U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–597 PDF 2004

TRANSFORMING THE NATIONAL GUARD:

RESOURCING FOR READINESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 29, 2004

Serial No. 108–188

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

GRACE WASHBOURNE, Professional Staff Member

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 29, 2004 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

McHale, Paul, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security,

U.S. Department of Defense; Thomas F. Hall, Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Reserve Affairs, U.S. Department of Affairs; Lieutenant

General H. Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau; and Major

General John A. Love, Special Assistant to Combatant Commander

for National Guard Affairs, U.S. Northern Command ............................... 334

Pataki, George E., Governor, State of New York ........................................... 6

St. Laurent, Janet A., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,

U.S. General Accounting Office; Lieutenant General Wayne D. Marty,

Adjutant General, State of Texas; Major General Timothy J.

Lowenberg, Adjutant General, State of Washington; and Major General

Bruce F. Tuxill, Adjutant General, State of Maryland .............................. 117

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Tennessee, prepared statement of ........................................................... 28

Blum, Lieutenant General H. Steven, Chief, National Guard Bureau,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 81

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 32

Hall, Thomas F., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs,

U.S. Department of Affairs, prepared statement of ................................... 55

Harris, Hon. Katherine, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 274

Love, Major General John A., Special Assistant to Combatant Commander for National Guard Affairs, U.S. Northern Command, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 93

Lowenberg, Major General Timothy J., Adjutant General, State of Washington, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 172

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 276

Marty, Lieutenant General Wayne D., Adjutant General, State of Texas,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 153

McHale, Paul, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security,

U.S. Department of Defense, prepared statement of ................................. 37

Pataki, George E., Governor, State of New York, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 10

Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Maryland, prepared statement of .................................................. 22

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 3

St. Laurent, Janet A., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,

U.S. General Accounting Office, prepared statement of ............................ 119

Tuxill, Major General Bruce F., Adjutant General, State of Maryland,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 252

(1)

TRANSFORMING THE NATIONAL GUARD:

RESOURCING FOR READINESS

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of Virginia (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Shays, McHugh,

Souder, Schrock, Miller, Murphy, Blackburn, Waxman, Lantos,

Maloney, Tierney, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Norton.

Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director and director of

communications; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; David Young,

counsel; Robert Borden, counsel and parliamentarian; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Grace Washbourne, professional staff member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy clerk; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Kristin

Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel; Karen Lightfoot, minority

communications director and senior policy advisor; Anna Laitin,

minority communications and policy assistant; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Andrew

Su, minority professional staff member.

Mr. SHAYS [assuming Chair]. Good morning. A quorum being

present, the Committee on Government Reform hearing entitled,

‘‘Transforming the National Guard: Resourcing for Readiness,’’ will

come to order. Chairman Davis will be arriving shortly, but he

asked me to open the hearing so we can get all the testimony in

the record.

Governor Pataki, we understand you have a tight schedule, and

we appreciate your being here. I ask unanimous consent to allow

the Governor to testify and answer questions after Mr. Waxman

and I have made opening statements but before other Members do

so. But if it’s just Mr. Lantos and my colleague from Virginia, we

probably could have all four of us do it. Without objection, so ordered.

The committee convenes today to discuss important issues raised

by plans to transform and modernize the National Guard to meet

the demands of a growing set of domestic and global missions. We

captioned the hearing Resourcing for Readiness, because Members

need to know Guard units will be equipped and trained to perform

both the Homeland Security and global defense tasks assigned

them.

2

In the past, the total force, the operational union of Active Duty

and Reserve component units, didn’t always add up. National

Guard units too often languished at the end of the supply chain

with limited training on hand-me-down equipment. At the national

level, significant strides have been made reshaping military capabilities to meet an uncertain world of lethal threats at home and

asymmetrical warfare overseas.

But much more needs to be done to clarify the operational and

physical implications of new military missions within the sovereign

borders of the States, where National Guard members can be called

to duty by both the Governor and the President. Federal mobilization of National Guard units can draw heavily from local first responder ranks, degrading domestic readiness.

So the shape, size and mission of the National Guard of the future will have significant intergovernmental implications. Governors, county executives, mayors and hospital administrators are

trying to build response capabilities and enhance preparedness

without knowing who the Federal Government might bring or take

away when disaster strikes. To train as they fight, Guard units

have to take part in local and regional exercises. Equipment, interoperability standards and communication channels have to be established before the next attack is upon us.

But National Guard civil support capabilities are not yet well integrated with the State and local response plans. When the battle

lines stretch from Baghdad to Bridgeport, from Kandahar to

Kinderhook, new approaches are needed to assure the National

Guard is ready to confront the threat at home and abroad. Building

on rich traditions that predate our constitution, the citizens militia

that are the National Guard today bring awe inspiring patriotism

and skill to their work and our common defense. They deserve to

know they will have the equipment and training they need to succeed in their 21st century mission.

At this time, the Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the

full committee, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank you for holding this hearing. I am pleased that the committee has been focusing attention on the increasing demands facing

our National Guard members. We must do everything we can to

ensure that the National Guard can meet its myriad responsibilities without overburdening the dedicated and brave Guard members who risk their lives to serve.

For over 350 years, our country has looked to the National Guard

to provide security within our borders and assist in local disaster

relief. But in the past few years, Guard members have been activated for Federal duties with increasing frequency and the Guard’s

responsibilities have been growing exponentially. The shift from an

essentially Reserve role to active participation in the Nation’s security forces has placed tremendous strains on the National Guard

system. We in Congress have heard countless stories about problems Guard soldiers have experienced, from poor training to inferior equipment and health care, to delays in pay, to the negative

effects of long deployments.

We can’t keep expecting these men and women to be everywhere

and to serve indefinitely. We need direction and forethought from

our military and State leaders, and a clear plan that considers the

increasing burdens facing the National Guard. To this end, I support the efforts of General Blum and his counterparts at the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to formulate a plan for restructuring the National Guard. I look forward

to hearing more from today’s witnesses about this plan and any

other steps necessary to assure that the National Guard is best

equipped to fulfill its important duties within and outside our Nation’s borders.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We’re going to go right to the witness,

but we have a senior member, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. McHugh, who’s

from New York. I guess what I would do is just say that the Governor has to leave by 11 a.m., so it would make sense to go to his

testimony. Is there anyone who would just like to make a short

comment? Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. I will be very, very brief, and I certainly want to

add my words of welcome and note to my fellow committee members, as I suspect they totally understand, that the reason the Governor is here is, this Governor is a lot of very great things, known

to New Yorkers and known, particularly after September 11th, to

every American.

But one of the things he is most of all is an amazing leader of

the New York National Guard. Through his initiatives and his programs New York State National Guard receives support and benefits that are really second to none in this Nation. We have before

us a gentleman who can help us understand a great deal about the

demands on the Guard here and the new reality of the 21st century, but also can teach us a great deal about what other States

might do to have as effective an organization. So Governor, welcome, it’s good to see you again.

Governor PATAKI. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. The Chair would recognize Mr. Lantos and then hope

that we could go to Governor Pataki. Mr. Lantos, you have the

floor.

6

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m particularly delighted to welcome my good friend, Governor Pataki. I am particularly pleased that he is testifying today because his State is a perfect illustration of the wisdom of the legislation I introduced, namely, preventing National Guardsmen and Guardswomen from incurring severe financial losses and their families incurring severe financial hardships as they are activated. The State of New York

provides the differential between the military pay and the former

civilian pay. I want to commend the Governor for his State’s action

along this line. When it comes time to question him, I will ask him

what the cost of this has been for the State of New York, whether

it has entailed additional appropriations, and what in his judgment

has been the impact on morale.

New York State is leading by giving us an example of how to

handle this problem. And it’s long overdue that the administration

drop its opposition to what is a common sense, singularly non-partisan approach to a severe issue of recruitment and retention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Pataki, Governor, as you

may know, it is our practice to swear in all our witnesses, being

that this is an investigative committee. I would ask you to stand

and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Governor PATAKI. I do.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you so much, Governor. You have the floor,

and we welcome you and we know you have a very busy schedule.

Thank you for honoring us.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. PATAKI, GOVERNOR, STATE OF

NEW YORK

Governor PATAKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to

Congressman Lantos and Congressman McHugh and the other

Members, thank you all for having me before you this morning,

and for the opportunity to speak on this important subject.

