even if such a 

relationship were to be formalized.”37 

General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Commission: 

I value both of them [the ACJCS-NGM and the Assistant to the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve Matters] very much and I would not 

want to lose those members of my staff, even though I do want to have the 

chief of the National Guard Bureau be an advisor to me. There’s a 

difference. There’s a staff function—I’ve got a J-1 who helps me with 

personnel and a J-2 who helps me with intelligence. That does not mean 

that they’re doing the J-1 business of the services or that they’re doing the 

intel business of the CIA, for example. But they’re helping me, from a staff 

level, focus on my own attention on the issues that are important and 

helping me develop opinions and the like, which is different than advice on 

how to properly employ, utilize, man, equip the Guard and Reserve. 

From where I stand, both are needed. Keep what you’ve given me and add 

the advisor role to the chief of the National Guard to be my advisor and, 

through me, to be an advisor to the secretary of Defense.38 

The Commission concludes that the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for 

National Guard Matters serves important functions as a conduit of information about the 

National Guard to the Joint Staff, a monitor of Joint Staff activities for the National Guard, 

and a coordinator and liaison between the National Guard and the Joint Staff. In view of 

the virtually unanimous support for retaining the position voiced by those best situated to 

assess its value, the Commission recommends against its abolition. 

36 Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, Chief, USAR, Questions for the Record (QFR) answers submitted to the 
 
 

CNGR, December 4, 2006, p. 21; Vice Admiral John G. Cotton, Chief, USNR, QFR answers submitted 
 
 

September 26, 2006, p. 17; Lieutenant General John A. Bradley, Chief, USAFR, QFR answers submitted 
 
 

December 7, 2006, p. 31; Lieutenant General Craig R. McKinley, DANG, QFR answers submitted August 10, 
 
 

2006, p. 12; Rear Admiral John C. Acton, USCGR, QFR answers submitted December 7, 2006, p. 21. 
 
 37 Lieutenant General Blum, letter to Chairman Punaro, pp. 8–9. 
 
 38 General Pace, transcript of testimony before the CNGR, January 31, 2007, p. 12. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 77 
 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


D. U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND 

U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) is the unified command with primary responsibility for homeland defense and civil support missions.1

 Joint Publication 3-26, “Homeland 

Security,” describes its mission as conducting “operations to deter, prevent, and defeat 

threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories, and interests within the 

assigned area of responsibility (AOR) and as directed by the President or SecDef [Secretary 

of Defense], provide military assistance to civil authorities including [consequence 

management] operations. USNORTHCOM embodies the principles of unity of effort and 

unity of command as the single, responsible, designated DOD [Department of Defense] 

commander for overall command and control of DOD support to civil authorities within the 

USNORTHCOM AOR.”2

 NORTHCOM views homeland defense, but not civil support, as its 

primary mission.3 

Under existing procedures, if a major crisis occurs in a state where both federal and 

nonfederal (National Guard under state control) forces provide civil support, military 

assistance is coordinated at the federal level in two ways. NORTHCOM controls the 

movement of Title 10 active and reserve forces into the state and maintains command and 

control over them. Simultaneously, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) coordinates the 

movement of National Guard forces in Title 32 status; but once in state, they are 

commanded by the governor.4

 Consequently, there are two separate entities coordinating, 

communicating, and organizing the large-scale movement of military forces. As the White 

House report and the two congressional reports on Hurricane Katrina make clear, this 

arrangement is fraught with the potential for confusion and error. All three reports indicate 

that despite heroic efforts on the parts of the NGB and NORTHCOM, National Guard and 

Title 10 military deployments were not well-coordinated.5 

Finding: The commander of U.S. Northern Command is responsible for the planning, exercising, and command and control 

1

 U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Pacific Command play similar roles for those parts of the homeland that 

fall within their area of operations (Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” Joint Publication 3-26, August 2, 

2005, pp. II-7 to II-11). 

2

 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Homeland Security,” pp. vii–viii. 3

 “As we act to support civil authorities in responding to natural disasters, we never lose focus on our primary 

mission of homeland defense” (Lieutenant General Joseph R. Inge, Deputy Commander, U.S. Northern 

Command, prepared witness statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on 

Emerging Threats and Capabilities, hearing on the roles and missions of the Department of Defense regarding 

homeland defense and support to civil authorities in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal 

Year 2007 and the Future Years Defense Program, March 10, 2006 [http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/ 

2006/March/Inge%2003-10-06.pdf], p. 6). 

4

 “National Guard Bureau Joint Staff Manual” [Draft] ([Arlington, VA: National Guard Bureau,] 2004), p. M-8. 

States would also be able to use the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) to obtain National 

Guardsmen from other states. But as the response to Katrina showed, the EMAC process is unworkable for the 

large-scale movement of troops; states therefore would be likely to rely instead on the NGB to coordinate the 

movement of troops (Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A 

Nation Still Unprepared, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., May 2006, pp. 507–8). 5

 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still 

Unprepared, p. 512; House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to 

Hurricane Katrina, A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the 

Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., February 2006, pp. 218–19; The 

Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned ([Washington, DC: The White House,] 2006), p. 43. 

78 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 

of assigned and apportioned Title 10 forces in response to 

a domestic emergency. The National Guard Bureau coordinates the movement of nonfederalized National Guard 

forces. This arrangement can impair the coordination of 

the military response to disaster. 

The Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support recognizes that there should be a 

“focused reliance” on the reserve components for homeland defense and civil support 

activities.6

 Admiral Keating, NORTHCOM’s current commander, noted that there are a 

number of advantages that national guardsmen bring to disaster response beyond providing 

the bulk of the forces, including their experience in working with first responders and their 

familiarity with local conditions.7

 In fact, the National Guard can be expected to make up 

most of the forces responding to a disaster. For example, the National Guard provided 70 

percent of the military force for Hurricane Katrina.8 Reserve components are forward 

deployed and placed in every state and large city in America, and thus they would be the 

most logical first choice to react swiftly to a local disaster. Yet just 69 of the 850 military 

billets at NORTHCOM—only 8 percent—are currently active Guard and Reserve. Of those 

69, only 39—less than 5 percent of the 850 billets—are Army and Air National Guardsmen.9 

There is one senior billet filled by a national guardsman, the Chief of Staff position, but the 

senior staff are primarily active duty officers or civilians with little experience and 

knowledge of the reserve forces that will be called on to deal with a domestic incident. U.S. 

Northern Command Headquarters would benefit from greater access to the knowledge and 

experience of full-time reserve members. Admiral Keating himself reported that during the 

response to Hurricane Katrina he had little sense of National Guard capabilities beyond the 

number of troops being deployed.10 

Like other regional unified commands, NORTHCOM is supported by service components. 

Two of NORTHCOM’s four service component headquarters are organized, led, and 

manned by active duty Title 10 forces without the benefit of reserve force expertise. At 

present, the Air Force service component of NORTHCOM (AFNORTH) is composed of 

approximately 68 percent Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), while the Army’s (ARNORTH) 

and Navy’s (NAVNORTH) service components of NORTHCOM are primarily staffed by 

active component personnel.11 In contrast, the Marine Corps combines “Marine Forces 

Reserve” and “Marine Forces North” duties in one commander and staff in order “to 

leverage one of the great strengths of the Reserve: its close contact with communities all 

across the United States,” as well as to make “efficient and effective use of headquarters 

personnel, while at the same time increasing the Marine Corps ability to support Northern 

6 Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support ([Washington, DC: Department of Defense,] 2005), p. 35. 
 
 7

 House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina,
 
 


A Failure of Initiative, pp. 222–23. 
 
 8

 Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, prepared witness statement before the
 
 


CNGR, Hearing on Homeland Defense/Homeland Security, May 3, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/hearing503­
 


4/McHale.pdf), p. 6. 
 
 

9

 NORTHCOM e-mail to CNGR staff, December 7, 2006. 
 
 10 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still
 
 


Unprepared, p. 497. 
 
 11 E-mail from AFNORTH Public Affairs, November 18, 2006; Memorandum for the Record (MFR), telephone
 
 


conversation of CNGR staff with Northern Command J-1 Lieutenant Colonel Gene Smith, September 27, 2006;
 
 


MFR, telephone conversation of CNGR staff with ARNORTH, February 9, 2006. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 79 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Command.”12 Combining the reserve forces staffs with the service component staffs has 

reduced manpower requirements and associated costs for the Marine Corps. 

As discussed in section A above, the Department of Defense has not explicitly budgeted or 

programmed for civil support, viewing it as derivative of its warfighting capability. This 

approach has carried over into how NORTHCOM views its mission and is best illustrated 

by the Commission’s previous finding that NORTHCOM does not sufficiently advocate for 

the full range of civil support requirements affecting the National Guard and Reserves. 

Finding: In accordance with Department of Defense policy, U.S. 

Northern Command’s primary mission has been homeland 

defense, while civil support has been treated as a lesser 

included mission. 

Finding: U.S. Northern Command is staffed predominantly by active 

duty personnel who are not fully aware of the capabilities 

that the reserve components can bring to civil support 

missions. 

Conclusion: U.S. Northern Command does not adequately consider and utilize all 

military components—active and reserve, including the National Guard—in planning, 

training, and exercising and in the conduct of military operations while in support of 

a governor, in support of another lead federal agency, or in the defense of America. 

To be ready to respond to a catastrophe in the United States, DOD must elevate the 

importance of civil support and incorporate its importance in all defense strategy and 

planning documents. Doing so will give NORTHCOM and the NGB the ability to plan for 

and prioritize civil support appropriately alongside homeland defense and other missions. 

Recommendation: 

16. Because U.S. Northern Command is a command with significant
 
 

responsibility for domestic emergency response and civil support, a 
 

majority of U.S. Northern Command’s billets, including those for its
 
 

service components, should be filled by leaders and staff with reserve 
 

qualifications and credentials. Job descriptions for senior leaders and
 
 

other key positions at U.S. Northern Command should contain the
 
 

requirement of significant Reserve or National Guard experience or
 
 

service. 
 

The Commission believes that more must be done to integrate the reserve components into 

NORTHCOM. Having more national guardsmen fill key leadership positions at NORTHCOM 

is an essential first step—but only one step. NORTHCOM must incorporate personnel who 

have greater knowledge of National Guard and Reserve capabilities, strengths, and 

12 Lieutenant General Jack W. Bergman, Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, prepared witness statement 

before the CNGR, Hearing on National Guard and Reserve Issues, July 19, 2006 (www.cngr.gov/July%2019/ 

Bergman%20Testimony.doc), p. 3. 

80 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


constraints and must assemble a cadre of experts on the intricacies of state and local 

government, law enforcement, and emergency response. Such knowledge currently resides 

in the National Guard and Reserves yet remains untapped and unintegrated, in disparate 

commands. A larger percentage of reservists on the staff and in key leadership positions 

would provide NORTHCOM with greater insight into the unique skills and strengths 

available in the reserve forces. Increasing the numbers of members of the National Guard 

and Reserves within the service components of NORTHCOM would ensure that those 

preparing and coordinating homeland missions will consider the unique contributions of 

the reserve component. 

Recommendation: 

17. Either the officer serving in the position of the commander or the officer 
 
 

serving in the position of deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command 
 
 

should be a National Guard or Reserve officer at all times. 
 
 

Section 4 of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 proposes a “requirement that the position of Deputy 

Commander of the United States NORTHCOM be filled by a qualified National Guard 

Officer” who is eligible for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general. Section 4 further 

states that the purpose of this requirement “is to ensure that information received from the 

National Guard Bureau regarding the operation of the National Guard of the several States 

is integrated into the plans and operations of the United States Northern Command.” 

The position of deputy commander of each of the combatant commands, with the exception 

of U.S. European Command, is currently filled by an active component officer in the grade 

of O-9 (lieutenant general or vice admiral). The process of selecting the deputy commanders 

begins with a nomination by the respective services; the nomination is then vetted by the 

Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and others, including the combatant commander of the 

command in question, before being finally forwarded for consideration and approval by the 

President and Senate. The services have mainly nominated active duty personnel to the 

senior billets in combatant commands; no national guardsman or reservist has ever been 

considered for the NORTHCOM senior leader positions.13 (See section F below on 

increasing the number of reserve component O-9s.) 

Current policy requires senior officers of the grades of O-9 and O-10 to have substantial 

joint experience; in the past, the career paths of most reserve flag and general officers did 

not allow them to acquire joint experience. Today many more reservists have gained joint 

experience, and many have the joint knowledge needed to command in billets such as those 

at combatant commands, where officers are often required to have some joint knowledge 

and experience. For example, the special qualifications listed for the NORTHCOM deputy 

commander position include “possess[ing] knowledge of Joint Service roles and capabilities 

and knowledge of the Total Force Planning and the ability to work with senior executives 

in local, state, and federal government.”14 During the four years that NORTHCOM has 

13 MFR, Joint Staff Joint General/Flag Officer (G/FO) Matters Office meeting with CNGR staff, October 24, 

2006. 

14 NORTHCOM Deputy Commander position description provided to the CNGR, September 19, 2006; see also 

Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs Instruction 1331.01C, “Manpower and Personnel Actions Involving 

General and Flag Officers,” July 7, 2006. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 81 
 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


existed, it has been the practice to alternate the services from which the combatant 

commander and the deputy commander are drawn and to routinely select a National 

Guard general officer for the position of Chief of Staff of the command. Today, many 

reservists have the joint experience and qualifications to lead the command and be considered for the two senior command positions. 

Recommendation: 

18. There should be only one U.S. deputy commander at U.S. Northern
 
 


Command. 
 
 

The Commission has been asked by Congress to assess whether U.S. Northern Command’s 

mission is such that it requires two deputy commanders—one specifically designated to 

oversee National Guard activities.15 

The Commission investigated the responsibilities of the deputy commander position at 

NORTHCOM in comparison with other deputy commander positions and found that they 

were neither so significant nor so complex as to require two individuals to carry them out. 

Having more National Guard and Reserve experience resident on the senior staff will 

provide the needed expertise without fracturing the chain of command and dividing 

responsibilities among flag officers. In addition, the current deputy commander, Lieutenant 

General Joseph R. Inge, USA, told the Commissioners during a visit to NORTHCOM that he 

would not know how to employ, nor would there be enough work for, a second deputy 

commander.16 

Recommendation: 

19. U.S. Northern Command should develop plans for consequence manage­
 


ment and support to civil authorities that account for state-level 
 
 

activities and incorporate the use of National Guard and Reserve forces
 
 


as first military responders. 
 
 

The Commission has also heard significant concern expressed over inadequate interaction 

and coordination between NORTHCOM and state entities, including the governor’s and the 

adjutant general’s office.17 Governors and their emergency managers would have greater 

confidence in NORTHCOM if there were a greater DOD effort to share information with the 

states, combine exercises, and train jointly. The states must also reach out to federal 

partners to keep them apprised of new threat developments and any changes to emergency 

plans, policies, and resources. The states keenly desire information from the military, particularly on matters that specifically affect them. NORTHCOM must be intimately familiar 

not only with state emergency plans but also with state resources, capabilities, and 

emergency response activities so that when given a mission in the homeland, it has 

relationships in place as well as the knowledge and means to bring to bear a seamless and 

integrated active and reserve military effort. 

15 House Report 109-702, on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 109th Cong., 
 
 

2nd sess., October 17, 2006, p. 717. 
 
 

16 MFR, CNGR visit to U.S. Northern Command, October 5, 2006. 
 
 17 CNGR meeting with National Governor’s Association Public Safety Task Force, November 16, 2006. 
 
 

82 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


E. RESERVE POLICY ADVICE 
 


The Commission believes that its assessment of the changes to the National Guard Bureau’s 

role and status within the Department of Defense as proposed by the National Guard 

Empowerment Act should not be undertaken in isolation. As part of our larger effort, the 

Commission has been studying organizational structures within the senior levels of the 

Department that influence the policies and practices governing the reserve components. 

The current Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) statute (10 U.S.C. §10301) was enacted in 

1999, although the precursor to the board dates to the Truman administration.1

 On October 

15, 1947, in Executive Order No. 10007, President Truman directed the Secretary of 

Defense to take every practicable step for the strengthening of all elements of the reserve 

components of the United States. Pursuant to this direction, on June 14, 1949, Secretary of 

Defense Louis Johnson created the Civilian Components Policy Board. Its initial charter 

stated that “On all matters of major policy so determined by the Chairman, the Board shall 

make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.”2

 In 1951, Secretary of Defense 

George C. Marshall created the Reserve Forces Policy Board in lieu of, but with the same 

membership as, the Civilian Components Policy Board. The board was given the authority 

to make recommendations for the Secretary of Defense on reserve forces policy matters 

and to coordinate policies and programs of the reserve forces of the three military 

departments.3 

The Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952 codified a Reserve Forces Policy Board in the 

Department of Defense.4

 This law made the RFPB, acting through the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense (Manpower and Personnel), the principal policy advisor to the Secretary of 

Defense on matters relating to the reserve components.5

 Public Law 98-94 (September 24, 

1983) increased the number of Assistant Secretaries of Defense from 7 to 11, including one 

for reserve affairs. This law also provided that the RFPB would report through the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. 

Thus, the board predates passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 

Reorganization Act of 1986 and the creation of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness. The RFPB’s authorizing statute has not been modified to 

reflect these changes. As presently constituted, the 24-member RFPB includes a civilian 

chairman appointed by the Secretary of Defense, the service assistant secretaries for 

manpower and reserve affairs, and flag and general officers from each of the active and 

reserve components. The board is served by a staff of 10 people and an executive director. A 

separate statute (10 U.S.C. §175) simply authorizes the establishment of the RFPB. The 

1

 In 1947, President Truman ordered the Secretary of Defense to strengthen all elements of the reserve 
 
 

components (Executive Order 10007, October 15, 1948). In response, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, on 
 
 

June 14, 1949, created the Civilian Components Policy Board as a standing committee to recommend policies 
 
 

and procedures affecting the reserve components (Judith Camarella, memorandum, “Statutory Framework and 
 
 

Historical Development of the RFPB,” March 31, 2000, p. 2 n. 9). 
 
 2

 Charter for the Civilian Components Policy Board (June 14, 1949). 
 
 3

 Department of Defense Directive 20.22-1, June 13, 1951, para. IIIA. 
 
 4

 Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, §257, codified at 10 U.S.C. §175 (1952 Supp. V). 
 
 5

 Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, §257. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 83 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


specifics of the board’s constitution, duties, and operation are found in 10 U.S.C. §10301, 

and DOD Directive 5120.2 provides detailed guidance about its mission and functions.6 

Subsection (c) of the current statute provides that the board, acting through the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (ASD-RA), is the principal policy advisor to the 

Secretary of Defense on matters relating to the reserve components. A consequence of the 

board’s reporting through the ASD-RA, then reporting through the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, is that both the assistant secretary and the under 

secretary can govern and filter advice provided by the board to the Secretary. Section 

138(b)(2) of 10 U.S.C. establishes the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Reserve Affairs and provides that its principal duty is the overall supervision of reserve 

component affairs of the Department of Defense. In theory, this mandate is not inconsistent 

with the primary responsibility of the RFPB. In practice, however, there is uncertainty 

about where primary responsibility really lies for making recommendations to the Secretary 

of Defense involving reserve component policy issues. 

Finding: Statutes establishing the Reserve Forces Policy Board and 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 

Affairs conflict about which organization has the primary 

responsibility to provide advice to the Department of 

Defense leadership on National Guard and Reserve 

matters. 

Finding: Uncertainty about which entity has the primary responsibility for making recommendations to the Secretary of 

Defense involving National Guard and Reserve matters 

creates conflicting lines of communication and hinders 

integrated decision making. 

Another matter of concern is that with the exception of the civilian chairman, every 

member of the RFPB is a sitting political appointee in the Department of Defense or a 

serving military officer. When all who sit on it are a part of the existing decision-making 

system, a board is less likely to fully consider new ideas, incorporate private-sector best 

practices, and critically examine present policies. Moreover, it is unrealistic to expect that 

the service representatives on the board will take a position on policy matters under consideration that is inconsistent with or in advance of the position adopted by their parent 

service or military department. 

At times, the RFPB’s effectiveness has further been hindered because of chronic vacancies 

among its members and the use of surrogates at meetings, decreasing the likelihood of 

carefully deliberated and meaningful decisions being made. 

The Commission has discussed the status of the RFPB with the current and former 

chairmen of the board, as well as with other stakeholders. The Commission finds a broad 

consensus that its current structure and operations do not fulfill the intent of the statute. 

Most recently, Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, 

6

 DOD Directive 5120.2, “Reserve Forces Policy Board,” October 13, 1973, reissued August 12, 1985. 

84 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


testified before the Commission that the RFPB “has been minimized to the point where it is 

rather ineffective.”7 

Finding: The organization and membership of the Reserve Forces 

Policy Board and the limits on the topics it may consider 

prevent decision makers from obtaining the wide range of 

inputs necessary for them to formulate appropriate and 

sustainable policies. 

The Commission is convinced that the board as presently configured is not functioning 

effectively. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that it is necessary to reconstitute 

the Reserve Forces Policy Board, alter its fundamental purpose, and change the way it fits 

into the Pentagon bureaucracy. The Commission concludes that the RFPB could better 

evaluate issues and better advise the Secretary of Defense on policy if it were modeled after 

independent advisory organizations such as the Defense Business Board, Defense Science 

Board, and Defense Policy Board—which are composed of individuals from outside the 

Department of Defense. 

Conclusion: The Secretary of Defense does not have mechanisms to generate and 

receive the best possible advice on reserve policy matters. The Reserve Forces Policy 

Board is not structured to obtain and provide to the Secretary of Defense a wide range 

of independent advice on National Guard and Reserve matters because of the nature 

of its membership, and because it is subordinated to other offices within the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense. 

Recommendation: 

20. To improve the quality and timeliness of independent policy advice to 
 
 

the Secretary of Defense, the Reserve Forces Policy Board statute should
 
 

be amended to create instead a Reserve Policy Board, composed of
 
 

20 members appointed by the Secretary of Defense from outside the 
 
 

Department of Defense. The chairman of the Reserve Policy Board should
 
 

have extensive knowledge of and experience with the National Guard 
 
 

and Reserves. 
 
 

The Commission recommends reconstituting the Reserve Forces Policy Board so that it 

would be composed of high-level experts from outside the Department of Defense with 

significant knowledge of and experience with policy matters pertaining to the reserve 

components. The board would also be renamed the Reserve Policy Board (RPB), consistent 

with the titles of other current outside advisory boards. This approach is in keeping with 

the roles now performed by the Defense Business Board, Defense Policy Board, and 

Defense Science Board; it also would remove ambiguity created by the current statutory 

charter and the sometimes competing role and practices of the ASD-RA. 

7

 Lieutenant General Blum, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, 

January 31, 2007, transcript (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-1.pdf), p. 30. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 85 
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


The Commission’s recommendation to reconstitute the RFPB reflects two guiding principles. 

First, we believe that the stature and influence of the new RPB must be increased. Revising 

the charter of the RFPB to make the new body an advisory board composed of outside 

experts—with a role analogous to that of the Defense Business, Science, and Policy 

boards—should help achieve this result. The statutory language we propose (in the text box 

below) is modeled after the statute establishing the Defense Business Board. The new 

membership criteria should provide the RPB with a broader base of knowledge and 

experience among its members than exists presently. Outside advice from those having 

extensive experience with and knowledge of the reserve components should better serve the 

Secretary of Defense and the reserve components than the advice provided by political 

appointees and by those who work within the Department of Defense. The new board 

should be able to take positions and render advice on controversial policies about which no 

consensus exists inside the Department of Defense. 

The second objective was to remove any ambiguity created by the current statutory charter 

and the sometimes competing statutory mandate of ASD-RA. If the new RPB is made a 

high-level advisory board whose members are independent of the Department of Defense, it 

will be clear that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs is chiefly 

responsible inside the Department for the development of policy guidance and the overall 

supervision of the reserve components. 

Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the existing authorizing statute of the RFPB 

(10 U.S.C. §10301) be revised to 

•	 Rename the RFPB the Reserve Policy Board (RPB). 

•	 Expand the purview of the RPB to include providing independent 

advice and recommendations on strategies, policies, and practices 

designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and 

effectiveness of the reserve components. 

•	 Have the RPB report through the Deputy Secretary of Defense rather 

than through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, 

thereby affording the RPB access to the highest levels of the Department of Defense and increasing its ability to influence policy decisions 

that affect the reserve components. 

•	 Change the constitution of the RPB to include 20 members appointed 

by the Secretary of Defense from civilian life, rather than individuals 

currently serving in the Department of Defense. 

•	 Provide for renewable, two-year terms of service. 

•	 Require that persons selected for board membership have records of 

significant knowledge, expertise, and achievement in fields that touch 

on national security and reserve component issues. 

86 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

•	 Require that the person selected as chairman have extensive knowledge 

of and expertise with the reserve components, including the National 

Guard. 

•	 Designate the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

to provide logistical support to the RPB, much as the Defense Science 

Board uses the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics for support. 

•	 Provide that the RPB may act on matters referred by the Secretary of 

Defense, the chairman, or on any matter raised by a board member. 

•	 Require the RPB to periodically meet with members of the reserve 

components in order to help ensure currency of knowledge about the 

state of the reserve components. 

The Commission also recommends an amendment to section 113(c)(2) of Title 10. This 

section currently requires the Secretary of Defense to include a separate report from the 

RFPB in his annual report to the President and Congress. The Commission’s amendment 

would instead make the inclusion of matters from the new RPB discretionary.8 

8 New language proposed by the CNGR: “At the same time the Secretary submits the annual report under 

paragraph (1), the Secretary may include in the report to the President and Congress additional matters from 

the Reserve Policy Board on the reserve programs or activities of the Department of Defense.” 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 87 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


The Commission suggests the following language in changing section 10301 of Title 10, 

United States Code: 

Sec. 10301. Reserve Policy Board 

(a) There is in the Office of the Secretary of Defense a Reserve Policy Board. The Board shall 

provide the Secretary of Defense, through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, independent advice 

and recommendations on strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance 

the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the reserve components of the United States. 

(b) The Board shall consist of twenty members appointed from civilian life by the Secretary of 

Defense. The Secretary shall designate the chairman and a vice chairman of the Board. 

Members of the Board shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation, shall be 

appointed for two-year, renewable terms, and shall have a proven record of high-level 

achievement in a national security–related field that includes matters pertaining to the reserve 

components of the United States. 

(c) Members of the Board shall be selected on the basis of knowledge, expertise, or achievement 

in the following areas: 

(1) 	 the reserve components of the United States; 

(2) 	 the national security and national military strategies of the United States; 

(3) 	the roles and missions of the active and reserve components of the United States 

Armed Forces; 

(4) 	 	the organization, force structure, and force mix of the United States Armed Forces; 

(5)	 	 Acquisition, research and development, military operations, or personnel and 

compensation programs, policies and activities of the Department of Defense; and 

(6) 	 Homeland defense and support to civil authorities. 

(d) The chairman shall be selected on the basis of extensive knowledge, expertise, or 

achievement with respect to the reserve components of the United States, including the 

National Guard. 

(e) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall provide an executive 

director and the necessary support staff to manage the activities of the Board in consultation 

with the chairman. 

(f) The Board shall act on those matters referred to it by the Secretary or the Chairman and, in 

addition, on any matter raised by a member of the Board. As a part of its duties, the Board 

shall periodically meet with members of the reserve components of the United States. 

88 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


F. RESERVE COMPONENT OFFICER PROMOTION 

An important aspect of enhancing the National Guard to ensure military effectiveness is to 

ensure that reserve component officers have the opportunity to gain both joint duty 

experience and joint professional military education in order to be competitive for promotion to senior positions, including combatant commanders and senior joint and service 

positions. 

As prescribed by chapter 36 of Title 10, United States Code, general and flag officers are 

recommended by promotion selection boards to the permanent grades of O-7 and O-8,1 

subject to subsequent Senate confirmation. Appointments to the grades of O-9 and O-102 

are temporary and predicated on the President’s appointing an officer, with the advice and 

consent of the Senate, to a position designated as a position of importance and responsibility in accordance with 10 U.S.C. §601. When an officer is recommended to the President 

for initial appointment as an O-9 or O-10, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must 

submit an evaluation to the Secretary of Defense of that officer’s performance as a member 

of the Joint Staff and in other joint duty assignments. 

Chapter 38 of Title 10, United States Code, prescribes the joint officer management policies 

enacted by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This 

legislation provided a framework for developing active component joint specialty officers, 

including the joint duty assignment and joint professional military education requirements 

for promotion to flag and general officer rank on the active duty list. 

Section 666 of Title 10, United States Code, states that “The Secretary of Defense shall 

establish personnel policies emphasizing education and experience in joint matters for 

reserve officers not on the active-duty list. Such policies shall, to the extent practicable for 

the reserve components, be similar to the policies provided by this chapter.” This vision laid 

out by the Goldwater-Nichols Act 20 years ago has not yet been realized in the reserve 

components.3 

Section 531 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 required the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a strategic plan for joint officer management and joint 

professional military education that links joint officer development to accomplishing the 

overall missions and goals of the Department of Defense. Also included was a requirement 

that joint officer development for officers on the reserve active status list be incorporated 

into the strategic plan.4

 In its initial report, the House Armed Services Committee noted 

that multiple proposals had been received from DOD over the past several years to “change 

1

 Respectively, brigadier general in the case of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps and rear admiral (lower 

half) in the case of the Navy; major general in the case of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps and rear 

admiral (upper half) in the case of the Navy. 

2

 Respectively, lieutenant general in the case of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps and vice admiral in the 

case of the Navy; general in the case of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps and admiral in the case of the 

Navy. 

3

 Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, testimony before the CNGR, Hearing 

on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of January 31, 2007, hearing (www.cngr.gov/ 

hearing13107/0131cngr-1.pdf), p. 14; Department of Defense Instruction 1215.20, “RC Joint Officer Management 

Program,” September 12, 2002, p. 2. 

4

 Public Law 108-375, October 28, 2004. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 89 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


significant aspects” of the Goldwater-Nichols joint officer framework, but it judged that 

these proposals lacked a “coherent, comprehensive context.”5 

Following the submission of DOD’s strategic plan in April 2006,

6

 Congress in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 modified the joint officer management 

provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act to reflect that plan’s recommendations. The 

effective date of the changes is October 1, 2007. In the meantime, DOD was directed to 

submit a plan for implementing a joint officer management system not later than March 31, 

2007.7 

The changes proposed in the strategic plan and the resultant legislation focus on developing 

an alternative path to jointness by creating a multilevel joint qualification system that 

captures all joint experiences; the new path should rely on “a capabilities-based system in 

which experience, education, and performance are evaluated in an officer’s progress to 

higher levels of qualification,” as the statement of managers’ language accompanying §516 

put it.8

 The amendments to 10 U.S.C. §661, contained in §516, direct the Secretary of 

Defense to “establish different levels of joint qualification, as well as criteria for qualification at each level.” In its March 31, 2007, implementation plan, DOD is expected to flesh 

out the requirements for these multiple levels, including joint education and joint experience. 

In its strategic plan, DOD stressed that the nature of “joint matters” had changed significantly in the 20 years since the enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation, pointing 

out that the “military is increasingly required to operate in multi-service, interagency 

environments to conduct and sustain operations across a greater variety of domains.” The 

report also noted the growing role of multinational coalitions and the new way that military 

forces are aligned and deployed, with joint task forces forming “the tip of the spear.”9

 In 

contrast, the original Goldwater-Nichols Act focused on officers serving a three-year tour in 

a joint duty assignment list billet. 