At no time in America’s history has the National Guard played

so critical role in both the security of our homeland and in our Nation’s military objectives overseas. In today’s world, the notion of

the traditional citizen soldier, training 1 weekend a month and 2

weeks a year for a war that might never occur is a thing of the

past. Our troops are actively engaged on the front lines, supporting

both our State’s efforts to keep New York safe at home and our Nation’s efforts to combat terror abroad.

In February, I had the great privilege of joining five other Governors from across the Nation on a historic bipartisan mission to

visit our troops in Iraq. I was inspired by the tremendous spirit,

professionalism and resolve of each and every one of the soldiers

I met. They understand the mission before them and why we must

seize the opportunity to break the back of terror so that our children and their children can live in freedom.

The trip also reinforced just how involved and essential the role

of our National Guard troops is to our Nation’s mission. Each day,

we flew in and out of Iraq from Amman, Jordan. It was National

Guard soldiers who piloted us each way. And everywhere I went,

7

I met with National Guard soldiers from New York and from the

other States.

As we speak this morning, more than 3,700 of the New York National Guard members are currently on Active Duty, supporting

State security missions at home, Federal security missions under

Operation Mobile Eagle and overseas military operations as part of

Operational Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Thousands

more are engaged in regularly scheduled training and operational

requirements around the State, the Nation and the world.

From riflemen to fighter pilots, in the turrets of Humvees and in

the huge bellies of C5 Galaxies, New York National Guard soldiers

and airmen are providing a historic level of support to the Coalition

forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. From a total force perspective, the

Guard has never played a more vital role in major combat operations.

What truly sets the Guard apart, however, is its dual roles. Our

Guardsmen and women are not just part time members of our Nation’s military forces, they are our State’s primary emergency response force, providing support to their communities and to civil

authorities and first responders throughout the State.

At no time in New York’s history was this aspect of the National

Guard’s role more evident than on September 11, 2001. Within

hours of the attacks on the World Tarde Center, 1,500 New York

National Guard troops from units within New York City had reported to duty. Another 1,500 units from upstate New York were

en route. In less than 24 hours after the attacks, over 8,000 New

York National Guard soldiers and airmen were on Active Duty supporting New York State’s security needs. These troops provided not

just a calming presence on the streets of New York during very unsettling times, they provided New York’s first responders with critical perimeter security support, refueling for civil emergency vehicles, emergency lighting, power generation, communications, emergency transportation, engineering assets and other logistical support.

In the days, weeks and months that followed, our National

Guard force would assume mission and responsibilities within New

York State that never could have been imagined by previous generations of National Guard soldiers. Today, hundreds of New York

Army National Guard soldiers are serving on State Active Duty as

part of Task Force Empire Shield. These soldiers support security

operations at New York’s major rail stations and nuclear power facilities, missions that have been ongoing every day since September

11th.

During times that warrant an even higher elevation of the threat

level, the National Guard’s Task Force Empire Shield is integrated

into Main Shield, the State’s multi-agency joint security task force,

headed by the New York State Office of Public Security. In addition, a civil support team for weapons of mass destruction is on call

24 hours a day to respond to incidents, known or suspect, to involve nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. We continue to deploy our CST, to provide proactive precautionary monitoring at

major public events and strategic locations throughout the city and

State of New York.

8

Soon our CST will play an instrumental role in the stand-up of

a new type of National Guard capability, a chemical, biological, radioactive, nuclear and explosive, or CBRNE, enhanced response

force. This joint National Guard task force will integrate CST with

an enhanced medical company possessing robust determination and

treatment capabilities, engineering assets specializing in search

and rescue, and specially trained combat units capable of supporting civilian law enforcement.

Even with all of these added responsibilities and missions, the

New York National Guard remains our State’s primary emergency

response force. As New York’s Governor, I’ve called upon New

York’s Guard more than any other Governor in our State’s history.

Each time they responded heroically and met every mission asked

of them, particularly in times of crisis. The attack on the World

Trade Center, 8 natural disasters, 4 plane crashes, 11 crippling

blizzards, 2 major wildfires, a statewide blackout and now of

course, the threat of global terror.

National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General Blum is working in Washington to transform the Guard into a modern, highly

relevant and appropriately structured force, capable of combating

the asymmetrical threat of terror at home and terror threat abroad.

I salute General Blum’s efforts to enhance and modernize the

Guard’s mission, while preserving both its relevance to the Department of Defense and the capabilities it provides to the Governors.

As State Commander in Chief of one of the largest Guard forces

in the Nation, I’m encouraged by General Blum’s vision and his appreciation of the Guard’s dual role and the necessity of preserving

that role. General Blum is committed to enhancing the National

Guard’s role as an active participant in the Nation’s military force

and he aims to preserve and enhance the National Guard’s State

role simultaneously.

As we work to transform the U.S. military, and specifically the

National Guard, it’s critical to ensure that the Governors who are

most intimately familiar with and better understand their unique

needs retain the ability and the authority to deploy the National

Guard troops that best meet those needs. General Blum’s transformation plan would allow for a generous National Guard contribution to Federal missions at home and abroad, and ensure that

at least 50 to 75 percent of a State’s National Guard troops remain

available for State Active Duty. His model shows real commitment

to the traditional dual roles of the National Guard, and is one I

strongly support.

When President Bush gave authorization to deploy troops to airports across the Nation after the September 11th attacks, New

York was of course among the first to respond. Because this mission was a Title 32 status, where troops are paid federally but remained under their State’s command and control, rather than in

Title 10 status, where they would have served under the Active

Duty Army, we were able to meet this requirements quickly,

smoothly and with the troops best suited for the task.

From an operational standpoint, this approach makes the most

sense and is consistent with General Blum’s innovative thinking on

this matter. We need to assure that troops activated under Title 32

status remain under the authority and control of the State’s GovVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
9

ernor to ensure maximum flexibility and effective deployment. General Blum’s plan promises to bring predictability and regularity to

Federal deployment of National Guard units. A full spectrum availability model would call for one Federal Title 10 Army Guard deployment every 6 years and one Air Guard rotation every 15

months. This will distribute the burden equally among States and

units and provide predictability and ample planning time for both

unit commanders, their individual troops and their families.

Having spoken directly with families of deployed troops across

New York, and having talked with troops on the ground during my

trip to Iraq in February, I can tell you that General Blum’s plan

is not only welcome, but it is urgently necessary.

In today’s post-September 11th climate, we are asking more from

our National Guard troops than ever before. In New York, we

strongly believe it is incumbent upon our government to do more

for our troops than ever before. No State in the Nation is doing

more than New York to support our troops and their families. Last

year, I was proud to propose and sign a historic measure called the

Patriot Plan into law.

The Patriot Plan, without question, provides the most comprehensive package of protections and benefits in the Nation to assist New York’s military personnel and their families. This historic

package of benefits and protections for deployed New York National Guard and Reserve troops was a recognition that the National Guard, like the rest of the U.S. military, cannot hope to continue its mission without these brave men and women who join its

ranks.

The Patriot Plan has 28 different benefit packages for our

Guardsmen, including, and I will just briefly summarize, because

I know it’s a long hearing, including providing the difference between a State employee’s pay and their Active Duty compensation;

providing free tuition for the children and families of National

Guard members who are killed or seriously injured in defending

our freedom, and a number of other benefits as well.

Quite simply, we have two basic roles here. One is to understand

the importance of the State mission that the Guard plays as we

call upon it for enhanced Federal activity, and second, the sacrifice

that the families have to make while their loved ones are away. To

the extent we can provide additional benefits, that’s what we need

to make sure the Guard remains strong and effective. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Governor Pataki follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you for a very helpful statement, Governor.

We have a number of people, we’ll do the 5-minute rule, we’re

going to go with Mr. Schrock then Mr. Waxman if he returns. Then

Mr. McHugh and Mr. Lantos. I’d love it if other Members—if you’re

able to stay beyond 11 a.m., it would be great, but let’s give it a

shot. Mr. Schrock.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you.

Thank you, Governor, for being here, thank you for your testimony, thank you for going to Iraq. I’ve been to Iraq and Afghanistan a few times, and whether they’re Guard, whether they’re Reserves or Active Duty forces, they all work together as one cohesive

unit. That’s a wonderful thing.

You talked about the dual role. I just have one question I’m

going to ask. Is there a benefit to, in your opinion, redefining the

role of the National Guard in responding to homeland security concerns? In looking back at the last 21⁄2 years, what have you found

are the major stumbling blocks to helping the Guard respond to

their homeland security challenges in your State? Do we need to

redefine the authorities of the State Governors and the adjutant

generals?