The changed focus of the department’s strategic plan is reflected in the revised definition of 

joint matters in 10 U.S.C. §668, as amended by §519. Under current law, until October 1, 

2007, joint matters are limited to “the integrated employment of land, sea, and air forces, 

including matters related to (1) national military strategy, (2) strategic planning and 

contingency planning, and (3) command and control of combat operations under unified 

command.” 

As amended, joint matters “means matters related to the achievement of unified action by 

multiple military forces in operations conducted across domains such as land, sea, or air, in 

space, or in the information environment.” Moreover, two new categories are added to the 

three previously listed: (4) “national security planning with other departments and agencies 

of the United States” and (5) “combined operations with military forces of allied nations.” 

5

 House Report 108-491, on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, 108th Cong., 2nd 
 
 

sess., May 14, 2004, §531, p. 318. 
 
 

6

 Department of Defense, Strategic Plan for Joint Officer Management and Joint Professional Military Education, 
 
 

April 3, 2006. 
 
 

7

 Public Law 109-364, October 17, 2006, §§516–519. 
 
 

8

 House Report 109-702, on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 109th Cong., 
 
 

2nd sess., October 17, 2006, p. 712. 
 
 

9

 DOD, Strategic Plan, pp. 9–10. 
 
 

90 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Multiple military forces “refers to forces that involve participants from the armed forces and 

one or more of the following: (A) other departments and agencies of the United States, 

(B) the military forces or agencies of other countries, and (C) non-governmental persons or 

entities.”10 This change should significantly expand reserve component officers’ opportunities to accrue joint duty credit. 

The Goldwater-Nichols Amendments in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 should set the stage for wider eligibility of reserve component officers. DOD’s 

March 31, 2007, implementation plan will be the key determining factor. How, to take one 

example, will service in an in-theater wartime joint task force billet be treated in comparison to a longer peacetime assignment in a joint duty assignment billet on the Joint 

Staff? This determination will be particularly important for reserve component officers who 

may be unable to undertake a three-year Joint Staff tour, but may have served a shorter 

time on one or more in-theater joint task forces. DOD’s Strategic Plan provides some 

indication that greater flexibility is likely: 

[C]urrent time requirements necessitate an intricate system of waivers 

with a one-size fits all approach. However, the law does not adequately 

address the exceptional experience gained in intensive or focused contingency operations staffs and the majority of combat joint assignments 

merit consideration equal to a full JDA [joint duty assignment] experience 

as we know it today. The same argument can be applied to many one-year 

remote joint tours demonstrating the same level of intensity. Again, we 

should recognize and track levels of joint qualifications based on demonstrated competency and successful completion of tours in joint intensive 

environments versus simply fulfilling arbitrary tour lengths.11 

Finding: Reserve component officers often serve in a joint environment in positions for which they currently do not receive 

joint duty credit. 

In addition to implementing these Goldwater-Nichols changes, the Department of Defense 

must also find ways to expand the pool of combatant command, Joint Staff, and critical 

service staff positions available to or specifically designated for reserve component general 

and flag officers. In 1999, Congress exempted up to 10 one- and two-star general and flag 

officer positions, to be designated for reserve component officers by the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, from counting against statutory ceilings on the number and grade 

distribution of general and flag officers.12 The statute further directs that these “Chairman’s 

10” positions on the staffs of combatant commanders are to be considered joint duty 

assignment positions for purposes of Goldwater-Nichols.13 Congressional intent was clearly 

expressed in the accompanying Senate report: “The Committee continues to seek ways to 

provide opportunities for reserve component general and flag officers to use their expertise 

and to gain valuable experience serving on the staff of a [commander in chief] or other joint 

10 Public Law 109-364, §519. 
 
 

11 DOD, Strategic Plan, p. 16. 
 
 12 Public Law 106-65, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, October 5, 1999, §553. 
 
 13 House Report 106-301, on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 106th Cong., 1st sess.,
 
 


August 17, 1999, p. 737. 
 
 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 91 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


duty positions. The recommended provision is not intended to be a source of manpower for 

the active components nor is it intended to be used in cases in which the duties would not 

provide the reserve general or flag officer significant experience in a joint or critical service 

staff position.”14 

Carrying out this congressional intent, as expressed in 1999, is even more imperative in the 

world of today’s operational reserve force. The Department has made progress since 1999. 

General and flag officers from the reserve components are brought on multiyear, full-time 

duty to serve in meaningful positions in joint commands and organizations. Recent 

examples include director, U.S. Central Command Deployment Distribution Operations 

Center in Kuwait; commander, NATO Headquarters in Sarajevo; chief, Office of the 

Defense Representative in Pakistan; president, Joint Special Operations University; chief of 

staff, U.S. Transportation Command; vice director for Joint Training, U.S. Joint Forces 

Command; commander, Joint Task Force Civil Support, U.S. Northern Command; and 

deputy director, J-4, the Joint Staff. In addition, there are dozens of positions in which 

reserve component generals can serve on joint staffs in their part-time capacity. 

This momentum toward building a highly qualified pool of reserve component one- and 

two-star generals and admirals with joint experience in command/director positions must 

continue. The next step is to draw from this pool and promote these individuals to the 

three-star, and subsequently the four-star, level of responsibility in positions that are filled 

by active component officers today. During the Commission’s January 31, 2007, hearing on 

the National Guard Empowerment Act legislation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

General Peter Pace, USMC, agreed that there are National Guard and Reserve officers 

today who are qualified for the rank of O-10.15 The Commission fully concurs with the 

Chairman’s view and believes that there are reserve component general and flag officers 

fully qualified for four-star rank. 

Finding: There are general and flag officers in the National Guard 

and Reserves who are qualified to hold the rank of O-10. 

More one- and two-star positions for reserve component officers are needed in joint 

organizations. Additional opportunities on the Joint Staff, within the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, on joint task forces, and at combatant commands and defense agencies will 

further improve the pool of available candidates. On the Joint Staff, most “J” codes should 

have a reserve component general officer assigned in an individual mobilization augmentee 

position. Additionally, primary staff positions (such as the J-3 and J-5) at U.S. Northern 

Command (NORTHCOM) and Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) should be filled by reserve 

component officers. In the services, major commands and military departments have many 

general officer individual mobilization augmentee positions today, but even greater reserve 

component integration is desirable. 

The Department should thoroughly review the developmental experiences needed for 

officers to serve as the commander at each of the service components to NORTHCOM and 

14 Senate Report 106-50, on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, 106th Cong., 1st sess., 
 
 

May 17, 1999, p. 303. 
 
 

15 General Pace, testimony at CNGR, Hearing on Proposed Changes to the National Guard, transcript of 
 
 

January 31, 2007, hearing (www.cngr.gov/hearing13107/0131cngr-3.pdf), pp. 7–8. 
 
 

92 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


as the commander and deputy commander of NORTHCOM. On the basis of this review, 

sufficient one- and two-star general and flag officer positions must be identified that can be 

filled by both full- and part-time reserve component officers to get this experience. The 

result would be a considerable number of reserve component officers fully qualified to 

serve at the three-star level in command of each component of NORTHCOM and as the 

four-star commander of U.S. Northern Command. 

In conclusion, the Commission believes that it is vital to expand the number of reserve 

component general and flag officers in senior positions at all levels. As part of its 

assessment of career paths in its final report, the Commission will evaluate both joint 

professional military education opportunities for reserve component officers and reserve 

officer career management by the services. Reserve component officers often face many 

obstacles to obtaining joint professional military education because of limitations on the 

number of school seats available and the competing demands of their full-time civilian 

employment. 

Finding: Joint Professional Military Education (JPME I & II), required for full joint qualification, is difficult for reservists 

and national guardsmen to obtain. 

Finding: Reserve component members do not have adequate opportunity to gain qualifying joint experience. 

Finding: Those reserve component general and flag officers who do 

not have the opportunity to meet the joint standards 

imposed by Goldwater-Nichols are often considered less 

well qualified for senior positions than their active duty 

counterparts. These reserve component general and flag 

officers often have valuable civilian experience that is not 

counted. 

Finding: Any attempt to increase the number of reserve component 

officers serving in joint billets of importance and responsibility must be predicated on increased opportunity, at midgrade, to gain Joint Professional Military Education and 

joint experience qualifications. Gradually, all officers 

should be held to the same standards, although the path to 

qualifications may vary for reservists. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 93 
 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


Conclusion: National Guard and Reserve general and flag officers do not have the 

opportunities to achieve the joint experience and education necessary to be seriously 

considered for O-9 and O-10 positions. This disparity in opportunity must change. 

Policies must be put into place that recognize the constraints of a reserve component 

and provide reserve component personnel adequate opportunities to obtain joint 

education and joint experience. 

Recommendation: 

21. The Department of Defense should modify joint experience qualifications
 
 

and Joint Professional Military Education delivery methods in ways that
 
 

significantly enhance the opportunities for reserve component officers.
 
 

This should include consideration of credit for the quality of reserve 
 
 

component experience, not simply the quantity. 
 
 

Increasing the opportunities for reserve component members to gain joint qualification and 

education is critical to their ability to contribute to national defense by developing the skills 

that a joint environment requires. Paths to joint qualification need to be reasonably accessible to drilling reservists; at the same time, they must provide reservists the same ability to 

shoulder increasing responsibility as do current programs designed for officers following 

an active duty career path. Once that goal is reached, reserve component officers should be 

held to the same standards as those applied to active component officers under GoldwaterNichols, although the method of attaining those standards may be different. If all officers 

must meet the same qualifications for promotion to any grade, the legitimacy of the 

selection of reserve component officers to senior grades and of their nomination to 

positions of importance and responsibility will be unassailable. 

Recommendation: 

22. The Department of Defense should strive to ensure that Reserve and
 
 

National Guard flag and general officers have the opportunity to serve in 
 
 

joint assignments, obtain joint experience, and acquire joint qualifi­
 

cations to compete for promotion to O-9 and O-10 positions, including 
 
 

combatant commanders and senior joint and service positions. Reserve 
 
 

and National Guard flag and general officers should be routinely con­
 

sidered for these positions, a practice that is not now the case. 
 
 

The Commission strongly supports providing reserve component officers with greater 

opportunities for promotion to O-9 and O-10 positions of importance and responsibility and 

believes that in today’s operational reserve force, a growing number of officers are serving 

in billets that should make them increasingly competitive. But the provisions of section 3 of 

5. 2658/H.R. 5200, though well-intentioned, make no change to the underlying officer 

promotion statutes. The Commission will closely monitor DOD’s March 31, 2007, 

implementation plan for the recent amendments to Goldwater-Nichols as part of its statutory 

tasking to assess traditional military career paths for members of the reserve components,16 

16 Public Law 108-375, §513(c)(2)(I). 

94 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


and then recommend any further changes, as appropriate, in its January 31, 2008, final 

report to Congress and the Secretary of Defense. It is important that the implementation 

plan credit both the quality and quantity of the unique joint experiences of part-time 

guardsmen and reservists, such as interagency or multinational support and multiservice or 

joint task force assignments of short duration. The Secretary of Defense should seek to 

enhance opportunity for all reserve component officers, as well as active component 

officers, within the total force to achieve education, training, and promotion opportunities. 

As part of its review, the Commission will also examine the joint duty experience of 

National Guard officers in operations conducted with state and local governments. The 

Commission will additionally examine the potential impact of its recommended changes on 

current statutory ceilings on general and flag officer authorizations.17 

Recommendation: 

23. The President of the United States should not be required to certify that
 
 


all eligible Reserve Component officers were considered for promotions
 
 


to the grade of O-9. 
 
 

Section 3 of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 expresses “the sense of Congress that, whenever officers are 

considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general, or vice admiral in the case of 

the Navy, on the active duty list, officers of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

who are eligible for promotion to such grade should be considered for promotion to such 

grade.” Section 3 proceeds to direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a 

proposal to achieve this objective, specifying that the “proposal shall include such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Secretary considers appropriate 

in order to achieve that objective.” The President, with each nomination submitted, would 

further be required to submit a certification “that all reserve officers who were eligible for 

consideration for promotion to such grade were considered in the making of such 

nomination.” 

Section 3 of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 reflects the laudable goal of increasing the opportunity for 

reserve component officers to be considered for O-9. But the provision addresses neither 

the underlying officer promotion statutes nor ways to improve the selection rate. Reserve 

component officers are already eligible for promotion to three-star rank; there is no actual 

barrier in law or policy to the Secretary of Defense’s recommending a reserve component 

officer to the President for appointment as an O-9 in a position of importance and 

responsibility. Nevertheless, it is arguably unlikely that the Secretary would make such a 

recommendation if the officer does not meet the joint duty assignment and joint 

professional military education requirements of the Goldwater-Nichols Act for initial 

promotion to general and flag officer rank, even though these requirements formally apply 

only to officers on the active duty list. 

The Commission does not recommend adoption of this section and instead recommends an 

alternative to achieve the desired goal. The Commission recommends an approach that 

would ensure that Reserve and Guard flag and general officers have the assignments, joint 

experience, and qualifications to be seriously considered for O-9 and O-10 positions across 

17 10 U.S.C. §§525 and 526. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 95 
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 
 


the board—including combatant commanders and the most senior joint and service 

positions, traditionally filled by active duty personnel. 

96 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

APPENDIX 1 

THE PROPOSALS OF THE 2007 NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT AND NATIONAL DEFENSE 

ENHANCEMENT AND NATIONAL GUARD EMPOWERMENT ACT 

The following is a summary of each issue that the Commission on the National Guard and 

Reserves was directed to assess in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109-364) and the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 

Empowerment Act (S. 2658/H.R. 5200). 

Section 529(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 requires 

the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve to study “the advisability and 

feasibility of implementing the provisions of S. 2658 and H.R. 5200 of the 109th Congress, 

as introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, on April 26, 

2006.” 

1. Section 2(a)(1) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend 10 U.S.C. §10501 by striking 

“joint bureau of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force” 

and inserting “joint activity of the Department of Defense.” 

The Commission recommends in favor of this proposal. The National Guard Bureau 

should be made a joint activity of the Department of Defense, rather than remain a 

joint bureau of the Army and Air Force. This designation should not change the 

relationship between the National Guard Bureau and the Army and Air Force related to 

Title 10 matters and to planning and budgeting for Title 32 mission requirements. 

2. Section 2(a)(2) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend 10 U.S.C. §10501(b) by striking 

“between” and all that follows and inserting “between— 

“(1)(A) the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 

commanders of the combatant commands of the United States, and (B) the 

department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force; and 

“(2) the several States.” 

The Commission recommends a modification to this proposal. The Commission 

recommends that the charter of the National Guard Bureau be modified to make the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau a senior advisor to the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff and, through him, to the Secretary of Defense on matters related to the 

National Guard when not in active federal service. The Commission further 

recommends that the National Guard Bureau Charter be modified to establish an 

advisory relationship between the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the 

commanders of the combatant commands of the United States, and between the Chief 

of the National Guard Bureau and the Department of Homeland Security. 

3. Section 2(b)(1) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend 10 U.S.C. §10502(c) by inserting 

“to the Secretary of Defense, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” after 

“principal advisor.” 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 97 
APPENDICES 
 

The Commission recommends a modification to this proposal. The Commission 

recommends that the statute authorizing the National Guard Bureau Charter be 

amended to provide that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall be a senior 

advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and, through him, to the Secretary 

of Defense, on matters related to the National Guard when not in active federal service. 

The Commission further recommends that the National Guard Bureau Charter be 

modified to establish an advisory relationship between the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau and the commanders of the combatant commands of the United States, and 

between the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

4. Section 2(b)(2) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend 10 U.S.C. §10502 by 

redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and inserting new subsection (d): 

“(d) Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.—The Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau shall perform the duties prescribed for him or her as a member of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff under section 151 of this title.” 

The Commission does not recommend that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau be 

made a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the grounds that it would be 

fundamentally inconsistent with the status of the Army and Air National Guard as 

reserve components of the Army and Air Force. This proposal would run counter to 

intra- and inter-service integration, would reverse progress toward jointness and 

interoperability, and would be counter to the organizational and advisory principles 

of—and a reversal of the significant progress that is the legacy of—the GoldwaterNichols legislation. 

5. Section 2(b)(3) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend subsection (e) of 10 U.S.C. 

§10502 (as redesignated by the preceding section) by striking “lieutenant general” 

and inserting “general.” 

The Commission recommends in favor of this proposal. When the duties of a general 

officer equate to those of an O-10, then the position should be so designated. The 

Commission concludes, on the basis of the duties currently required to be performed by 

the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, that the position should be designated as an 

O-10 billet. The Commission recommends that the duties and responsibilities of the 

position of Chief of the National Guard Bureau should be reevaluated periodically to 

ensure that the duties required to be performed by the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau remain commensurate with grade O-10.

 6. Section 2(b)(4) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend 10 U.S.C. §10504 by adding at 

the end the following new subsection: 

“(c) ANNUAL REPORT ON VALIDATED REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 

December 31 of each year, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall submit to 

Congress a report on the following: 

“(1) The requirements validated under section 10503a(b)(1) of this title 

during the preceding fiscal year. 

“(2) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for which funding is to be 

requested in the next budget for a fiscal year under section 10544 of this title. 

98 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 

“(3) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for which funding will not 

be requested in the next budget for a fiscal year under section 10544 of this 

title.” 

The Commission recommends a modification to this proposal. The Commission 

recommends that the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security should 

jointly submit an annual report to Congress on those civil support requirements 

generated by the Department of Homeland Security and those validated and funded by 

the Department of Defense, and that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau should 

play a role in the preparation of that report as directed by the Secretary of Defense. 

7. Section 2(c)(1) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend 10 U.S.C. §10503 (relating to the 

charter of the National Guard Bureau) as follows: 

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “the Secretary of the 

Army and the Secretary of the Air Force shall jointly develop” and 

inserting “The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 

the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, shall develop”; and 

(B) in paragraph (12), by striking “the Secretaries” and inserting “the 

Secretary of Defense.” 

The Commission recommends that the Secretary of Defense be responsible for drafting 

the charter for the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the Secretaries of the 

Army and Air Force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to accurately reflect 

the full scope of the Bureau’s required duties and activities and that the charter be 

reviewed periodically to ensure that it is updated appropriately. 

8. Section 2(c)(2) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend 10 U.S.C. §10503 (relating to the 

charter of the National Guard Bureau) by redesignating paragraph (12), as amended 

above, as paragraph (13); and by inserting the following new paragraph (12): 

“(12) Facilitating and coordinating with other Federal agencies, and with the 

several States, the use of National Guard personnel and resources for and in 

contingency operations, military operations other than war, natural disasters, 

support of civil authorities, and other circumstances.” 

The Commission recommends amending the statute authorizing the National Guard 

Bureau Charter to include facilitation and coordination with federal agencies, the 

states, Northern Command, and Joint Forces Command on the use of nonfederalized 

National Guard forces for domestic contingency operations, support to civil 

authorities, and other homeland activities. The National Guard Bureau should not 

become an operational command. 

9. Section 2(c)(3) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend Chapter 1011 of Title 10, United 

States Code, by inserting after section 10503 the following new section: 

“§ 10503a. Functions of National Guard Bureau: military assistance to 

civil authorities 

“(a) IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL NECESSARY 

ASSISTANCE.—The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall— 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 99 
 

APPENDICES 
 

“(1) identify gaps between Federal and State capabilities to 

prepare for and respond to emergencies; and 

“(2) make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on 

programs and activities of the National Guard for military assistance 

to civil authorities to address such gaps. 

“(b) SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES.—In meeting the requirements of 

subsection (a), the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall, in coordination 

with the Adjutant Generals of the States, have responsibilities as follows: 

“(1) To validate the requirements of the several States and 

Territories with respect to military assistance to civil authorities. 

“(2) To develop doctrine and training requirements relating to 

the provision of military assistance to civil authorities. 

“(3) To acquire equipment, materiel, and other supplies and 

services for the provision of military assistance to civil authorities. 

“(4) To assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing the budget 

required under section 10544 of this title. 

“(5) To administer amounts provided the National Guard for the 

provision of military assistance to civil authorities. 

“(6) To carry out any other responsibility relating to the 

provision of military assistance to civil authorities as the Secretary of 

Defense shall specify. 

“(c) ASSISTANCE.—The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall 

assist the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in carrying out activities 

under this section. 

“(d) CONSULTATION.—The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall 

carry out activities under this section in consultation with the Secretary of 

the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force.” 

The Commission recommends a modification to this proposal. The Commission 

recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security should have the responsibility to 

define civil support requirements, including those for the Department of Defense. The 

Secretary of Defense should have the responsibility to determine the best way to meet 

those requirements deemed valid by the Department through the appropriate 

procedures. In his new advisory role, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau should 

advise the commander of Northern Command, the Secretaries of the Air Force and 

Army, and through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, 

regarding how the National Guard may help address gaps between federal and state 

emergency response capabilities. 

10. Section 2(c)(4) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would amend Chapter 1013 of Title 10, United 

States Code, by adding at the end the following new section: 

“§ 10544. National Guard training and equipment: budget for military 

assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic operations 

100 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 

“(a) IN GENERAL.—The budget justification documents materials 

submitted to Congress in support of the budget of the President for a 

fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the President under 

section 1105(a) of title 31) shall specify separate amounts for training 

and equipment for the National Guard for purposes of military 

assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic operations 

during such fiscal year. 

“(b) SCOPE OF FUNDING.—The amounts specified under subsection (a) 

for a fiscal year shall be sufficient for purposes as follows: 

“(1) The development and implementation of doctrine and 

training requirements applicable to the assistance and operations 

described in subsection (a) for such fiscal year. 

“(2) The acquisition of equipment, materiel, and other supplies 

and services necessary for the provision of such assistance and such 

operations in such fiscal year.” 

The Commission does not recommend this emendation, on the grounds that most civil 

support missions are performed using “dual-use” equipment and that the designation 

of certain training and equipment as civil support–related would likely be arbitrary and 

would not help Congress provide meaningful oversight on this matter. As discussed 

above, the Commission instead recommends that the Department of Defense explicitly 

budget and program for civil support, in coordination with the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

11. Section 2(e) of S. 2658/H.R 5200 would amend section 901 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) (relating to the positions 

of Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for National Guard Matters 

and for Reserve Matters) to read as follows: 

“SEC. 901. ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF 

STAFF FOR RESERVE MATTERS. 

“(a) IN GENERAL.—There is within the Joint Staff the position of Assistant to the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve Matters. 

“(b) SELECTION.—The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

Reserve Matters shall be selected by the Chairman from officers of the Army 

Reserve, the Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, or the Air Force Reserve 

who— 

“(1) are recommended for such selection by the Secretary of the military 

department concerned; 

“(2) have had at least 10 years of commissioned service in their reserve 

component; and 

“(3) are in a grade above colonel or, in the case the Navy Reserve, 

captain. 

“(c) TERM OF OFFICE.—The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff for Reserve Matters serves at the pleasure of the Chairman for a term of two 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 101 
APPENDICES 
 

years and may be continued in that assignment in the same manner, for one 

additional term. However, in a time of war there is no limit on the number of 

terms. 

“(d) GRADE.—The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

Reserve Matters while so serving, holds the grade of major general or, in the case 

of the Navy Reserve, rear admiral. The officer serving in the position shall be 

considered to be serving in a position external to that officer’s Armed Force for 

purposes of section 721 of title 10, United States Code. 

“(e) DUTIES.—The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

Reserve Matters is an advisor to the Chairman on matters relating to the reserves 

and performs the duties prescribed for the position by the Chairman. 

“(f) OTHER RESERVE COMPONENT REPRESENTATION ON JOINT STAFF.—The 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, shall develop appropriate policy guidance to ensure that, to the maximum 

extent practicable, the level of reserve component officer representation within the 

Joint Staff is commensurate with the significant role of the reserve components 

within the Total Force.” 

The Commission recommends keeping the position of Assistant to the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff for National Guard Matters intact because of its importance to the 

decisions made by the Chairman and by the Joint Staff generally. The Commission 

concludes that this position serves valuable coordinating and monitoring functions. 

Moreover, the position can operate as a useful conduit of information and liaison 

between the Chairman and the National Guard in circumstances not involving the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau. 

12. Section 3(a) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 expresses the sense of Congress that whenever 

officers are considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general/vice admiral 

on the active duty list, officers of the reserve components who are eligible for 

promotion to such grade should be considered for promotion. Section 3(b) requires 

the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a proposal for mechanisms to 

achieve the objective specified in subsection (a). Section 3(c) says that the President 

shall include with each nomination of an officer to the grade of lieutenant 

general/vice admiral on the active duty list that is submitted to the Senate for 

consideration a certification that all reserve officers who were eligible for 

consideration for promotion to that grade were considered in the making of such 

nomination. 

The Commission recommends a modification to this proposal, because it does not 

believe that requiring the President to certify that all eligible reserve component officers 

were considered for promotion to O-9 would accomplish the laudable goal of 

increasing the opportunity for reserve and general flag officers to be selected for 

positions of importance and responsibility. The Commission instead recommends that 

the Secretary of Defense create more opportunities for reserve component officers to 

gain joint experience within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, on the Joint Staff, at 

combatant commands, and at defense agencies. The Commission further recommends 

that the Secretary should review and then identify one- and two-star positions for both 

full- and part-time reserve component officers to obtain joint experience. 

102 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 

13. Section 4(a) of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 would require that the position of deputy 

commander of United States Northern Command be filled by a qualified officer of 

the National Guard who is eligible for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general. 

The Commission recommends that either the officer serving in the position of the 

commander or the officer serving in the position of the deputy commander of U.S. 

Northern Command should be a National Guard or Reserve officer at all times. 

14. Section 529(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

requires the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve to study whether, as an 

alternative to the provisions of S. 2658/H.R. 5200 that provide for the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau to be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to hold the 

grade of general, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau should hold the grade of 

general in the performance of the current duties of that office. 

As described in the full report, on the basis of the duties currently required to be 

performed by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in this time of war, the 

Commission recommends that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau should hold the 

grade of general. The Commission recommends that the duties and responsibilities of 

the position of Chief of the National Guard Bureau should be reevaluated periodically 

to ensure that the duties required to be performed by the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau remain commensurate with grade O-10. 

15. Section 529(a)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

requires the Commission to report on the advisability and feasibility of 

implementing the provisions of section 544 of H.R. 5122 of the 109th Congress, as 

passed the House of Representatives on May 11, 2006. Section 544 of H.R. 5122 

would amend section 325 of Title 32, United States Code. That section presently 

provides that a National Guard service member is relieved of duty in the National 

Guard whenever the service member is on federal Title 10 active duty, except when 

(1) the service member is an officer, (2) the officer is a commander of a National 

Guard unit, (3) the President authorizes such service in both duty statuses, and (4) 

the state or territorial governor consents. Section 544 would amend section 325 of 

Title 32 to provide that any National Guard officer, not just a commander, may not 

be relieved from duty in the National Guard while serving on federal active duty. 

Section 544 would permit the President and the governor to give the authorization 

and consent in advance of calling the officer to active duty. Section 544 would also 

allow so-called dual status National Guard officers on active duty to perform any 

duty authorized by the laws of that officer’s state without regard to the Posse 

Comitatus Act’s prohibitions against participation in civilian law enforcement 

activities. 

The Commission recommends in favor of this proposal on the grounds that it provides 

flexibility in the management of mixed component units and is consistent with the 

greater use of the National Guard and Title 10 forces for domestic missions. 

16. Section 529(a)(4) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

requires the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves to study the adequacy 

of Department of Defense processes for defining the equipment and funding 

necessary for the National Guard to conduct its responsibilities under Titles 10 and 

32, United States Code, including homeland defense and related homeland missions. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 103 
APPENDICES 
 
 

The study shall include consideration of the extent to which those processes should 

be developed, taking into consideration the views of the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau, the 54 adjutants general, and the Directors of the Army and Air National 

Guard. The study should also consider whether there should be an improved means 

by which National Guard equipment requirements are validated by the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff and are considered for funding by the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force. 

The current processes for defining funding and equipping requirements are inadequate 

in that civil support requirements are rarely considered when funding is prioritized. 

The Secretary of Homeland Security should work with the Secretary of Defense to 

define and validate homeland-related requirements. The Secretary of Defense should 

separately budget for homeland-related requirements where those requirements are not 

subsumed within other funding and equipping requirements related to the Department 

of Defense’s warfighting missions. 

17. The Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (House Report 109-702) includes a Joint Explanatory Statement of 

the Committee of Conference. The joint statement pertaining to section 529 of the 

bill directs the Commission to evaluate the proposals referred to it, taking into 

consideration various matters specified in the joint statement. The Commission is 

asked to consider “Whether the scope and complexities of the duties and 

responsibilities of the position of Deputy Commander, U.S. Northern Command, 

require that they be carried out by two officers, each in the grade of O-9, one of 

whom would be a National Guard officer eligible for promotion to that grade.” 

The Commission has considered all those matters listed in the Joint Explanatory 

Statement pertaining to section 529 of the Public Law 109-364. The Commission 

recommends that there should be only one U.S. deputy commander at U.S. Northern 

Command. 

104 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

APPENDICES 
 
 

APPENDIX 2 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES: 

AUTHORIZING STATUTES 

108th Congress 
 
 

Public Law 108-375 
 
 

As amended by 
 
 

109th Congress 
 
 

Public Law 109-163, Section 516 
 
 

And further as amended by: 
 
 

109th Congress 
 
 

Public Law 109-364, Section 529 
 
 

P.L. 108-375, SEC. 513 (AS AMENDED BY P.L. 109-163, SEC. 516). 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the legislative branch a commission to be 

known as the ‘Commission on the National Guard and Reserves’. 

(b) COMPOSITION.—(1) The Commission shall be composed of 13 members appointed as 

follows: 

(A) Three members appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Armed 

Services of the Senate. 

(B) Three members appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Armed 

Services of the House of Representatives. 

(C) Two members appointed by the ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Armed Services of the Senate. 

(D) Two members appointed by the ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Armed Service of the House of Representatives. 

(E) Three members appointed by the Secretary of Defense. 

(2) The members of the Commission shall be appointed from among persons who 

have knowledge and expertise in the following areas: 

(A) National security. 

(B) Roles and missions of any of the Armed Forces. 

(C) The mission, operations, and organization of the National Guard of the 

United States. 

(D) The mission, operations, and organization of the other reserve 

components of the Armed Forces. 

(E) Military readiness of the Armed Forces. 

(F) Personnel pay and other forms of compensation. 

(G) Other personnel benefits, including health care. 

(3) Members of the Commission shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. A 

vacancy in the membership of the Commission shall not affect the powers of the 

Commission, but shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 105 
APPENDICES 
 

(4) The Secretary of Defense shall designate a member of the Commission to be 

chairman of the Commission. 

(c) DUTIES.—(1) The Commission shall carry out a study of the following matters: 

(A) The roles and missions of the National Guard and the other reserve 

components of the Armed Forces. 

(B) The compensation and other benefits, including health care benefits, that 

are provided for members of the reserve components under the laws of the 

United States. 