Governor PATAKI. In our State, we have had, I hate to use the

word, but virtually seamless efforts to respond to any homeland security problems within New York State. We have a well thought

out plan and we’re able to implement that plan. And the fact that

the adjutant general, the local commanders can determine what

force to use for a particular mission has been enormously helpful.

I’ll just give you one example. When we call on National Guard

troops to perform a particular mission that doesn’t require a skill

set, we ask for volunteers so that we minimize the disruption in

these citizens soldiers’ lives. We couldn’t do that if they were federally controlled, so we’re very pleased with the response of the

Guard and the ability to command and control the Guard within

the State.

Mr. SCHROCK. You think it works fine, then?

Governor PATAKI. Within our State, it works very well. The area

of concern that we all have, I think, is to make sure that the homeland security role within the States under the command and control of the Governors is understood as a critical mission of the

Guard as they assume a more important Federal role, and that the

sacrifice that the families make is understood, and we do what we

can to help them on every different front.

Mr. SCHROCK. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Lantos, you can now question Mr. Pataki.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, I again want to commend you for your leadership on

this whole, complex issue. I’d like to zero in on the legislation I introduced almost a year ago. I have to admit that I find it very disturbing when I don’t understand the source of the opposition or the

logic behind the opposition. I know you will be able to help me.

In New York State, you recognize the obvious, that at a time of

war, we must have if not equality of sacrifice, because we cannot

attain that, but we must have an attempt at sharing sacrifice. To

place on the families of activated National Guard people tremendous financial burdens, financial strains of major proportion, people

17

losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgage, children discontinuing their college education because the parents

can’t pay tuition.

It makes eminently good sense not to impose on an activated National Guardsman or woman an additional financial burden. In

New York, you’re doing this, and I want to congratulate you. May

I ask your general judgment about the philosophy behind my legislation, namely preventing financial losses for people who are already called upon to make a major personal sacrifice?

Governor PATAKI. Congressman, of course I agree with the need

that we have, not just at the State level but at the Federal level

to understand the economic impact this has on a citizen soldier

who has been activated. It’s very different from a career professional military person who understands the pay scale and accepts

that pay scale as part of their career determination. But citizen soldiers too often will see their income dramatically reduced.

Now, how you deal with that, I think you can do it in many different fronts. In fact, Congress first began to respond to that concern with the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act that was passed back

during World War II. But obviously, circumstances have changed

dramatically since World War II.

So I think there are a number of different approaches. One is to

provide additional benefits in the form of salary enhancement or

making up the gap when someone suffers a significant diminution

of earnings. Another is to make sure that we do cap interest rates.

I know the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act does that at 6 percent.

Given the historically low interest rates now, perhaps they could

be lowered even more.

Our plan not only provides to make up that salary differential,

but as an example, if a young man or young woman goes out and

leases an SUV that they use and then they get called to Active

Duty, we allow them to cancel that lease, so that the don’t have

any penalty at all. If you’re enrolled in school and you’re activated,

we require that school to give the tuition back and the fees back

to the portion of the semester they were there and to keep that slot

open for when they come back.

So there are a whole gamut of benefits, including salary enhancements, that we are looking to do at the State level, and I think it

is appropriate to do at the Federal level as well.

Congressman, just one point, though, and this is something

where I’m commenting from afar because I’m not a part of the Federal military chain of command. But one of the important things

we cannot do is have a differential among those in the Guard so

that people are reluctant to call up a particular unit because of the

additional cost factor if that skill set is needed.

So I don’t know if that is in fact a relevant consideration as your

legislation and others is considered, but it’s just something that we

have to be able to call upon the people we need with the skills we

need without concern for the economic cost to the country, we have

to be concerned about the economic impact on those soldiers and

sailors and their families.

Mr. LANTOS. Governor, if I may pursue this for one more moment, obviously we all know that we face serious problems of reenlistment, retention, enlistment, given the new nature of the globVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
18

al struggle we are engaged in. In view of that fact, do you view the

New York program as a success?

Governor PATAKI. The New York program is a success. As I indicated earlier, one of the first things we did, well before September

11th, we created a program where if you enlist in the National

Guard, you get free tuition at our State or city universities or an

equivalent in a private or parochial. And that had a very dramatic

impact on recruitment. Now we have seen, since September 11th

and since the operations overseas, recruitment holding steady, and

in fact a little bit increased over the last couple of months.

We are concerned about retention, as thousands of our National

Guard troops come back. It’s too soon to tell, but one significant enhancement of the benefit package for our National Guard troops

that we believe would help with both recruitment and retention

would be to provide health benefits to those who enlist in the National Guard. It’s something that they would be able to access

under the Federal program, and it would have an enormous help

to both encourage enlistment in the first case and retention of

those who are coming back.

Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank you, Governor, and want to commend you for your achievement.

Governor PATAKI. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.

Again, Governor, welcome. Always good to see you. My friend

from California brings up a serious consideration, and from my

other perspective as the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee

on Armed Services, I commend him for his concern and for his

leadership on it. I was pleased to hear your response, Governor,

and the program you’ve initiated, that I tried to acknowledge and

praise in my opening comments. Obviously I’m very familiar with

it. Again, God bless you for that insight and that leadership.

As I think your response indicated, there’s a whole range of

things that can and probably should be done in terms of benefit

packages for the Guard, for the Reserve component in general that

can show both our appreciation and also our concern about retention and recruitment, and you have. As my friend from California

suggested, you’re a natural leader on that.

But Mr. Lantos mentioned the administration’s opposition, and I

think technically that’s true. But I think it’s important just to note

for the record that the military service is opposed to that initiative

as well, because of their concern about the morale impact of placing

two service members in this new era, one active and the other

Guard and Reserve, where they’re doing the same job and taking

the same bullets and sitting in the same foxhole and being paid at

different levels.

Mr. LANTOS. Will my friend yield for just a second?

Mr. MCHUGH. I will in just a moment.

I’m not sure that concern is justified. There have been attempts

in the past to try to divide pay differentials that have failed and

insurance policies that were run through Gulf war one. We are aggressively searching for a way in which we can help that one-third,

in fact about one-third of the Guard and Reserve that have deployed actually lose money, about a third stay the same and about

19

the other third actually make some money, because it is a legitimate point.

But it has proven to be far more complex here at the congressional level, and at the Washington level, than just passing the bill

to mandate it. With that, I’d be happy to yield to my friend from

California.

Mr. LANTOS. I will just make one quick point, and thank my good

friend for yielding. I find a profound inconsistency in the administration’s opposition while at the same time the administration is

praising private employers for maintaining salary levels of activated people. They can’t have it both ways. They can’t praise a

company for doing exactly what my legislation is calling for while

opposing the legislation.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well——

Mr. LANTOS. That’s profoundly inconsistent.

Mr. MCHUGH. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman’s

point. But as I tried to note, maybe I wasn’t clear enough, there

is a distinction between the administration concerns about the gentleman’s proposal, and they’re praising private employers and the

military opposition, I was referring to the military’s concern, I’m

not de-legitimizing the gentleman’s point, I just want him to know

we’re trying to work through that.

That having been said, Governor——

Governor PATAKI. It’s a very unpleasant debate, and I’m used to

being in the middle of it.

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, we appreciate it, and if you weren’t so

darned foresighted on this, it wouldn’t have been a problem. But

it raises a very serious point, and we need to deal with it, and we

thank you for drawing our attention to it.

I was going to ask you about recruitment and retention, because

that does become important in the Reserve components, and General Blum was kind enough to stop by my office not so very long

ago and talk about the discussions he had with you and some of

the other Governors with respect to that meeting to retain both the

control of those forces through his Title 32 provision, but also the

need to ensure you have sufficient manpower, personpower, I

guess, in this day and age, to meet those kinds of emergencies and

demands that are common to someone who’s got a few nuclear

power plants in his district and has had all those snow storms you

spoke about and the ice storm and others for the National Guard

that you deployed and activated came and helped. That’s something we want to see happen.

So you are, as I understand your comments, at least at the moment encouraged if not optimistic that General Blum is in the right

direction, and that will be helpful in ensuring that you have as a

Governor what you need.

Governor PATAKI. Yes, I think General Blum has outlined a very

sound strategy that not only works from a Federal force perspective

but works from the standpoint of the Governors, their Guards and

the Guard families. One of the important elements is to have some

predictability and some warning as to when you’re going to be

called for Federal duty.