(2) In carrying out the study under paragraph (1), the Commission shall do the 

following: 

(A) Assess the current roles and missions of the reserve components and 

identify appropriate potential future roles and missions for the reserve 

components. 

(B) Assess the capabilities of the reserve components and determine how the 

units and personnel of the reserve components may be best used to support 

the military operations of the Armed Forces and the achievement of national 

security objectives, including homeland defense, of the United States. 

(C) Assess the Department of Defense plan for implementation of section 

115(b) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 416(a)(4). 

(D) Assess— 

(i) the current organization and structure of the National Guard and 

the other reserve components; and 

(ii) the plans of the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces for 

future organization and structure of the National Guard and the other 

reserve components. 

(E) Assess the manner in which the National Guard and the other reserve 

components are currently organized and funded for training and identify an 

organizational and funding structure for training that best supports the 

achievement of training objectives and operational readiness. 

(F) Assess the effectiveness of the policies and programs of the National 

Guard and the other reserve components for achieving operational readiness 

and personnel readiness, including medical and personal readiness. 

(G) Assess— 

(i) the adequacy and appropriateness of the compensation and benefits 

currently provided for the members of the National Guard and the 

other reserve components, including the availability of health care 

benefits and health insurance; and 

(ii) the effects of proposed changes in compensation and benefits on 

military careers in both the regular and the reserve components of the 

Armed Forces. 

(H) Identify various feasible options for improving the compensation and 

other benefits available to the members of the National Guard and the 

members of the other reserve components and assess— 

(i) the cost-effectiveness of such options; and 

106 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 

(ii) the foreseeable effects of such options on readiness, recruitment, 

and retention of personnel for careers in the regular and reserve 

components the Armed Forces. 

(I) Assess the traditional military career paths for members of the National 

Guard and the other reserve components and identify alternative career 

paths that could enhance professional development. 

(J) Assess the adequacy of the funding provided for the National Guard and 

the other reserve components for several previous fiscal years, including the 

funding provided for National Guard and reserve component equipment and 

the funding provided for National Guard and other reserve component 

personnel in active duty military personnel accounts and reserve military 

personnel accounts. 

(d) FIRST MEETING.—The Commission shall hold its first meeting not later than 30 days 

after the date on which all members of the Commission have been appointed. 

(e) ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL AUTHORITIES.—(1) Sections 955, 956, 957 

(other than subsection (f)), 958, and 959 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 111 note) may apply to the Commission, 

except that— 

(A) in applying the first sentence of subsection (a) of section 957 of such Act 

to the Commission, ‘may’ shall be substituted for ‘shall’; and 

(B) in applying subsections (a), (c)(2), and (e) of section 957 of such Act to the 

Commission, ‘level IV of the Executive Schedule’ shall be substituted for 

‘level V of the Executive Schedule’. 

(2) The following provisions of law do not apply to the Commission: 

(A) Section 3161 of title 5, United States Code. 

(B) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). 

(3) If warranted by circumstances described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 

8344(i)(1) of title 5, United States Code, or by circumstances described in 

subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 8468(f)(1) of such title, as applicable, the 

chairman of the Commission may exercise, with respect to the members of the 

Commission, the same waiver authority as would be available to the Director of the 

Office of Personnel Management under such section. 

(f) REPORTS.—(1) Not later than three months after the first meeting of the Commission, 

the Commission shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives a report setting forth— 

(A) a strategic plan for the work of the Commission; 

(B) a discussion of the activities of the Commission; and 

(C) any initial findings of the Commission. 

(2) Not later than January 31, 2008, the Commission shall submit a final report to 

the committees of Congress referred to in paragraph (1) and to the Secretary of 

Defense. The final report shall include any recommendations that the Commission 

determines appropriate, including any recommended legislation, policies, 

regulations, directives, and practices. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 107 
 

 

APPENDICES 
 
 

(g) TERMINATION.—The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which the 

final report is submitted under subsection (f)(2). 

(h) ANNUAL REVIEW.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall annually review the reserve 

components of the Armed Forces with regard to— 

(A) the roles and missions of the reserve components; and 

(B) the compensation and other benefits, including health care benefits, that 

are provided for members of the reserve components under the laws of the 

United States. 

(2) The Secretary shall submit a report of the annual review, together with any 

comments and recommendations that the Secretary considers appropriate, to the 

Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services 

of the House of Representatives. 

(3) The first review under paragraph (1) shall take place during fiscal year 2006. 

109th Congress 
 
 

Public Law 109-364, Section 529 
 
 

SEC. 529. ADDITIONAL MATTERS TO BE REVIEWED BY COMMISSION 

ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES. 

(a) Additional Matters to be Reviewed by Commission—The Commission on the National 

Guard and Reserves shall include among the matters it studies (in addition to the matters 

specified in subsection (c) of the commission charter) each of the following: 

(1) NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU ENHANCEMENT PROPOSALS—The advisability 

and feasibility of implementing the provisions of S. 2658 and H.R. 5200 of the 109th 

Congress, as introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

respectively, on April 26, 2006. 

(2) CHIEF OF NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU—As an alternative to implementation 

of the provisions of the bills specified in paragraph (1) that provide for the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau to be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to hold 

the grade of general, the advisability and feasibility of providing for the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau to hold the grade of general in the performance of the 

current duties of that office. 

(3) NATIONAL GUARD OFFICERS AUTHORITY TO COMMAND—The advisability 

and feasibility of implementing the provisions of section 544 of H.R. 5122 of the 

109th Congress, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 11, 2006. 

(4) NATIONAL GUARD EQUIPMENT AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS—The 

adequacy of the Department of Defense processes for defining the equipment and 

funding necessary for the National Guard to conduct both its responsibilities under 

title 10, United States Code, and its responsibilities under title 32, United States 

108 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Code, including homeland defense and related homeland missions, including as part 

of such study— 

(A) consideration of the extent to which those processes should be developed 

taking into consideration the views of the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau, as well as the views of the 54 Adjutant Generals and the views of the 

Chiefs of the Army National Guard and the Air Guard; and 

(B) whether there should be an improved means by which National Guard 

equipment requirements are validated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and are 

considered for funding by the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force. 

(b) Priority Review and Report— 

(1) PRIORITY REVIEW—The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves 

shall carry out its study of the matters specified in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of 

subsection (a) on a priority basis, with a higher priority for matters under those 

paragraphs relating to the grade and functions of the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau. 

(2) REPORT—In addition to the reports required under subsection (f) of the 

commission charter, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 

Representatives an interim report, not later than March 1, 2007, specifically on the 

matters covered by paragraph (1). In such report, the Commission shall set forth its 

findings and any recommendations it considers appropriate with respect to those 

matters. 

(c) Commission Charter Defined—For purposes of this section, the term ‘commission 

charter’ means section 513 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118 Stat. 1880). 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 109 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 3 

H.R. 5200, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ENHANCEMENT AND 

NATIONAL GUARD EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 2006 

109th CONGRESS 

2d Session 

H. R. 5200 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the national defense through 
 
 

empowerment of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the enhancement of the 
 
 

functions of the National Guard Bureau, and for other purposes. 
 
 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

April 26, 2006 

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. GIBBONS, 

Mr. HAYES, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 
 
 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the national defense through 

empowerment of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the enhancement of the 

functions of the National Guard Bureau, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the `National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 

Empowerment Act of 2006'. 

SEC. 2. EXPANDED AUTHORITY OF CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL 

GUARD BUREAU AND EXPANDED FUNCTIONS OF THE 

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU. 

(a) Expanded Authority-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 10501 of title 10, United States 

Code, is amended by striking `joint bureau of the Department of the Army 

and the Department of the Air Force' and inserting `joint activity of the 

Department of Defense'. 

(2) PURPOSE- Subsection (b) of such section is amended by striking 

`between' and all that follows and inserting `between-- 

`(1)(A) the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 

commanders of the combatant commands for the United States, and (B) the 

Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force; and 

`(2) the several States.'. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 111
APPENDICES

(b) Enhancements of Position of Chief of the National Guard Bureau-

(1) ADVISORY FUNCTION ON NATIONAL GUARD MATTERSSubsection (c) of section 10502 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 

by inserting `to the Secretary of Defense, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff,' after `principal advisor'. 

(2) MEMBER OF JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF- (A) Such section is further 

amended--

(i) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and 

(ii) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection (d): 

`(d) Member of Joint Chiefs of Staff- The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall 

perform the duties prescribed for him or her as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

under section 151 of this title.'. 

(B) Section 151(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
 
 

new paragraph: 
 
 

`(7) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.'. 
 
 

(3) GRADE- Subsection (e) of such section, as redesignated by paragraph 
 
 

(2)(A)(i) of this subsection, is further amended by striking `lieutenant general' 
 
 

and inserting `general'. 
 
 

(4) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON VALIDATED 
 
 

REQUIREMENTS- Section 10504 of such title is amended by adding at the 
 
 

end the following new subsection: 
 
 

`(c) Annual Report on Validated Requirements- Not later than December 31 each 

year, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall submit to Congress a report on 

the following: 

`(1) The requirements validated under section 10503a(b)(1) of this title 

during the preceding fiscal year. 

`(2) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for which funding is to be 

requested in the next budget for a fiscal year under section 10544 of this title. 

`(3) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for which funding will not 

be requested in the next budget for a fiscal year under section 10544 of this 

title.'. 

(c) Enhancement of Functions of National Guard Bureau- 

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF CHARTER- Section 10503 of title 10, United 

States Code, is amended--

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `The Secretary 

of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force shall jointly develop' 

and inserting `The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, shall 

develop'; and 

(B) in paragraph (12), by striking `the Secretaries' and inserting `the 

Secretary of Defense'. 

(2) ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUNCTIONS- Such section is further 

amended--

(A) by redesignating paragraph (12), as amended by paragraph (1)(B) 

of this subsection, as paragraph (13); and 

(B) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following new paragraph 

(12): 

112 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
APPENDICES

`(12) Facilitating and coordinating with other Federal agencies, and with the 

several States, the use of National Guard personnel and resources for and in 

contingency operations, military operations other than war, natural disasters, 

support of civil authorities, and other circumstances.'. 

(3) MILITARY ASSISTANCE FOR CIVIL AUTHORITIES- Chapter 1011 

of such title is further amended by inserting after section 10503 the following 

new section: 

`Sec. 10503a. Functions of National Guard Bureau: military assistance to civil 

authorities 

`(a) Identification of Additional Necessary Assistance- The Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau shall--

`(1) identify gaps between Federal and State capabilities to prepare for and 

respond to emergencies; and 

`(2) make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on programs and 

activities of the National Guard for military assistance to civil authorities to 

address such gaps. 

`(b) Scope of Responsibilities- In meeting the requirements of subsection (a), the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall, in coordination with the Adjutant 

Generals of the States, have responsibilities as follows: 

`(1) To validate the requirements of the several States and Territories with 
 
 

respect to military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(2) To develop doctrine and training requirements relating to the provision 
 
 

of military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(3) To acquire equipment, materiel, and other supplies and services for the 
 
 

provision of military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(4) To assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing the budget required 
 
 

under section 10544 of this title. 
 
 

`(5) To administer amounts provided the National Guard for the provision 
 
 

of military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(6) To carry out any other responsibility relating to the provision of military 
 
 

assistance to civil authorities as the Secretary of Defense shall specify. 
 
 

`(c) Assistance- The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall assist the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau in carrying out activities under this section. 

`(d) Consultation- The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall carry out activities 

under this section in consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary 

of the Air Force.'. 

(4) BUDGETING FOR TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR 

MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER 

DOMESTIC MISSIONS- Chapter 1013 of title 10, United States Code, is 

amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

`Sec. 10544. National Guard training and equipment: budget for military assistance 

to civil authorities and for other domestic operations 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 113
APPENDICES

`(a) In General- The budget justification documents materials submitted to Congress 

in support of the budget of the President for a fiscal year (as submitted with the 

budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) shall specify separate 

amounts for training and equipment for the National Guard for purposes of military 

assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic operations during such fiscal 

year. 

`(b) Scope of Funding- The amounts specified under subsection (a) for a fiscal year 

shall be sufficient for purposes as follows: 

`(1) The development and implementation of doctrine and training 

requirements applicable to the assistance and operations described in 

subsection (a) for such fiscal year. 

`(2) The acquisition of equipment, materiel, and other supplies and services 

necessary for the provision of such assistance and such operations in such 

fiscal year.'. 

(5) LIMITATION ON INCREASE IN PERSONNEL OF NATIONAL 

GUARD BUREAU- The Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent 

practicable, ensure that no additional personnel are assigned to the National 

Guard Bureau in order to address administrative or other requirements 

arising out of the amendments made by this subsection. 

(d) Conforming and Clerical Amendments- 

(1) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 10503 of 

such title is amended to read as follows: 

`Sec. 10503. Functions of National Guard Bureau: charter'. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The table of sections at the beginning 
 
 

of chapter 1011 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
 
 

section 10503 and inserting the following new items: 
 
 

`10503. Functions of National Guard Bureau: charter. 
 
 

`10503a. Functions of National Guard Bureau: military assistance to civil 
 
 

authorities.'. 
 
 

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1013 of such title is 
 
 

amended by adding at the end the following new item: 
 
 

`10544. National Guard training and equipment: budget for military 
 
 

assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic operations.'. 
 
 

(e) Termination of Position of Assistant to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

National Guard Matters- Section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1853; 10 U.S.C. 155 note) is amended 

to read as follows: 

`SEC. 901. Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve Matters. 

`(a) In General- There is within the Joint Staff the position of Assistant to the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve Matters. 

`(b) Selection- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve 

Matters shall be selected by the Chairman from officers of the Army Reserve, the 

Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, or the Air Force Reserve who--

114 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
APPENDICES

`(1) are recommended for such selection by the Secretary of the military 

department concerned; 

`(2) have had at least 10 years of commissioned service in their reserve 

component; and 

`(3) are in a grade above colonel or, in the case the Navy Reserve, captain. 

`(c) Term of Office- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

Reserve Matters serves at the pleasure of the Chairman for a term of two years and 

may be continued in that assignment in the same manner, for one additional term. 

However, in a time of war there is no limit on the number of terms. 

`(d) Grade- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve 

Matters while so serving, holds the grade of major general or, in the case of the Navy 

Reserve, rear admiral. The officer serving in the position shall be considered to be 

serving in a position external to that officer's Armed Force for purposes of section 

721 of title 10, United States Code. 

`(e) Duties- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve 

Matters is an advisor to the Chairman on matters relating to the reserves and 

performs the duties prescribed for the position by the Chairman. 

`(f) Other Reserve Component Representation on Joint Staff- The Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall develop 

appropriate policy guidance to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, the 

level of reserve component officer representation within the Joint Staff is 

commensurate with the significant role of the reserve components within the Total 

Force.'. 

SEC. 3. PROMOTION OF ELIGIBLE RESERVE OFFICERS TO 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL AND VICE ADMIRAL GRADES ON THE 

ACTIVE-DUTY LIST. 

(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that, whenever officers are 

considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general, or vice admiral in the 

case of the Navy, on the active duty list, officers of the reserve components of the 

Armed Forces who are eligible for promotion to such grade should be considered 

for promotion to such grade. 

(b) Proposal- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a proposal for 

mechanisms to achieve the objective specified in subsection (a). The proposal shall 

include such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the 

Secretary considers appropriate in order to achieve that objective. 

(c) Notice Accompanying Nominations- The President shall include with each 

nomination of an officer to the grade of lieutenant general, or vice admiral in the 

case of the Navy, on the active-duty list that is submitted to the Senate for 

consideration a certification that all reserve officers who were eligible for 

consideration for promotion to such grade were considered in the making of such 

nomination. 

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT THAT POSITION OF DEPUTY 

COMMANDER OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND 

BE FILLED BY A QUALIFIED NATIONAL GUARD OFFICER. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 115
APPENDICES

(a) In General- The position of Deputy Commander of the United States Northern 

Command shall be filled by a qualified officer of the National Guard who is eligible 

for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general. 

(b) Purpose- The purpose of the requirement in subsection (a) is to ensure that 

information received from the National Guard Bureau regarding the operation of the 

National Guard of the several States is integrated into the plans and operations of 

the United States Northern Command. 

116 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
APPENDICES

APPENDIX 4 

S. 2658, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ENHANCEMENT AND 

NATIONAL GUARD EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 2006 

109th CONGRESS 

2d Session 

S. 2658 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the national defense through 

empowerment of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the enhancement of the 

functions of the National Guard Bureau, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

April 26, 2006 

Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 
 
 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the national defense through 

empowerment of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the enhancement of the 

functions of the National Guard Bureau, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the `National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 

Empowerment Act of 2006'. 

SEC. 2. EXPANDED AUTHORITY OF CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL 

GUARD BUREAU AND EXPANDED FUNCTIONS OF THE 

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU. 

(a) Expanded Authority-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 10501 of title 10, United States 

Code, is amended by striking `joint bureau of the Department of the Army 

and the Department of the Air Force' and inserting `joint activity of the 

Department of Defense'. 

(2) PURPOSE- Subsection (b) of such section is amended by striking 

`between' and all that follows and inserting `between-- 

`(1)(A) the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the 

commanders of the combatant commands for the United States, and (B) the 

Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force; and 

`(2) the several States.'. 

(b) Enhancements of Position of Chief of the National Guard BureauCOMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 117
APPENDICES

(1) ADVISORY FUNCTION ON NATIONAL GUARD MATTERSSubsection (c) of section 10502 of title 10, United States Code, is amended 

by inserting `to the Secretary of Defense, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff,' after `principal advisor'. 

(2) MEMBER OF JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF- (A) Such section is further 

amended--

(i) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and 

(ii) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection (d): 

`(d) Member of Joint Chiefs of Staff- The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall 

perform the duties prescribed for him or her as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

under section 151 of this title.'. 

(B) Section 151(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
 
 

new paragraph: 
 
 

`(7) The Chief of the National Guard Bureau.'. 
 
 

(3) GRADE- Subsection (e) of such section, as redesignated by paragraph 
 
 

(2)(A)(i) of this subsection, is further amended by striking `lieutenant general' 
 
 

and inserting `general'. 
 
 

(4) ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS ON VALIDATED 
 
 

REQUIREMENTS- Section 10504 of such title is amended by adding at the 
 
 

end the following new subsection: 
 
 

`(c) Annual Report on Validated Requirements- Not later than December 31 each 

year, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall submit to Congress a report on 

the following: 

`(1) The requirements validated under section 10503a(b)(1) of this title 

during the preceding fiscal year. 

`(2) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for which funding is to be 

requested in the next budget for a fiscal year under section 10544 of this title. 

`(3) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) for which funding will not 

be requested in the next budget for a fiscal year under section 10544 of this 

title.'. 

(c) Enhancement of Functions of National Guard Bureau- 

(1) DEVELOPMENT OF CHARTER- Section 10503 of title 10, United 

States Code, is amended--

(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking `The Secretary 

of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force shall jointly develop' 

and inserting `The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, shall 

develop'; and 

(B) in paragraph (12), by striking `the Secretaries' and inserting `the 

Secretary of Defense'. 

(2) ADDITIONAL GENERAL FUNCTIONS- Such section is further 

amended--

(A) by redesignating paragraph (12), as amended by paragraph (1)(B) 

of this subsection, as paragraph (13); and 

(B) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following new paragraph 

(12): 

`(12) Facilitating and coordinating with other Federal agencies, and with the 

several States, the use of National Guard personnel and resources for and in 

118 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
APPENDICES

contingency operations, military operations other than war, natural disasters, 

support of civil authorities, and other circumstances.'. 

(3) MILITARY ASSISTANCE FOR CIVIL AUTHORITIES- Chapter 1011 

of such title is further amended by inserting after section 10503 the following 

new section: 

`Sec. 10503a. Functions of National Guard Bureau: military assistance to civil 

authorities 

`(a) Identification of Additional Necessary Assistance- The Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau shall--

`(1) identify gaps between Federal and State capabilities to prepare for and 

respond to emergencies; and 

`(2) make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on programs and 

activities of the National Guard for military assistance to civil authorities to 

address such gaps. 

`(b) Scope of Responsibilities- In meeting the requirements of subsection (a), the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall, in coordination with the Adjutant 

Generals of the States, have responsibilities as follows: 

`(1) To validate the requirements of the several States and Territories with 
 
 

respect to military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(2) To develop doctrine and training requirements relating to the provision 
 
 

of military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(3) To acquire equipment, materiel, and other supplies and services for the 
 
 

provision of military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(4) To assist the Secretary of Defense in preparing the budget required 
 
 

under section 10544 of this title. 
 
 

`(5) To administer amounts provided the National Guard for the provision 
 
 

of military assistance to civil authorities. 
 
 

`(6) To carry out any other responsibility relating to the provision of military 
 
 

assistance to civil authorities as the Secretary of Defense shall specify. 
 
 

`(c) Assistance- The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall assist the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau in carrying out activities under this section. 

`(d) Consultation- The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall carry out activities 

under this section in consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary 

of the Air Force.'. 

(4) BUDGETING FOR TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR 

MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER 

DOMESTIC MISSIONS- Chapter 1013 of title 10, United States Code, is 

amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

`Sec. 10544. National Guard training and equipment: budget for military assistance 

to civil authorities and for other domestic operations 

`(a) In General- The budget justification documents materials submitted to Congress 

in support of the budget of the President for a fiscal year (as submitted with the 

budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) shall specify separate 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 119
APPENDICES

amounts for training and equipment for the National Guard for purposes of military 

assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic operations during such fiscal 

year. 

`(b) Scope of Funding- The amounts specified under subsection (a) for a fiscal year 

shall be sufficient for purposes as follows: 

`(1) The development and implementation of doctrine and training 

requirements applicable to the assistance and operations described in 

subsection (a) for such fiscal year. 

`(2) The acquisition of equipment, materiel, and other supplies and services 

necessary for the provision of such assistance and such operations in such 

fiscal year.'. 

(5) LIMITATION ON INCREASE IN PERSONNEL OF NATIONAL 

GUARD BUREAU- The Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent 

practicable, ensure that no additional personnel are assigned to the National 

Guard Bureau in order to address administrative or other requirements 

arising out of the amendments made by this subsection. 

(d) Conforming and Clerical Amendments- 

(1) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The heading of section 10503 of 

such title is amended to read as follows: 

`Sec. 10503. Functions of National Guard Bureau: charter'. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The table of sections at the beginning 
 
 

of chapter 1011 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
 
 

section 10503 and inserting the following new items: 
 
 

`10503. Functions of National Guard Bureau: charter. 
 
 

`10503a. Functions of National Guard Bureau: military assistance to civil 
 
 

authorities.'. 
 
 

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1013 of such title is 
 
 

amended by adding at the end the following new item: 
 
 

`10544. National Guard training and equipment: budget for military 
 
 

assistance to civil authorities and for other domestic operations.'. 
 
 

(e) Termination of Position of Assistant to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

National Guard Matters- Section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1853; 10 U.S.C. 155 note) is amended 

to read as follows: 

`Sec. 901. Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve Matters. 

`(a) In General- There is within the Joint Staff the position of Assistant to the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve Matters. 

`(b) Selection- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve 

Matters shall be selected by the Chairman from officers of the Army Reserve, the 

Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, or the Air Force Reserve who--

`(1) are recommended for such selection by the Secretary of the military 

department concerned; 

120 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
APPENDICES

`(2) have had at least 10 years of commissioned service in their reserve 

component; and 

`(3) are in a grade above colonel or, in the case the Navy Reserve, captain. 

`(c) Term of Office- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 

Reserve Matters serves at the pleasure of the Chairman for a term of two years and 

may be continued in that assignment in the same manner, for one additional term. 

However, in a time of war there is no limit on the number of terms. 

`(d) Grade- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve 

Matters while so serving, holds the grade of major general or, in the case of the Navy 

Reserve, rear admiral. The officer serving in the position shall be considered to be 

serving in a position external to that officer's Armed Force for purposes of section 

721 of title 10, United States Code. 

`(e) Duties- The Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve 

Matters is an advisor to the Chairman on matters relating to the reserves and 

performs the duties prescribed for the position by the Chairman. 

`(f) Other Reserve Component Representation on Joint Staff- The Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall develop 

appropriate policy guidance to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, the 

level of reserve component officer representation within the Joint Staff is 

commensurate with the significant role of the reserve components within the Total 

Force.'. 

SEC. 3. PROMOTION OF ELIGIBLE RESERVE OFFICERS TO 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL AND VICE ADMIRAL GRADES ON THE 

ACTIVE-DUTY LIST. 

(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that, whenever officers are 

considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general, or vice admiral in the 

case of the Navy, on the active duty list, officers of the reserve components of the 

Armed Forces who are eligible for promotion to such grade should be considered 

for promotion to such grade. 

(b) Proposal- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a proposal for 

mechanisms to achieve the objective specified in subsection (a). The proposal shall 

include such recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the 

Secretary considers appropriate in order to achieve that objective. 

(c) Notice Accompanying Nominations- The President shall include with each 

nomination of an officer to the grade of lieutenant general, or vice admiral in the 

case of the Navy, on the active-duty list that is submitted to the Senate for 

consideration a certification that all reserve officers who were eligible for 

consideration for promotion to such grade were considered in the making of such 

nomination. 

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT THAT POSITION OF DEPUTY 

COMMANDER OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND 

BE FILLED BY A QUALIFIED NATIONAL GUARD OFFICER. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 121
APPENDICES

(a) In General- The position of Deputy Commander of the United States Northern 

Command shall be filled by a qualified officer of the National Guard who is eligible 

for promotion to the grade of lieutenant general. 

(b) Purpose- The purpose of the requirement in subsection (a) is to ensure that 

information received from the National Guard Bureau regarding the operation of the 

National Guard of the several States is integrated into the plans and operations of 

the United States Northern Command. 

122 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
APPENDICES 
 
 

APPENDIX 5 

THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU CHARTER 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 10503, Title 10, United States Code, the Secretary 

of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force have jointly developed and do hereby 

prescribe the following Charter for the National Guard Bureau: 

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU CHARTER 

Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of the Army and the 

Secretary of the Air Force, subject to sections 3013 and 8013 of Title 10, United States 

Code, and consistent with approved policies, directives, regulations, and publications of the 

Army and the Air Force, and subject to inspections in accordance with Section 105 of Title 

32, United States Code, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is responsible for the 

following functions: 

(1) Implementing Departmental guidance on allocation of unit structure, strength 

authorizations, and other resources to the Army National Guard of the United States and 

the Air National Guard of the United States. 

(2) Prescribing the training discipline and training requirements for the Army 

National Guard and the Air National Guard and the allocation of Federal funds for the 

training of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. 

(3) Ensuring that units and members of the Army National Guard and the Air 

National Guard are trained by the States in accordance with approved programs and 

policies of, and guidance from, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, 

and the respective Service Chiefs of Staff. 

(4) Monitoring and assisting the States in the organization, maintenance, and 

operation of National Guard units so as to provide well-trained and well-equipped units 

capable of augmenting the active forces in time of war or national emergency. 

(5) Planning and administering the budgets for the Army National Guard of the 

United States and the Air National Guard of the United States. 

(6) Supervising the acquisition and supply of, and accountability of the States for, 

Federal property issued to the National Guard through the property and fiscal officers 

designated, detailed, or appointed under section 708 of Title 32, United States Code. 

(7) Granting and withdrawing, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, 

Federal recognition of (A) National Guard units, and (B) officers of the National Guard. 

(8) Coordinating departmental policies and programs for the employment and use of 

National Guard technicians under section 709 of Title 32, United States Code. 

(9) Supervising and administering the Active Guard and Reserve program as it 

pertains to the National Guard in accordance with priorities established by the Secretary of 

the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force. 

(10) Issuing, with the coordination and approval of the service concerned, 

directives, regulations, and publications consistent with approved policies of the Army and 

Air Force, as appropriate. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 123 
 

APPENDICES 
 

(11) Facilitating and supporting the training of members and units of the National 

Guard to meet State requirements. 

(12) Facilitating and coordinating with the Departments of the Army and the Air 

Force the use of National Guard personnel and resources for contingency operations, 

Military Operations Other Than War, natural disasters, Military Support to Civil 

Authorities, and special events. 

(13) Ensuring that appointments of all officials and personnel of the National Guard 

Bureau comply with all applicable Department of the Army and Department of the Air 

Force personnel and manpower rules and regulations. 

(14) Ensuring that, in the performance of their dirties, all officials and personnel of 

the National Guard Bureau comply fully with applicable Department of the Army and 

Department of the Air Force policies, directives, publications and legal opinions. 

(15) Implementing, with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as the Responsible 

Department Official, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and DOD Directive 5500.11, 

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, as they apply to the Army and Air 

National Guard. 

(16) Such other functions as the Secretaries may prescribe. 

(Dated September 1, 1995; published in Army Regulation 130-5/AFMD 10, “Organization 

and Functions of National Guard Bureau,” December 30, 2001, pp. 3–4.) 

124 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

APPENDIX 6 
 
 

COMMISSIONERS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL 

GUARD AND RESERVES 

Arnold L. Punaro, Chairman 

Chairman Punaro is a retired Marine Corps major general who served as Commanding 

General of the 4th Marine Division (1997–2000) and Director of Reserve Affairs at 

Headquarters Marine Corps during the post-9/11 peak reserve mobilization periods. 

Following active duty service in Vietnam, he was mobilized three times: for Operation 

Desert Shield in the first Gulf War, to command Joint Task Force Provide Promise (Fwd) in 

Bosnia and Macedonia, and for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. He worked on Capitol 

Hill for 24 years for Senator Sam Nunn and served as his staff director of the Senate Armed 

Services Committee for 14 years. He is currently Executive Vice President of Science 

Applications International Corporation. 

William L. Ball, III 

Commissioner Ball is currently Managing Director of The Loeffler Group, a government 

affairs practice in Washington, DC, and Texas. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of 

Trustees of the Asia Foundation, an international NGO operating in 18 Asian countries. He 

served in the Navy for 6 years, followed by 10 years’ service on the U.S. Senate staff for 

Senators Herman Talmadge and John Tower. He joined the Reagan administration in 1985, 

serving as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, Assistant to the President for 

Legislative Affairs at the White House, and Secretary of the Navy in 1988–89. 

Les Brownlee 

Commissioner Brownlee was confirmed as the Under Secretary of the Army in November 

2004 and served concurrently as the Acting Secretary of the Army from May 2003 to 

November 2004. He was appointed by both Senators Strom Thurmond and John Warner to 

serve as the staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He served two tours in 

Vietnam and is retired from the United States Army. He is currently President of Les 

Brownlee & Associates LLC. 

Rhett Dawson 

Commissioner Dawson is currently President and CEO of the Information Technology 

Industry Council. He is the former Senior Vice President, Law and Public Policy, for the 

Potomac Electric Power Company. During the last two years of the Reagan administration, 

he was an Assistant to the President for Operations. He also served as staff director of the 

Senate Armed Services Committee. He served on active duty as an ROTC-commissioned 

Army officer from 1969 to 1972. 

Larry K. Eckles 

Commissioner Eckles retired as the Assistant Division Commander of the 35th Infantry 

Division, headquartered at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, after 37 years of service. He retired 

with more than 31 years of full-time civil service employment with the Nebraska Army 

National Guard and has served in numerous positions at state headquarters, including chief 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 125 
APPENDICES 
 
 

of staff of the Nebraska Army National Guard, battalion commander, and director of 

personnel. 