After September 11th, obviously we were all starting an era that

we had not anticipated and could not, if we have tried, prepared

20

for. It was just very different to see this type of attack upon our

soil against civilians. So when some of our Guard components were

activated for Federal duty, they hadn’t been prepared, either as a

family or militarily to respond. And it took some time.

But that is a thing of the past, I honestly believe that. Right now

we are seeing some, we get the advance notice, the units are on a

list and they do have the training, the preparation and when

they’re called to duty, they are called for a mission as opposed to

being called and then ending up waiting, which happened shortly

after September 11th quite a bit. So I’m very pleased with the Federal action in dealing with, to the extent they can, predictability,

notification, training, and equipment is prevailing.

Congressman, let me just say for a moment, you and I have been

to Fort Drum together a number of times. The Tenth Mountain Division, of course, is headquartered there. They have played a critical role in Afghanistan and in the entire war against terrorism.

You’ve done a tremendous job in making sure that facility and that

great unit is one of the finest, if not the finest in the world.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. We’re going to go to Mr.

Ruppersberger then Mrs. Miller and Mr. Tierney and Mrs.

Blackburn.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Governor, thank you. First, having a job

like yours and managing a lot of issues you have to deal with, you

do a great job.

Governor PATAKI. Thank you.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. When I was in Iraq, it was where you

talked with the troops and I think one of the biggest issues with

the National Guard and Reserves too were what was happening

when they got back to their home life and with their families and

jobs. I think really, you call it the Patriot Plan, it’s an admirable

plan and probably has given a lot of comfort to those individuals.

We still have a long way to go, and there are a lot of problems

when our men and women come back, and we’ll have to face that

down the road.

To begin with, the issue of recruitment, because we do have a

dual role, and that dual role, I’m sure, will continue on for many

years to come, based on what’s happening in the world today.

Where does New York stand as far as recruitment of National

Guard? What is your plan?

Governor PATAKI. We have, as I indicated, we have recruitment

levels not just remain the same so that we can maintain our current force level, it has actually gone up a little bit over the course

of the past few months. We had a terrible record in the early and

mid 1990’s in recruitment. But one of the programs, we began a

number of things. One was the free tuition thing. That had an

enormous impact on young people, to understand that by serving

their State and their country they could at the same time get education without any charge. It dramatically improved recruitment.

We also began to use the norm, so that they had constructive

missions, not just in response to emergencies, whether it was TWA

800 or the ice storm in Congressman McHugh’s district or some of

the other disasters, but we created something called Guard Help

where they would proactively work with communities. Just one exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
21

ample in the south Bronx, the Bronx River was a needed entity,

it’s a wonderful water body where you had truck bodies and debris

blocking the stream.

We brought in a Guard engineering crew to work with the community and clean it out. So they had a mission where they were

helping their communities, they had a sense of purpose as well as

immense benefits. It worked extremely well, we’re pleased with the

recruitment level that continues now. Our concern, as I indicated,

is with the troops coming back, what the retention rate will be. We

just don’t know, because it’s too soon.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. How about the issue of retention?

Governor PATAKI. We don’t know, we’re not sure. We’re hopeful,

because most of our National Guard troops in Iraq have gotten

back within the last weeks. I believe there’s a 90 day period when

they come back where they make a determination. So we haven’t

seen people saying yes or no yet. Anecdotally we’re hopeful, but it’s

too soon to really say.

Having said that, it’s always better to retain more. And if we

could enhance the National Guard by providing health care benefits, military Federal health care benefits for someone who enrolls

in the National Guard, it would help on both levels. It would help

with recruitment because it would be another benefit and reason

for someone to choose to serve. And when the soldiers came back,

it would help with retention because they would have a significant

benefit they might not have in civilian life.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. That would be excellent. It’s amazing the

patriotism that the National Guard and Reserve in the United

States and abroad and Iraq have at this point.

To get to another issue as far as local government is concerned,

you have a lot of your first responders, especially in your volunteer

fire and paramedics, that have been called to service. And it’s causing a problem with some of the stations that have to, at least in

my State, the State of Maryland. What impact is that having on

your State?

Governor PATAKI. It has had an impact, a significant percentage

of our National Guard are first responders. And a lot of them are

police officers and corrections officers. Before we passed the Patriot

Plan, we listened to the local governments. And they said, well,

we’re losing three of our police officers, a small town in upstate

New York. And we don’t want to hire new ones, because they’ll be

coming back.

So what we did as part of our plan is in that law now, local governments can bring back retirees to fill a position of someone who

has been activated to National Guard duty. It’s a very intelligent

program. A retired firefighter, retired police officer, someone from

that community gets activated, their local government doesn’t want

to train somebody else, knowing that this person will be returning

in a year, so they can bring back someone. So we have had the

problem, this is one of the ways we’ve looked to deal with it.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK, thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger follows:]

22

23

24

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. The Chair would like to recognize Mrs.

Miller.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Governor, thank you so much for being here today. I must say

that watching you after the absolutely horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11, we all look to you as the Nation’s Governor,

quite frankly, and your leadership that you demonstrated at that

time has really been very significant. We certainly appreciate your

being here today and your comments.

I share your concern about retention with the National Guard.

I actually have a National Guard base in my district in Michigan,

which has been sort of the staging area for our, all of the midwest,

frankly, for many of the Guard and Reserve components that have

deployed for Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, what have you. It’s interesting, actually over 30 percent now of all our troops in theater

are National Guard or Reserve. So they really, as you mentioned

in the total force concept, are such a critical component of all that.

I would just make one comment, we talked about retention. One

of our Guard units, the Michigan Red Devils, who fly F–15s, the

107th is over in Iraq right now. When they deployed, they had

more volunteers than they actually could accommodate, and I’m

sure that is not unique throughout the Nation.

But my question, I think, Governor, to you would go more to your

State plan. As you’re aware, obviously, all the different States are

preparing their individual risk assessment plan for the Department

of Homeland Security. And how did you find in your State the cooperation from your various units? Did you task that force principally to—did you call it New York’s Public Security Force or your

State Police? Did they cooperate with the National Guard?

Governor PATAKI. We had an emergency management office,

SEMO, the State Emergency Management Office, that responded to

the national disasters and plane crashes and things of that nature.

But after September 11th, we created a whole new bureau, the Office of Public Security. We gave them oversight over all the different elements, including the National Guard, so we would have

coordination.

So we don’t have the National Guard running our homeland security operation in New York State, we have an entity, because we

have to integrate not just National Guard, but State Police, New

York City Police Department, the finest in the world, first responders from around the State. And one of the key elements is integrating the health department, so we can have instantaneous, not instantaneous, but within minutes, the ability to determine if there

is an outbreak of a particular illness or where experts are to respond.

So we created this entity, the National Guard plays a critical role

within that entity, but I wouldn’t say a disproportionate role. The

State police, the health department, local officials are all of them

working together.

Mrs. MILLER. Just one other question. As all of us are trying to

make sure that we do get the necessary resources into our respective States, the first responders, what have you, did you share your

State plan with your congressional delegation or did you have any

input——

25

Governor PATAKI. We have worked closely with the congressional

delegation. I don’t know that we sat down and formally said, this

is what we’re doing. But we did give them parameters and also of

course the request for Federal assistance. Because this is an extraordinary expense, and in New York now, we’re at level yellow,

it’s still costing us tens of millions of dollars for, as Congressman

McHugh was indicating, enhanced security at the nuclear power

plants in his district, train stations, bridges, tunnels, other very

sensitive areas.

Mrs. MILLER. I see. Thank you very much, and again, thank you

for your testimony today and your service to the State and the Nation.

Governor PATAKI. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Mr. Tierney, you have the floor.

Mr. TIERNEY. Governor, thank you for coming here today and for

your testimony.

In Massachusetts, one of the comments that some of our officers

were making was about the armories, the physical assets that the

Guard has. In New York, do you feel all your physical assets are

being used to their maximum potential? If they are, what exactly

are you doing with them other than just the monthly training regimen that’s going no, and if you’re not, what do you think they

might be used for?

Governor PATAKI. First, let me say from an equipment standpoint, I know that question has been raised. All of our Guard

troops that have been deployed overseas were very pleased with

the level of material and equipment they’ve been provided. And I

think there’s been dramatic improvement over the course of the

past couple of years in making sure that the necessary equipment

and supplies that we need, not just for overseas but also domestically, are available.

With respect to the utilization of the resources, General McGuire,

our Adjutant General, I’m unaware that we have any shortages or

stockpiles. The General reminded me that things like our engineering battalions that haven’t been deployed we’re using as things like

the Guard health program, so that we are utilizing those assets on

an ongoing basis in a way that is constructive to the troops, because it gives them experience and training and a sense of mission

and helps with the local communities as well.

So if you’re creative, we’ve got the equipment, we’re going to use

it.

Mr. TIERNEY. Beyond equipment, the armories themselves, the

buildings, structures. Are you maximizing the use of those and

how?

Governor PATAKI. We have surplus armories, because the size of

the force has, since over 100, in some cases 150 years ago when

these armories were constructed, there are surplus armories. But

what we’ve done, as we have identified those that no longer serve

a military purpose, we’ve turned them over to community groups,

we’ve converted them into recreational centers, or community centers, we’ve sold them off to private entities. They still serve a very

important function.

The evening of September 11th, the armory on 23rd Street in

lower Manhattan served as the family command center where famVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
26

ily members would go for information. So we want to make sure

we maintain sufficient armory capability around the State in case

there’s a call on them for some emergency service. To the extent

we have surplus armories, we have disposed or turned over to communities a large number of them.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much.

Governor, I apologize for being late. We are so happy to have you

here today to talk about the job you’re doing there. You have a

unique perspective in New York, of course, being the epicenter of

September 11. We appreciate it.

I’m going to defer my opening statement so we can get to members’ questions. Usually we have one or two Members in this hearing, so on a day the House is not voting, there’s not a lot of interest

in what you have to say, and we appreciate your being here.

Governor PATAKI. Thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mrs. Blackburn.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Governor,

thank you so much for taking the time to be here and to talk with

us. Those of us that have large numbers of National Guard families

in our districts and in our States are very concerned and very interested in what we’re going to do as we look at the National

Guard going forward, how they integrate into the Active Duty. The

issues you’ve mentioned of predictability, readiness, skills, whether

it’s the equipment, the training, the help, the quality of life issues

for the families, and I commend you for your Patriot Plan and the

way that does address those quality of life and recruitment and retention issues.

I’m going to roll my three questions into one for the sake of conserving time, and ask you to respond to those. Because I know you

all had significant Guard deployments like we are having in Tennessee, with our Guard being down, and did those Guard deployments affect your ability to respond to State missions or disasters,

or homeland security needs. And then as you looked at your State

plans, did you build a compact with surrounding States to assist

you and back you up if there were to be a need for those resources.

And the third part is, how did you as a State reimburse the Guard

for any homeland security missions that they may have performed

for you?

Governor PATAKI. That brings up three very important questions.

First, with respect to the Federal deployment, it has never jeopardized our ability to respond or be active status to protect the State

of New York against any possible attack. As I indicated, right now

there are probably 3,700 New York Guards troops that are serving

a Federal mission, hundreds more serving a State mission. But we

have 17,000 plus the Naval militia and the New York Guard.

So I don’t believe, other than September 12th and a few weeks

after that, there are still units that have not been called upon because of their unique skill sets. So we have not been stretched too

thin, to use that term. And General Blum and the Federal officials

have been very, very careful to work closely with our command

structure to make sure that the calls they have made are consistent with our need to protect ourself.

27

Second, with respect to compacts with surrounding States, of

course, we are a part of EMAC, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, with a number of other States. That was very

helpful right after September 11th, when emergency teams from

other States came to New York and they had the ability to function

within New York State free of any constraints they may have had

because they were not within their home State.

We also have entered into, I assigned Executive orders, I’ll just

give you one example, authorizing Connecticut and the New Jersey

State police and law enforcement officials to have jurisdiction on

the trains between New York and Connecticut and New York and

New Jersey. When we’re at level orange and at other times that

we don’t discuss, we have significant additional support and security on the commuter trains, in addition to on the subway lines.

The commuter lines run not just within New York State but into

New Jersey and Connecticut. And the Governors of Connecticut

and New Jersey have placed their troopers where we would have

jurisdiction of our troopers on the trains in Connecticut and they

would have jurisdiction within Penn Station or Grand Central Station. And that has worked very well.

And we’re continuing to work on a regional concept of support,

particularly information sharing. We’re going to be moving forward

on the intelligence and information sharing with some specific initiatives over the course of the next few weeks.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your work and

appreciate your time here very much.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn follows:]

28

29

30

Governor PATAKI. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Governor, for your leadership on these many issues.

I also had the opportunity to travel to Iraq in February on a trip

that was led by the chairman of this committee, and had the opportunity to talk to many of our National Guardsmen and women

there. I must say I found their morale was high, that they were

proud of the service they were doing.

They also, though, were lied, that the term, that the time for

their tour of duty, they took that seriously as it was given to them

and many of them were discouraged by the fact that their tours

were extended beyond the time they had been originally informed.

Obviously you have a hardship on families back home as well as

them. So I think it’s important that we work this out so we can

provide greater predictability both to the men and women who are

serving overseas but also to their families back home. I do appreciate what you’ve done in New York to relieve those burdens.

I want to ask quickly, if there’s a member of the New York State

government who is deployed overseas, in addition to paying the pay

gap, you also guarantee their position will be held open when they

return, is that right?

Governor PATAKI. That’s correct. We hold their position open.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And a number of States have done this, my

home State of Maryland has done this. Their experience has been

that they are able to cover this pay gap without having to request

additional appropriations, that those agencies have been able to

fill, meet those demands without having a lot of additional cost. Is

that your experience?

Governor PATAKI. That has been our experience. But I just want

to clarify something in response to what Congressman Lantos said

earlier. We provide the pay gap when you are a State employee.

We did not mandate that for local governments and we do not do

that for private employers. So if you are a State employee, we work

with the public employee unions, we provide that pay gap, we hold

the slot open. And we’ve been able to minimize the fiscal impact

to the State of that particular benefit.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Right. I just think what you’ve done is a good

model for what we can be doing at the Federal level with respect

to Federal employees, as Congressman Lantos has suggested. I

think we can do it with minimal impact on the budget.

Let me ask you, because a lot of States are facing multiple demands on the National Guards people as you suggest. Do we have,

this function where the Guards serve within the States to respond

to emergencies now more and more to homeland security demands,

at the same time we have many being deployed overseas. Have you

encountered any difficulties in terms of the competing demands on

the same resources and when those competing demands occur,

which take precedence? How do you decide?

Governor PATAKI. We really have not seen that, because General

Blum, as I indicated, has been very, very cooperative in working

with our command structure, General McGuire and the others, as

the New York members of the Guard are deployed for a Federal

mission. So we haven’t seen that.

31

There is one area where we are requesting additional help, and

that’s the civil support team, which has the ability, the high tech

equipment, to not just respond but to monitor for chemical, biological or radiological weapons. We only have one of those teams. It

hasn’t been called upon for Federal service, but we call upon it regularly to monitor and to proactively protect. That is one area where

we would very much like the authorization to have a second civil

support team that would allow us to enhance that capability and

not keep relying on that one unit.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I think the time has come, you said 11

o’clock, and we will let you go at 11. I appreciate it very much, for

what you’ve been able to add to this. We may get back to you with

some ideas. This has been very, very helpful for us and we appreciate it.

Governor PATAKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s been

an honor to testify before the committee. What you’re doing is extremely important and I have no doubt you will do it extremely

well. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

We will have a 3 or 4 minute recess as we go to our next panel.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We’re going to move to our second panel

of witnesses, and I want to thank you all for taking time from your

busy schedules to appear today. I think you’ve heard Governor

Pataki from the back.

We have today the Honorable Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Homeland Security and a former Member of this

body. Paul, welcome back in a different role here, but it’s good to

have you here. The Honorable Thomas F. Hall, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs; Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau; and Major

General John Love, the Special Assistant to the Combatant Commander for National Guard Affairs, U.S. Northern Command.

It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn before you testify, so if you would rise with me and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Members deferred opening statements, and I would just put my

opening statement into the record, and we’ll ask unanimous consent that Members put their statements into the record.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

32

33

34

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I do recognize Mr. Schrock. Do you want

to wait? We’ll go through this panel and then go to Mr. Schrock’s

questioning.

Mr. Secretary, welcome back. It’s good to have you here. I know

you’ve worked hard on this and thanks for being here.

STATEMENT OF PAUL MCHALE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE; THOMAS F. HALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AFFAIRS; LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU; AND MAJOR GENERAL JOHN A.