Patricia L. Lewis 

Commissioner Lewis served more than 28 years with the federal government, including 

service with the Senate Armed Services Committee for Chairmen John Warner, Sam Nunn, 

and Scoop Jackson. Ms. Lewis began her federal career in 1975 with the Department of the 

Navy and has held positions in Naval Sea Systems Command, the Office of the Navy 

Comptroller, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. She is currently a partner with 

Monfort-Lewis, LLC. 

Dan McKinnon 

Commissioner McKinnon was founder, Chairman, and CEO of North American Airlines. 

He undertook special projects for the Director of Central Intelligence and also served as 

Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, during which time he implemented airline 

deregulation. He has owned radio stations in San Diego. Early in his career, he spent four 

years in the United States Navy as an aviator where he set, and holds, the U.S. Navy 

helicopter peacetime air/sea record of 62 saves. 

Wade Rowley 

Commissioner Rowley is currently a military border infrastructure construction consultant 

with the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He 

served more than 23 years with the California Army National Guard and Army Reserves. 

His last military assignment was with the California Army National Guard, where he served 

as an engineer officer, company commander, and facility commander for the California 

National Guard Counterdrug Task Force in support of the U.S. Border Patrol. 

James E. Sherrard III 

Commissioner Sherrard served as Chief of Air Force Reserve, Headquarters USAF, 

Washington, DC, and Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, Robins AFB, Georgia, 

from 1998 to 2004. He is a retired lieutenant general with more than 38 years of 

commissioned service in the United States Air Force. As Chief of Air Force Reserve and 

Commander, Air Force Reserve Command, he was responsible for organizing, training, and 

equipping more than 79,000 military and civil service personnel required to support 

operations and combat readiness training for 36 flying wings, 14 detached groups, 13 Air 

Force Reserve installations, three Numbered Air Forces, and the Air Reserve Personnel 

Center (ARPC). As Chief of Air Force Reserve, he directed and oversaw the mobilization of 

Air Force Reserve personnel in support of military operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and 

Iraq. During his career, General Sherrard commanded an airlift group, two Air Force 

Reserve installations, two wings, and two Numbered Air Forces. 

Donald L. Stockton 

Commissioner Stockton owns and for more than 32 years has operated the Marshfield 

Drayage Company, a regional trucking company in southwest Missouri. He retired as a 

lieutenant colonel from the U.S. Air Force Reserves, where he served nearly 30 years. For 

almost 25 years he commanded various flights and squadrons, was deputy commander for 

resources, and subsequently was deputy commander for support of the 943rd Airlift Wing 

at March Air Force Base in California. His last command was with the 934th Maintenance 

126 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

APPENDICES 
 
 

Squadron, a subordinate unit of the 934th Airlift Wing, Air Force Reserve, in Minneapolis, 

where he was responsible for the unit’s C-130E aircraft and for the training of some 175 

reservists. For the Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA), he is immediate 

past national Air Force vice president, a past president, and currently national councilman 

for the Missouri Department. 

E. Gordon Stump 

Commissioner Stump retired in January 2003 from his position of Adjutant General and the 

Director of Military and Veterans Affairs in Michigan after serving for 12 years. He 

commanded and directed a total of 157 Army and Air National Guard units, two veterans 

nursing homes, and 12 veterans service organizations. His prior assignments included 

Squadron Commander 107th TFS and Commander and Deputy Commander of the 

Headquarters Michigan Air National Guard. He flew 241 combat missions over North and 

South Vietnam. He also deployed to South Korea during the Pueblo crisis. He served as 

President of the National Guard Association of the United States and as a member of the 

Reserve Forces Policy Board. Prior to his assignment as Adjutant General, he was Vice 

President of Automotive Engineering for Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. He is currently 

President of Strategic Defense Associates, LLC. 

J. Stanton Thompson 

Commissioner Thompson is currently an executive director for the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. He is a retired naval rear admiral with more than 35 

years of military service. He is the former Special Assistant for Reserve Matters to the 

Commander, U.S. NORTHCOM and North American Aerospace Command. He also served 

as a principal advisor to the commander for maritime homeland defense. During his recall 

to active duty, he provided active duty support to Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 127 

APPENDICES 
 
 

APPENDIX 7 

PUBLIC HEARING PANELS TO DATE 

HEARING ON PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES, ROLES AND 

MISSIONS 

Room 2216, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 

March 8, 2006 

9:30 a.m. (IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE) 

•	 Senator Mark Pryor, Co-Chair, Senate Reserve Caucus 

•	 Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman, Personnel Subcommittee, Senate 

Armed Services Committee 

•	 Rep. Duncan Hunter, Chairman, House Armed Services Committee 

•	 Senator Kit Bond, Co-Chair, Senate National Guard Caucus 

•	 Senator Patrick Leahy, Co-Chair, Senate National Guard Caucus 

•	 Rep. John McHugh, Chairman, Military Personnel Subcommittee, House 

Armed Services Committee 

•	 Senator Ben Nelson, Ranking Member, Personnel Subcommittee, Senate 

Armed Services Committee 

•	 Senator John Warner, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee 

•	 Rep. Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee 

•	 Rep. Gene Taylor, Co-Chair, House Guard and Reserve Components Caucus 

•	 Rep. Steve Buyer, Co-Chair, House Guard and Reserve Components Caucus 

1:00 p.m. 

•	 Dr. David S. C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness 

•	 Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, Assistant to the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 129 
APPENDICES 
 

MARCH 9, 2006 

9:30 a.m. 

•	 General Richard Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army 

•	 Admiral Robert Willard, Vice Chief of Naval Operations 

•	 General Robert Magnus, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps 

•	 General John D. W. Corley, Vice Chief of Staff of the U. S. Air Force 

2:00 p.m. 

•	 Michèle Flournoy, Senior Adviser in the International Security Program at 

the Center for Strategic & International Studies 

•	 Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and 

Budgetary Assessments 

130 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

HEARING ON HOMELAND DEFENSE/HOMELAND SECURITY 

National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center 

429 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC 

May 3, 2006 

9:30 a.m. 

•	 Secretary George W. Foresman, Under Secretary for Preparedness, 

Department of Homeland Security 

•	 Secretary Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland 

Defense, Department of Defense 

•	 Admiral Timothy J. Keating, USN, Commander, North American Aerospace 

Defense Command, and Commander, U.S. Northern Command 

1:30 p.m. 

•	 Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau 

•	 Major General Roger P. Lempke, ANG, President, Adjutants General 

Association of the United States, and Adjutant General, State of Nebraska 

•	 Rear Admiral Kenneth T. Venuto, USCG, Assistant Commandant for Human 

Resources 

May 4, 2006 

9:30 a.m. 

•	 Honorable John O. Marsh, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Law, George 

Mason University 

•	 Frank J. Cilluffo, Associate Vice President for Homeland Security, and 

Director, Homeland Security Policy Institute, The George Washington 

University 

•	 Dr. James J. Carafano, Senior Research Fellow, Defense and Homeland 

Security, The Heritage Foundation 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 131 
APPENDICES 
 

HEARING ON NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES 

Rooms 2118 and 2216 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 

June 15, 2006 

9:00 a.m. 

•	 The Honorable Ruth Ann Minner, Governor of Delaware and Lead 

Governor on Homeland Security, National Governors Association 

11:00 a.m. 

•	 Christine Wormuth, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic & International 

Studies 

12:45 p.m. 

•	 The Honorable Michael F. Easley, Governor of North Carolina and Lead 

Governor on the National Guard, National Governors Association 

2:00 p.m. 

•	 Michele S. Jones, Command Sergeant Major of the Army Reserve 

•	 John D. Gipe, Command Sergeant Major of the Army National Guard 

•	 Richard A. Smith, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air National Guard 

•	 David R. Pennington, Force Master Chief of the Navy Reserve 

•	 Robin W. Dixon, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Reserve 

•	 Jackson A. Winsett, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Reserve 

•	 Jeffrey D. Smith, Reserve Force Master Chief of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Reserve 

•	 Lawrence W. Holland, Command Sergeant Major for the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 

132 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

HEARING ON NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES 

Iberian Ballroom, La Mansion Del Rio Hotel, San Antonio, TX 

July 19, 2006 

9:30 a.m. 

•	 Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, Chief of the Army Reserve 

•	 Vice Admiral John Cotton, Chief of the Navy Reserve 

•	 Lieutenant General Jack Bergman, Commander, Marine Forces Reserve 

•	 Lieutenant General John A. Bradley, Chief of the Air Force Reserve 

•	 Lieutenant General Craig R. McKinley, Director, Air National Guard 

•	 Rear Admiral John C. Acton, Deputy LANTAREA Commander for 

Mobilization and Reserve Affairs and Senior Reserve Officer, U.S. Coast 

Guard 

2:00 p.m. 

•	 Sergeant Allison Kitzerow, Army Reserve 

•	 Sergeant Christopher McWilliams, Army National Guard 

•	 Staff Sergeant Maria Sparks, Air Force Reserve 

•	 Master Sergeant Alphonzo Allen, Air National Guard 

•	 Construction Mechanic Second Class José Quiroz, Navy Reserve 

•	 Corporal Adrian Garza, Marine Corps Reserve 

•	 Chief Petty Officer Douglas Gilmer, Coast Guard Reserve 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 133 
APPENDICES 
 
 

HEARING ON NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE ISSUES 

Sims Auditorium, U.S. Navy Fleet Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center, Point Loma, 

San Diego, CA 

September 20, 2006 

9:00 a.m. 

•	 Brigadier General Douglas M. Stone, USMCR, Commanding General, 

Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Marine Corps Air Ground Task 

Force Training Command at 29 Palms 

•	 Colonel David L. Blain, USA, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, U.S. 

Army National Training Center at Fort Irwin 

10:30 a.m. 

•	 Major Thomas Friloux, ARNG, 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry, Louisiana 

Army National Guard 

•	 Major David Owen, USMC, 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment, 4th 

Marine Division 

•	 Major Christopher F. Foxx, USAR, Division Maintenance Officer, 108th HQ 

(DIVIT), Charlotte, NC 

1:00 p.m. 

•	 Brigadier General Louis Antonetti, Director, Joint Staff, California National 

Guard 

•	 Stephen J. Sellers, Regional Administrator, Southern Region, Office of 

Emergency Services, State of California 

•	 Charles P. McHugh, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of Emergency 

& Military Affairs, Division of Emergency Management 

September 21, 2006 

8:30 a.m. 

•	 Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Plunkett, ARNG, 3rd Battalion, 156th Infantry, 

Louisiana Army National Guard 

•	 Lieutenant Colonel Mark Smith, USMCR, 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine 

Regiment, 4th Marine Division 

•	 Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Sisinyak, USAR, Commander, 812th 

Transportation Battalion 

134 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

• Janet St. Laurent, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Team, 

Government Accountability Office 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 135 
APPENDICES 
 

HEARING WITH COMBATANT COMMANDERS 

Room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 

October 5, 2006 

9:00 a.m. 

•	 General James L. Jones, USMC, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe 

(SACEUR) and Commander, United States European Command 

(COMUSEUCOM) 

10:30 a.m. 

•	 General Lance L. Smith, USAF, Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command/ 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Supreme Allied Commander 

Transformation 

136 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

HEARING ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NATIONAL 

GUARD 

Room 2212 and 2216, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 

December 13, 2006 

8:00 a.m. 

•	 Dr. David S. C. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness 

•	 Thomas F. Hall, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 

10:00 a.m. 

•	 George W. Foresman, Under Secretary for Preparedness, Department of 

Homeland Security 

December 14, 2006 

10:30 a.m. 

•	 General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army 

11:45 a.m. 

•	 Michael W. Wynne, Secretary of the Air Force 

•	 General T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force 

2:00 p.m. 

•	 Major General Frank Vavala, Adjutant General, State of Delaware, and Vice 

President, Adjutants General Association of the United States 

•	 Major General Raymond F. Rees, Adjutant General, State of Oregon 

•	 Major General R. Martin Umbarger, Adjutant General, State of Indiana, and 

Chairman, National Guard Association of the United States 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 137 
APPENDICES 
 

HEARING ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NATIONAL 

GUARD 

Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 

January 31, 2007 

9:00 a.m. 

• Lieutenant General H Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau 

11:30 a.m. 

• Dr. Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army 

2:00 p.m. 

• General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 

138 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

APPENDIX 8 
 
 

INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE 
 
 

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 


Mr. Al Bemis 

Mr. Frederick McKenzie 

Mr. David Smith 

Ms. Cindy Williams 

Dr. Curt Gilroy 

Dr. Lawrence Goldberg 

Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp 

Dr. James Jay Carafano 

Hon. Francis J. Harvey 

Senator Kit Bond 

Congressman Steve Buyer 

Senator Saxby Chambliss 

Congressman Duncan Hunter 

Congressman Ike Skelton 

Congressman Gene Taylor 

Senator John Warner 

Hon. Thomas Hall 

Vice Admiral Stanley R. Szemborski 

Hon. Kenneth J. Kreig 

Hon. Paul McHale 

Hon. Ryan Henry 

Hon. David S.C. Chu 

Lieutenant General H Steven Blum 

Mr. Michael Shoebridge 

Lieutenant General John A. Bradley 

Colonel Gary Crone 

Mr. Michael Dittle 

Brigadier General Rick Ethredge 

Mr. Wayne Gracie 

Major General Jan Blom 

Major General Michael W. Davidson 

Major General Bruce Lawlor 

Ms. Kirsti Skjerven 

Lieutenant Colonel Darlene Hopkins 

Lieutenant Colonel Penelope Speed 

October 6, 2005 

October 6, 2005 

October 6, 2005 

October 13, 2005 

October 17, 2005 

October 17, 2005 

October 17, 2005 

October 20, 2005 

October 20, 2005 

November 2, 1005 

November 2, 2005 

November 2, 2005 

November 2, 2005 

November 2, 2005 

November 2, 2005 

November 2, 2005 

November 3, 2005 

November 3, 2005 

November 3, 2005 

November 3, 2005 

November 3, 2005 

November 3, 2005 

November 3, 2005 

November 14, 2005 

November 28, 2005 

November 28, 2005 

November 28, 2005 

November 28, 2005 

November 28, 2005 

December 8, 2005 

December 8, 2005 

December 8, 2005 

December 8, 2005 

January 5, 2006 

January 5, 2006 

Tysons Corner, VA 

Tysons Corner, VA 

Tysons Corner, VA 

Washington, DC 

Norfolk, VA 

Norfolk, VA 

Norfolk, VA 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Alexandria, VA 

Alexandria, VA 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 139 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Colonel Edwin Domingo 

Lieutenant Commander Walter Hogan 

Ms. Deborah Bolton 

Lieutenant General Eric “Rick” Findley 

Brigadier General James Hunter 

Mr. Bernd "Bear" McConnell 

Major General Henry Morrow 

Major General Richard Nash 

Major General Robert Ostenberg 

Major General Paul Sullivan 

Colonel Larry Smith 

Mr. Frank Cirillo 

Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan 

Mr. Ryan Fitzgerald 

Mr. Nolan Jones 

Hon. Dirk Kempthorne 

Mr. James McCleskey 

Ms. Beth Miller 

Mr. David Walker 

Lieutenant Colonel Vincent Price 

Major General Michael A. Vane 

Lieutenant Colonel Cedric Wins 

Ms. Michèle Flournoy 

Mr. Jack Harrington 

Mr. Alex Baird 

Colonel Blaine Coffey 

Colonel Nancy Fortuin 

Hon. Stephen M. Duncan 

Colonel Donald Ahern 

Master Sergeant Gloria Burleson 

Colonel Blaine Coffey 

Senior Master Sergeant Miranda Garza 

Mr. Peter Guerrant 

Mr. Edwin Guidroz 

Mr. Thomas McNamara 

Mr. Kevin VonHunke 

Master Sergeant Susan Watson 

Master Sergeant Ramona Whitted 

Mr. Paul Hogan 

Lieutenant Colonel William Birden 

Captain Dale Rausch 

January 12, 2006 

January 12, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

January 24, 2006 

February 8, 2006 

February 14, 2006 

February 27, 2006 

February 28, 2006 

February 28, 2006 

February 28, 2006 

February 28, 2006 

March 1, 2006 

March 1, 2006 

March 1, 2006 

March 1, 2006 

March 1, 2006 

March 21, 2006 

March 21, 2006 

March 23, 2006 

March 23, 2006 

March 23, 2006 

March 24, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 27, 2006 

March 29, 2006 

March 29, 2006 

April 3, 2006 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Peterson AFB, CO 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Sebring, FL 

140 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Lieutenant Colonel Trent Dudley 

Lieutenant General Jack W. Bergman 

Lieutenant General H Steven Blum 

Vice Admiral John Cotton 

Brigadier General Rick Etheridge 

Hon. Thomas Hall 

Lieutenant General James Helmly 

Brigadier General Charles Ickes 

Hon. George Foresman 

Mr. Casey Hehr 

Hon. Michael Jackson 

Rear Admiral Timothy S. Sullivan 

Mr. Tom Bush 

Hon. Paul McHale 

Mr. Joe Bangal 

Mr. Seth Benge 

Mr. Mike Cline 

Mr. David Davidson 

Mr. Bob Fiedler 

Mr. Larry Madison 

Ms. Katy Moakler 

Mr. Bob Norton 

Mr. Ike Puzon 

Mr. Chris Slawinski 

Mr. Seth Benge 

Mr. Mike Cline 

Mr. David Davidson 

Mr. Bob Fiedler 

Brigadier General Richard Green 

Mr. Larry Madison 

Mr. Bob Norton 

Mr. Ike Puzon 

Ms. Joyce Raezer 

Mr. Patrick Reidy 

Mr. Chris Slawinski 

Major General Timothy Lowenberg 

Colonel Jeffrey Mello 

Mr. Tom Boatner 

Mr. Lyle Carlile 

Mr. Tom Dyer 

Mr. Randy Eardley 

April 4, 2006 

April 6, 2006 

April 6, 2006 

April 6, 2006 

April 6, 2006 

April 6, 2006 

April 6, 2006 

April 6, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

April 12, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 14, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

April 25, 2006 

May 9, 2006 

May 18, 2006 

May 26, 2006 

May 26, 2006 

May 26, 2006 

May 26, 2006 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 141 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Mr. John Fend May 26, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Tom Frey May 26, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Doug Shinn May 26, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Mike Wallace May 26, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel William Birden May 30, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Dr. Denny Eakle May 30, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Hon. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco May 31, 2006 Baton Rouge, LA 

Brigadier General Hunt Downer May 31, 2006 Baton Rouge, LA 

Major General Bennett C. Landreneau May 31, 2006 Baton Rouge, LA 

Mr. Mike Ferron May 31, 2006 Washington, DC 

Mr. Butch Hinton May 31, 2006 Washington, DC 

Ms. Janet St. Laurent May 31, 2006 Washington, DC 

Mr. Derek Stewart May 31, 2006 Washington, DC 

Lieutenant Colonel Mary Henry June 6, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Jim Glenn June 6, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Captain Kelly Lelito June 6, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Ms. Michèle Flournoy June 7, 2006 Washington, DC 

Lieutenant General James J. Lovelace June 14, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Hon. George Foresman June 16, 2006 Washington, DC 

Mr. Steve Dellaport June 19, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Ms. Mary Dixon June 19, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Ms. Janine Groth June 19, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Brigadier General John Fobian June 20, 2006 Lackland AFB, TX 

Mr. Thomas Helm June 20, 2006 Lackland AFB, TX 

Colonel John Nichols June 20, 2006 Lackland AFB, TX 

Captain Fred Broussard June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Trent Dudley June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Victor Macias June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel David Mansfield June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Commander John McCracken June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Rocky Templon June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Mark Tracy June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Todd Wilkinson June 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Jim Fuller June 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Warren Golden June 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Michael Lincecum June 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Petty Officer Karen Carlson July 18, 2006 San Antonio, TX 

Petty Officer Stacy Catalano July 18, 2006 San Antonio, TX 

Staff Sergeant Ricky Longoria July 18, 2006 San Antonio, TX 

Master Sergeant Juan Maldonado July 18, 2006 San Antonio, TX 

Master Sergeant Mark Mann July 18, 2006 San Antonio, TX 

142 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Staff Sergeant Timothy O’Neil 

First Sergeant William Simpson 

Sergeant First Class Robert Boyer 

Petty Officer Fidel E. Contreras 

Technical Sergeant Ruben DeLarosa 

Staff Sergeant Albert DeLeon 

Gunnery Sergeant Frank Guajardo 

Chief Petty Officer Melissa Sharer 

Major General Allen R. Dehnert 

Brigadier General John Fobian 

Colonel Mike Holloman 

Sergeant Roger Alicea 

Senior Master Sergeant Dale Berryhill 

Sergeant Ronald Fore 

Sergeant Jonathon Jobson 

Petty Officer David Kelley 

Chief Petty Officer Linda Laswell 

Senior Master Sergeant Kenneth Nauert 

Petty Officer Carlos Nino 

Master Sergeant Ralph O’Hara 

Sergeant First Class Trenton Puckett 

Petty Officer Victor Ramirez 

Master Sergeant George Reyes 

Master Sergeant Jose A. Sepulveda 

Mr. Joe Fengler 

Mr. John Davis 

Mr. Dan Else 

Lieutenant Colonel Bob Feidler 

Brigadier General Richard Green 

Mr. Steve Lillie 

Mr. Larry Madison 

Mr. Robert Marshall 

Dr. Jim Martin 

Ms. Kathy Moakler 

Mr. Mike Naylon 

Mr. Bob Norton 

Ms. Molly Ramsdell 

Mr. Pete Verga 

Colonel Ted Mickevicius 

Major Robert Preiss 

Mr. Bruce Hock 

July 18, 2006 

July 18, 2006 

July 19, 2006 

July 19, 2006 

July 19, 2006 

July 19, 2006 

July 19, 2006 

July 19, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

July 20, 2006 

August 15, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 21, 2006 

August 29, 2006 

August 29, 2006 

August 29, 2006 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

Lackland AFB, TX 

Lackland AFB, TX 

Lackland AFB, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

San Antonio, TX 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 143 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Mr. Greg Kiely August 29, 2006 Washington, DC 

Mr. Mike McCord August 29, 2006 Washington, DC 

Mr. D. M. “Dak” Hardwick September 1, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. John Sims September 1, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Karl Wagner September 1, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Bob Boggs September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Mr. Barry Cardwell September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Ms. Christie Church September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Captain Bill Cogan September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Colonel Bob Felderman September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Colonel Bill Hill September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Colonel Karin Murphy September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Mr. Matt Musial September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Mr. Jim Weber September 5, 2006 Peterson AFB, CO 

Vice Admiral John Cotton September 7, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Commander Carl Cox September 7, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Rear Admiral Craig McDonald September 7, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Captain Harry Meyers September 7, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Ms. Cindy Butler September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Mr. Alfonso Carmona September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Ms. Karen Como September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Ms. Kathy Dunn September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Dr. Kevin Gerhart September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Mr. Michael Kilmer September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Mr. Clay King September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Dr. Jacqueline Parthemore September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Mr. Richard Rodriguez September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Mr. Gary J. Rossio September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Mr. Glenn White September 18, 2006 La Jolla, CA 

Rear Admiral Jody Breckinridge September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Petty Officer Trisha Carroll September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Staff Sergeant Victor Castillo September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Staff Sergeant Craig Dockter September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Lieutenant Colonel David Durham September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Staff Sergeant David Fill September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Captain Jody Guidry September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Staff Sergeant Michael Key September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Staff Sergeant Tanya Marie Pablo September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Petty Officer Juan Ramos September 18, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Captain Chip Strangfeld September 19, 2006 San Diego, CA 

Major Keith Vollert September 19, 2006 San Diego, CA 

144 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

APPENDICES 
 
 

Captain Timothy Campbell 

Captain Aaron Duplechin 

Mr. Jacob Klerman 

Lieutenant Colonel Sean A. Sullivan 

Captain B. J. Keepers 

Rear Admiral Jeff Lemmons 

Captain Roger Meek 

Rear Admiral Michael Shatynski 

Commander Ken Wright 

Mr. Matt Schmidt 

Lieutenant Colonel Gene Smith 

Mr. John R. Brinkerhoff 

Ms. Belva Belfour-Nixon 

Brigadier General Michael J. Basla 

Captain Joseph Bridge 

General Norton Schwartz 

Major General Charles Fletcher 

Major General William Johnson 

Brigadier General James W. Kwiatkowski 

Colonel Peter Lennon 

Chief Master Sergeant Kenneth McQuiston 

Major General Harold Mitchell 

Captain David Shiveley 

Major General F. Dexter Tutor 

Colonel Brian Van Sickel 

Captain Bradley Carpenter 

Captain Deborah Dombeck 

Rear Admiral Raymond English 

Lieutenant Colonel Gerald Henry 

Colonel Mark Herrick 

Colonel Dennis Nebera 

Captain Richard Vogel 

Ms. Virginia Williamson 

Lieutenant Colonel Dan Bader 

Lieutenant Colonel David Boyle 

Mr. George Brock 

Lieutenant Colonel Todd Burton 

Colonel Robert Deforge 

Mr. Dan Donahue 

Mr. Todd Kostelecky 

Colonel Kathleen Patterson 

September 21, 2006 

September 21, 2006 

September 21, 2006 

September 21, 2006 

September 22, 2006 

September 22, 2006 

September 22, 2006 

September 22, 2006 

September 22, 2006 

September 27, 2006 

September 27, 2006 

October 5, 2006 

October 18, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 19, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 20, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

October 23, 2006 

Camp Pendleton, CA 

Camp Pendleton, CA 

Camp Pendleton, CA 

Camp Pendleton, CA 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado, CA 

Coronado, CA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Scott AFB, IL 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 145 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Ms. Connie Plott October 23, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Dan Stoneking October 23, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Pat Tenis October 23, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Joseph C. Daniel October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. John Hastings October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. John Hathaway October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Thomas Lacrosse October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Greg Limberis October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Ms. Terri Reisenfeld October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. John Sims October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Art Stovall October 24, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Mark Cogburn October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Deborah Coley October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. John Davenport October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel John Ellsworth October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Bob Hollingsworth October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Carol Leighton October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Major Willis Madden October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Michael Naylon October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Terrell Parker October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Angel Perez October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Ms. Sallie Shaffer October 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Daniel Denning November 3, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Robert Smiley November 3, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Doug Curell November 6, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Kostelecky November 6, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Greg Riley November 7, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Allen Tidwell November 7, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Reginald Geary November 13, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Lernes “Bear” Herbert November 13, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Susan Hogg November 13, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Ken Olivo November 13, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Dan Kohner November 14, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Harry Myers November 14, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Cashman November 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Major Robert Preiss November 20, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Rear Admiral Harry Harris November 21, 2006 Guantánamo Bay, Cuba 

Captain Mark Leary November 21, 2006 Guantánamo Bay, Cuba 

Lieutenant Colonel David Boyle November 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Mr. Dan Donahue November 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

Colonel Scott Gorske November 27, 2006 Arlington, VA 

146 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
APPENDICES 
 
 

Colonel Ted Mickevicius 

Colonel G. Kevin Thompson 

Hon. William Cohen 

Mr. Jacob Klerman 

Mr. Matthew Schmitt 

Mr. Michael Waters 

Mr. Kevin Billings 

Captain Joel Buffardi 

Rear Admiral Christopher J. McMahon 

Captain Eric Wallischeck 

Ms. Leigh Ann Wilson 

Colonel Angel Perez 

Brigadier General Richard Sherlock 

Hon. Colin Powell 

Colonel Russell Stine 

Ms. Garcia Sugioka 

November 27, 2006 

November 27, 2006 

November 28, 2006 

November 28, 2006 

November 28, 2006 

November 28, 2006 

November 29, 2006 

November 29, 2006 

November 29, 2006 

November 29, 2006 

December 2, 2006 

December 4, 2006 

December 4, 2006 

December 20, 2006 

December 27, 2006 

February 9, 2007 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Washington, DC 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Galax, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Alexandria, VA 

Arlington, VA 

Arlington, VA 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 147 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES 
 
 

APPENDIX 9 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACJCS-NGM 	 Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for National 

Guard Matters 

ACJCS-RM 	 Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Reserve 

Matters 

AFNORTH 	 Air Forces North 

AFORGEN 	 Army Force Generation Model 

AFQT 	 Armed Forces Qualification Test 

AFR 	Air Force Reserve 

AGAUS 	 Adjutants General Association of the United States 

AGR 	 Active Guard and Reserve 

ANG 	 Air National Guard 

AOR 	 area of responsibility 

ARCOM 	 Army Reserve Command 

ARNG 	 Army National Guard 

ARNORTH 	 Army North 

ASD-HD 	 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense 

ASD-HD&ASA 	 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and 

America’s Security Affairs 

ASD-RA 	 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 

BCT 	 brigade combat team 

BRAC 	 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 

CA 	civil affairs 

CAR 	 Chief of the Army Reserve 

CBP 	 Customs and Border Protection 

CBRNE 	 chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives 

CERFPs CBRNE enhanced response force packages 

CIFC Combined Intelligence Fusion Center 

CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

CNGB Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

CNGR Commission on the National Guard and Reserves 

COCOM combatant commander 

CS combat support 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 149 
 

APPENDICES 
 
 

CSS combat service support 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOD Department of Defense 

DPG Defense Planning Guidance 

DSCA defense support to civil authorities 

EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FORSCOM U.S. Army Forces Command 

FYDP Future Years Defense Program 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GDP gross domestic product 

GWOT global war on terror 

HASC House Armed Services Committee 

HRC Human Resources Command 

HSPD homeland security presidential directive 

IMA individual mobilization augmentee 

IMCOM Installation Management Command 

IPL integrated priorities list 

IRR Individual Ready Reserve 

JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System 

JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff 

JFCOM Joint Forces Command 

JOCs Joint Operating Concepts 

JPME Joint Professional Military Education 

JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

JSCP Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan 

JSTARS Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 

JTF Joint Task Force 

MARFORNORTH Marine Forces North 

MSCA military support to civil authorities 

MTOE Modified Table of Organization and Equipment 

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act 

NGA National Governors Association 

NGAUS National Guard Association of the United States 

NGB National Guard Bureau 

150 COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 
 

 

APPENDICES 
 
 

NGREA National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account 

NORTHCOM United States Northern Command 

NPS National Preparedness System 

NRIC Navy Reserve Intelligence Command 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPCON operational control 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense 

POM program objective memorandum 

PPBES Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System 

PSYOPS psychological operations 

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review 

RC reserve component 

RFPB Reserve Forces Policy Board 

RPB Reserve Policy Board 

ROA Reserve Officers Association 

SecDef Secretary of Defense 

SJFHQ Standing Joint Forces Headquarters 

SOCOM Special Operations Command 

TAG [the] adjutant general 

USA United States Army 

USAF United States Air Force 

USAR United States Army Reserve 

USAREC United States Army Reserve Command 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USCGR United States Coast Guard Reserve 

USD(P&R) Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

USMC United States Marine Corps 

USMCR United States Marine Corps Reserve 

USN United States Navy 

USNR United States Navy Reserve 

WMD weapons of mass destruction 

WMD-CST weapons of mass destruction civil support team 

WMD/E weapons of mass destruction/effects 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES 151