LOVE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO COMBATANT COMMANDER

FOR NATIONAL GUARD AFFAIRS, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND

Mr. MCHALE. Mr. Chairman, it’s good to be back.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is

an honor and a privilege to appear before this body. To be entrusted with national security responsibilities at any time, but especially at this point in our country’s history, it is a solemn and

sacred duty.

From past experience, I fully appreciate your oversight obligations pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, although

I have to tell you it’s a little more challenging on this side of the

table than it was when I sat up there and asked the questions. My

goal today is to provide the committee with a candid, accurate assessment of our current homeland defense capabilities and to describe emerging DOD mission requirements with particular emphasis on Reserve component capabilities.

Because I have submitted my formal testimony for the record, I

would like to provide only a brief introduction at this point, in

order to allow maximum time for member questions. I appear before you today in my capacity as Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Homeland Defense. My position was created by Public Law 107–

314, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003.

The statutory duty assigned to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense is ‘‘the overall supervision of the homeland defense activities of the Department.’’ I was nominated by

President Bush in January 2003 and confirmed by the Senate 1

month later. As a result, I have been serving in this office for just

a little over a year.

In the interim, much has happened. Although my written testimony focus in some detail on the organizational changes within the

Department of Defense following the attacks of September 11,

2001. I think the members of this committee are primarily interested in the recent steps we have taken to ensure the physical safety of our citizens, their property and our Constitutional freedoms.

The painful losses of September 11th produced not only grief, but

resolute action.

Each day since September 11th, the men and women of the

North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, have patrolled the air space over Canada and the United States. In a completely integrated effort of U.S. and Canadian capabilities, the U.S.

Air Force, Air Force Reserve and the Air Guard have protected the

skies of our major metropolitan areas, critical infrastructure, govVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
35

ernment facilities and historic monuments. These dedicated professionals have executed over 34,000 air defense sorties and responded to over 1,700 requests from the Federal Aviation Administration to intercept potential air threats. That is an extraordinary

achievement.

In fiscal year 2004 alone, the Air National Guard has flown 1,909

sorties and logged 6,926 hours to guard our Nation’s skies. The

number of flights and their location changes daily, and each day’s

flight data is shared in advance with the Department of Homeland

Security. This level of air security is unprecedented in our Nation’s

history. Nearly every homeland defense exercise that we now conduct involves a threat scenario involving a terrorist takeover on

commercial airliners. As a result, our air defense training is realistic, focused, and subject to well understood rules of engagement.

We had implemented similar improvements in our domestic land

defense capabilities, while fully recognizing that domestic counterterrorism is a lead law enforcement mission, we now have Active

Duty soldiers and Marines on alert every hour of every day, prepared to deploy to any location within the United States where a

land defense against a terrorist attack might be required. Such

quick reaction forces did not exist on September 11, 2001. They do

now and they are both trained and ready.

Even more importantly, we are working closely with the National

Guard Bureau to ensure that Army Guard forces will be mission

ready to provide immediate land security forces within their own

States. In my judgment, the protection of critical infrastructure will

likely become a core National Guard mission during the next decade. It is also important to note that DOD has recently been assigned, with the signing of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, an important responsibility in the protection of the defense

industrial base. The achievement of this new mission will require

close coordination of private and public, military and civilian security capabilities. The task is both enormous and essential.

We now recognize that a 21st century maritime defense requires

a common operating picture of the maritime domain, real time

tracking of threat vessels, appropriate ships and resources to support maritime intercept operations on the high seas against terrorists potentially armed with weapons of mass destruction, and command and control structure which maximizes both Navy and Coast

Guard capabilities.

Our goal is to defeat every enemy maritime threat with an integrated, layered defense long before such threats are able to enter

our ports. To that end, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently

signed an expanded maritime intercept operations execute order for

realistic maritime exercises and unprecedented Navy-Coast Guard

cooperation. We are making daily progress with that goal.

Similar improvements have been made with regard to DOD’s

ability to support civilian authorities following a terrorist attack.

Thirty-two National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support teams have been trained, equipped and certified by the Secretary of Defense. Twelve new teams will be created this year. We

are planning to establish a total of 55 civil support teams, sufficient to ensure that every State and territory will be served by a

team.

36

If a more substantial WMD response is required, we have established, equipped and organized large joint task forces at dispersed

locations throughout the United States, sufficient to ensure that we

will be able to respond to multiple, near-simultaneous terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. Although this capability is not fully developed, we are working hard and with a sense

of urgency to get there.

In my view, multiple simultaneous attacks are not only possible,

they are consistent with terrorist operational doctrine. Even in the

absence of a large scale enemy attack, the Department of Defense

civil support responsibility is substantial. During the past year,

DOD acted on 75 separate civil support requests from more than

20 civilian agencies, including the January 4th deployment of the

Marine Corps chemical-biological incident response force to the

Dirksen Building when ricin was detected in Senator Frist’s office.

That mission was executed at the request of the Capitol Police.

And finally, we at DOD recognize that an effective defense

against terrorist activity requires a close daily partnership between

our Department and the newly created Department of Homeland

Security. Our missions are complementary and mutually reinforcing. To make certain that partnership is a reality, employees from

my office now work full time in the Homeland Security and Operations Center. A defense coordination office has been established by

DOD personnel at DHS. A memorandum of agreement for mutual

support has been negotiated between the two departments. And I

meet routinely and regulatory with senior DHS leadership, including a 1-hour meeting yesterday with Admiral Loy, the Deputy Secretary.

Our homeland security and homeland defense exercise programs

have now been fully integrated. The scenarios are challenging and

involve complete interagency participation. Mr. Chairman, this

summary should make it clear that the Department of Defense,

working with our partners in the private and public sectors at the

local, State and national levels, is fully committed to the most capable homeland defense ever planned or executed in our country’s

history.

Despite great progress, we are not comfortable, we are not satisfied. Rather, we are dedicated, with a real sense of urgency, to

ever-improving homeland defense capabilities. In that effort, our

men and women in uniform stand in common cause with the members of this committee. Victory in the global war on terrorism is a

national imperative, our generation’s greatest challenge.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your questions and those of the

members of the committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McHale follows:]

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thanks very much.

Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak to the committee. I’m pleased to be

here today with my colleague Paul McHale and with Generals

Blum and Love to discuss the role of the National Guard in overseas and homeland operations.

Our Guard and Reserve make up 46 percent of our military, or

some 1.2 million service members. Since September 11, we have

mobilized a total of 340,000 service members. This equates to 40

percent of our force, and it’s the largest mobilization since Korea.

Today as we meet, there are over 165,000 Reserve and Guard

members that are mobilized. Although 60 percent of our Reserve

force has not been touched, we share everyone’s concerns about the

same thing, and that’s the stress on our force.

Just as the active force is the first to deploy in support of U.S.

operations abroad, the National Guard is often the first military

force to deploy in support of most homeland security requirements.

National Guard is a citizen soldier force that can be activated by

the Governor in support of State emergencies and also Federalized

to support national contingency requirements. A Governor can deploy National Guard under State Active Duty or upon approval of

the Secretary of Defense in Title 32 of the U.S. Code, National

Guard can of course be Federalized under provisions of Title 10,

U.S. Code. This unique triple status makes the National Guard a

cost effective, flexible force that can be employed in a variety of circumstances.

The Guard’s capability was demonstrated in the aftermath of the

September 11th attacks. Even after the attacks, as we have heard

and know, the National Guard responded, National Guard assets

took to the skies to secure our air space, and local Guard forces

were directly sent to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to

assist with security and recovery efforts.

Shortly thereafter, the President asked the Governors to use

their Guardsmen to secure airports at Federal expense. They responded in a matter of hours by deploying Air Guardsmen in Title

32 status at over 440 airports. In addition, many of our Governors

ordered our Guardsmen in State Active Duty to secure critical infrastructure facilities, such as bridges, power plants and government buildings. Many of those State security missions continue

today.

Our National Guard personnel were activated in 12 States under

Title 10 to augment security along our Nation’s borders. Their missions ensure that the commerce continued to flow while the vital

entryways were protected. Today, there are over 100,000 Air and

Army National Guard men and women mobilized in support of Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. They

are flying air patrols, performing force protection duties here in the

United States, flying refueling missions over central Asia and on

the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. As expected, the National

Guard continues to conduct all missions in an exceptional manner.

The fight against terrorism and the protection of our homeland

will be protracted endeavors, much like the cold war. To that end,

many outside policy experts, independent panels and studies have

54

advocated expanding roles for the National Guard in homeland security. Some have even suggested that the National Guard should

be reoriented, re-equipped, and retrained solely for the homeland

security mission.

The reality is that there has been no recent national security

change that justifies the need to establish a separate role for the

National Guard to perform homeland security related missions

under new statutes and administrative guidelines. There are already sufficient legal mechanisms in place that enable State and

territorial Governors to employ their National Guard forces and

support local authorities to meet a wide range of existing missions.

The National Guard is an integral part of the Air Force and

Army total force mission capability. Their roles are vital to the survival of this Nation. The position of the Department of Defense is

that the National Guard will remain a dual mission military force.

This concludes my statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

General Blum.

General BLUM. Good morning, Chairman Davis and other members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address

this body this morning. I ask that my written testimony be entered

into the record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, so ordered.

General BLUM. As we appear here this morning before you, there

are 149,000 citizen soldiers and airmen employed all over the globe

in the current global war on terrorism. For the last 21⁄2 years, since

September 11, the National Guard has maintained and sustained

that level of contribution to the war fight, both here at home and

abroad. The National Guard is no longer questioned about its relevance. Today our worst critics can only call us over-used or essential to the safety and security of our Nation.

The modern day National Guard has been in the homeland defense business now for 367 years. Our homeland defense efforts actually predate us as a Nation. We plan to remain in that effort and

we call that ‘‘job No. 1’’ or ‘‘priority No. 1.’’

But defending the homeland is not always done only here at

home. Some of that homeland defense has to be conducted, to use

a sports analogy, as an away game, or a scheduled away game,

where you see us participating with our Active Duty counterparts

and the other Reserve components in a joint, multinational, interagency and intergovernmental effort overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan,

Kosovo, Bosnia and other places in the world.

We have to change the National Guard, however, because it is

not exactly optimized for the current threat that we’re facing right

now and future threats that we foresee on the horizon. As the modern day National Guard, we can answer no less calls by our Governors to respond to catastrophic events created by either Mother

Nature, man-made accidents or acts of terrorism here at home.

But we have to change the National Guard, the way we train it,

organize it, and most importantly, the way we resource it, so that

it can be an operational Reserve force that can be used in a joint

and expeditionary overseas war fight to supplement our active components when necessary. We are not structured correctly to do that

today and we are working very hard to move as fast as we can with

a great sense of urgency to become a relevant, ready, reliable and

accessible force that is needed by our combatant commanders

around the world.

The Congress, and its National Guard and Reserve Equipment

Account, will remain a very essential tool in helping us accomplish

this effort. As you heard Governor Pataki say, and the two previous

Secretaries that have testified before me in their opening statements, I am proud to tell you that the National Guard has met

every requirement that it has been asked to perform since September 11 and even before that. Service in the National Guard has always been honorable, but it is particularly rewarding today, because we are truly defending our Nation, our way of life, our liberties, our form of government, and our future. And we’re very

proud to stand and answer the call to do that.

But to do this, I have to tell you, we are committed to transformation. We are changing the Guard from what it was designed

80

to do what it needs to be designed to do today. We are transforming the Guard today to be a more joint and effective organization

from the very top to the very bottom, building it from the bottom

up, and that’s the essence of the Joint Force Headquarters that

were described by Governor Pataki and the Secretaries. We are developing capabilities that will be needed to defend the homeland

here at home and to support combatant commanders overseas in

the war-fight outside our Nation’s borders.

We want to give better predictability to our soldiers, to their families, to their employers, as you heard discussed. And we’ve built

a model for this that we think will accomplish better predictability.

Soldiers, their families and employers will know on a more routine

basis when they can expect to be called, how long they can expect

to be deployed and when they will return home and then how soon

again they will be asked to answer the call for another extended

duration deployment.

We are meeting the needs of our elected officials and our uniformed leaders. We are meeting the mandate to operate as a seamless organization that can perform both the State mission and the

Federal mission and do them simultaneously if necessary and to be

able to do this in a joint, interagency, intergovernmental or multinational environment if required. The National Guard is focusing

so that it ensures that every Governor and every combatant commander gets the right force mix from the National Guard: the right

kinds of units with the right kinds of capabilities; modern equipment that is interoperable, and beyond interoperable—or actually

interchangeable parts with our active components, whether it be

Air Force or Army, Air National Guard or Army National Guard.

We need to redistribute these capabilities so they are resident in

every State and territory of this great Nation. We are transforming, along with the Army and the Air Force. This is not an independent effort. We are shoulder-to-shoulder on this. There is no

daylight between the National Guard and the active components as

once existed.

The Army recognizes that there are 18 divisions in the U.S.

Army; 10 on Active Duty, 8 in the National Guard. The U.S. Army

hopes to have 84 transformed brigades, 34 of these brigades will be

resident in the Army National Guard. We are similarly full partners with the U.S. Air Force and their initiatives to modernize and

transform and develop modularity, so that the Air National Guard

and the Army National Guard can truly be plug and play elements

of our Active Duty counterparts.

The bottom line is, your National Guard is committed to doing

what is right for the United States of America. I look forward to

answering your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of General Blum follows:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. General Love.

General LOVE. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of General Everhard and the men and women of

the U.S. Northern Command, thank you for the opportunity to be

here to discuss the National Guard’s role in the vital issues of

homeland defense and homeland security.

As you’ve heard from Secretary McHale, Secretary Hall and

Lieutenant General Blum, every Department of Defense office and

headquarters charged with defending our homeland has looked

very carefully at the role the National Guard should play in deterring and preventing attacks on our homeland and mitigating any

attacks that might occur. The National Guard Bureau, under the

guidance and direction of General Blum, has begun a number of

what I believe to be critical initiatives to respond to the realities

of our post-September 11 world.

Historically, the National Guard headquarters in each State has

largely acted to fulfill the services and needs to organize, train and

equip airmen and soldiers to fight our Nation’s war somewhere

other than in our homeland. It was always an additional mission

to provide Guardsmen to meet the needs of their States in responding to natural disasters. That response seldom called for skills

other than those war-time training had already provided.

All of our assumptions regarding the use of our core war force

and Reserve were predicated upon the United States having and

retaining the initiative as to where to fight and when to fight. This

is not the case with the global war on terrorism. We no longer have

the initiative, and we must be prepared to respond anywhere within our homeland, knowing that any delay in that response may be

a loss of lives, and those are American lives.

The National Guard has deployed in 3,300 locations across our

Nation. Wherever a terrorist attack may occur, it is likely that the

National Guard will be the first military force on the scene. The

response to a terrorist attack will not be analogous to the response

to a flood. It will require specialized training at a corporate as well

as a unique command and control structure that is responsive to

the realities of a WMD attack.

By any measure, this change is through transformation. The National Guard headquarters in each State must now deal with its

historic roles to organize, train, equip and deploy, it must now be

an operational headquarters that provides not only a response to

a crisis in their State but provides NORTHCOM and the Nation

with a clear picture of what has happened and what is needed to

save lives and property. We must examine closely the statutory authorities under which the National Guard responds to an attack in

our homeland and how best it may be utilized to prevent those attacks.

We at NORTHCOM are looking closely at changes that may be

necessary in Title 32 of the U.S. Code. We believe that certain circumstances may dictate that National Guard units should perform

homeland defense or homeland security duties in a Federal status

other than Title 10. It may be far more effective for the Guard to

remain under the command of the Governor of a State as opposed

to being Federalized and placed under the command of

NORTHCOM. Guardsmen know the local territory, know the local

92

first responders, exercise with those who will be engaged on the

part of the State emergency response system, and under Title 32

utilization, can be accessed far more quickly.

Response in the homeland is all about speed. We cannot wait for

help from afar if there is help close at hand. We must train and

equip that help so it can offer the kind of assistance that is needed

and so it can do so with proper training and equipment. If the mission is a Federal mission, we must find a way to budget for that

mission and make those funds available to a Governor to pay his

or her Guardsmen.

Of course, States must assure the Congress that its appropriations are being used as it directs. But that’s not a complicated undertaking. The Guard performs counter-drug missions in a similar

manner, and that program has worked well for 15 years.

The war on terrorism demands that we look for innovative ways

to utilize those forces that are closest to any crisis. That said, it

is not really innovative at all. The National Guard has been responding to crises in their communities for more than 367 years,

since 1636, when the Massachusetts Militia mustered in December

of that year in Salem.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and

thank you and your colleagues for your continued commitment to

armed forces.

[The prepared statement of General Love follows:]

93

94

95

96

97

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

I thank the panel for your testimony. We will move into questioning. We’ll start first with the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.

Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I first want to make sure I get a couple of comments on the

record, if we have to get the answers written, I’d appreciate it.

First, I want to thank Secretary McHale for his comments on narcotics. It’s impossible to do that task without the assistance of the

Department of Defense. On JTF6, there is an interrelationship

where the training of our Guard and Reserve and military component is absolutely essential to our south border.

If we’re long-term going to protect our homeland security on the

south border, I mean, right now a million people are making it

across. That’s why we need immigration reform, we need a number

of things. But the bottom line is, we are not secure at all there.

And without your help, it would be inconceivable even to do it.

I want to raise again, and we need your particular help, we’ve

raised this with the Department of Defense, in the Barry Goldwater Range in the southwest part of Arizona, we have a problem

with, we don’t have aerostat protection, we have high yield monitoring that can feed in, but we need low level. The U.S. Customs,

which is now your homeland security, wants to fly planes there in

a 5 mile radius, like they do the rest of our border, but have not

because it’s an Air Force training range.

But the jets shouldn’t be that close to the international border

anyway, or we’d have a problem. We need to get this worked out.

We have repeatedly been told, well, we’re working on it, but we

need a solution, because what’s going to happen is, we squeeze

other parts of the border, illegals, not to mention narcotics trafficking, is going to push into that range. And the first one that gets

killed, you are going to endanger your entire training facility there.

We have to secure that portion of the border, not only for other reasons in the United States, but for even keeping our range open. We

really need your help on the Air Force range. But I thank you for

raising the narcotics issue.

I want to mention a couple of other things, and then if the chairman indulges, maybe you can raise it. I have heard from the Guard

and from the manufacturer that the Humvees that the Guard takes

over to Iraq are being left there because of shortages of the

Humvee, and I want to know if this is true, because it’s going to

long term impact our training with Guard people in the States if

we’re having to leave the Humvees in Iraq. If it’s true, which we

have heard from a number of different people in a number of different places, then are you requesting more Humvees for Guard

and Reserve training?

Second, I was pleased to hear that you are trying to get better

at communicating to our groups long term whether they’re going to

be deployed again, not only the first time. But I want to raise a

couple of questions. My understanding is that 60 percent have not

been utilized. A logical question would be, before others go back,

will that 60 percent be utilized, or are we talking about some of

these units didn’t have, didn’t get 100 percent utilized and the 60

percent of the Guard that hasn’t been utilized in fact may be in

98

that unit, and if that unit’s called up, they may not be utilized

again.

In other words, I just had a group that’s been forward deployed

of 700 Army Guard in Fort Wayne, IN that was a specially trained

battalion. Are we adequately communicating? Will that group be

called up again because of its special training? I have a Reserve

group that is going up over to Afghanistan, they may already be

in flight, it’s within the next day, that they haven’t been forward

deployed since Alayat Gulf. But they are the only artillery ammunition support group going into Afghanistan, in place of all the

other units on the ground.

It seems to me, if our premise is correct, that many of us feel

that the war on terrorism is not going away and we are going to

use Guard and Reserve, certain specially trained units for short

need may be facing some serious redeployment, even if you have

60 percent that aren’t. Could you elaborate on that, because we

need to be able to look at, should we have specially targeted benefits for those who are higher risk, how do we communicate this, if

you join certain units? Because it doesn’t seem to be an even deployment list in the combat zone.

Mr. HALL. I certainly would take a couple of them.

You hit upon the exact problem that we have. As we analyzed

the force over the past 19 months that I’ve been there, we have discovered that we have used about 28,000 of our people over and over

again, two, three and four times. And that’s about 3.3 percent of

our force. But they’re in specialties like civil affairs, military police,

air traffic control. So it is very clear to us that we need to rebalance.

And within that 60 percent that we mentioned are many of the

specialties that are not required today. So we have an excess of artillery. So the services are all recommitted to balancing 100,000 billets and taking the specialties that were targeted toward the cold

war that are not used in today’s warfare, moving these over, building a bigger base so that we don’t have to continually call up the

same people all the time.

As of this year, we’re about halfway there. We have 50,000 billets, 10,000 in 2003, 20,000 in 2004 and 20,000 in 2005. We have

another 50,000 to go, and the services are moving as fast as they

can to convert those kinds of specialties, and one of the areas is excess artillery. So we’re concerned about that. We want to minimize

the stress, and we certainly, every time we mobilize a unit, one of

the things my office asks is, when were they mobilized before, how

long ago and are there other alternatives we have other than remobilizing them, either through other services, through the joint

solutions.

So that is always part of that equation. We want to reduce that

stress on the force.

With respect to the Humvees, I think you are absolutely right,

that there are ones that are being left there. I think it’s a question

that all the chiefs, including General Myers, have looked at. If

there are not enough, do you want them where the actual combat

was going on, rather than the training. The answer is, you’d like

them both places. As you know, the industrial base is pushing as

hard as it can to get the armored Humvees out. But right now they

99

are kept there, so that the people participating in combat can have

them. We certainly would like to have them at the national training center and other places, and we’re moving toward getting those

for training.

Mr. SOUDER. I want to clarify something for the record there, because this is important to Members of Congress. If somebody, the

AM General facility that makes the Humvees is at the edge of my

district, it’s not in my district, but my district is the biggest parts

supplier. They can produce more. They can produce 150 more a

month now, up-armored. The question is, are you going to allocate

the funds to do that and is the administration going to request

that.

Mr. HALL. I will certainly take that for the record, sir, that they

have that capacity. And I don’t know if General Blum has any comments on the Humvees or not.

General BLUM. My comments on the up-armored Humvees would

be this. The National Guard has shipped overseas every single uparmored Humvee that we controlled in the United States of America, so that the soldiers in harm’s way have the best protection to

perform their mission. I don’t want to see an up-armored Humvee

in the United States of America until every single one that’s required overseas in the warfight is delivered into the warfight.

I cannot speak to what AMC can produce or what the Congress

wants to provide in the way of funds and who’s going to request

it. But I will tell you, with the assets that I control, I put the protection of soldiers No. 1, and I put that protection in theater where

they need the protection. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

D.C. National Guards, the Guardsmen trucking company where

we lost one man, came home yesterday, we had a big ceremony,

and I am one of their greatest supporters, have great appreciation

for them. I’m going to ask Mr. McHale to help me to get for the

District of Columbia what Mr. Pataki indicated in his testimony

has been so helpful to him, and I quote from you, we need to ensure that troops activated under Title 32 status remain under the

authority and control of the State’s Governor to ensure maximum

flexibility and effective deployment.

The D.C. National Guard comes totally under the President of

the United States, it’s as if this were 1800. It’s really dangerous

today to have a situation in the Nation’s Capital where the kind

of flexibility that Mr. Pataki testified to is not even possible here.

I have a bill to put the National Guard under the mayor. At least

this city, which must be target No. 1 in the world, ought to have

the kind of flexibility as Mr. Pataki. I’m going to ask you to work

with my office to try to get some of that flexibility here in the Nation’s Capital, where more is at stake than the, not only the

600,000 people who live here, but the entire Federal presence as

well. That flexibility is simply not available to us.

My question really goes, however, to the mix. I very much appreciate what you are trying to do with the National Guard. It’s almost like zero budgeting. Gentleman, I think you may as well start

over again. It’s the old concept of the militia, which we are operating under, just lay aside, begin in the world of post-September 11,

100

particularly since I understand that within a few months you may

have as many as 40 percent of the National Guard in Iraq. Nobody

contemplated that, even a year ago.

In Mr. Pataki’s testimony, by the way, the GAO graph showing

this escalation of the Army National Guard—nobody believed that

these men and women were prepared for this kind of escalation in

combat. And in contrast to your testimony, the GAO, let me read

from the GAO, it says, DOD has not fully defined requirements,

readiness standards and readiness measures for the homeland security missions it will lead or support. The Guard’s readiness, preparedness specifically for homeland mission is unknown.

Then it says, this is my concern, based on concern that continuing deployments reduce the Guard’s preparedness and availability

for all its homeland security and natural disaster missions. Now,

Mr. Pataki was brought here this afternoon, he is totally unrepresentative of the Governors of the United States at this point, wonderful testimony. But there’s no doubt he called General Blum’s

name over and over again, there is no doubt that following September 11 you were careful about what you did with the National

Guard in the State of New York. And I hope that the next time we

will have a more typical Governor here, so we can really find out

what is happening with the Governors.

At least for example, in neighboring New Jersey, 70 percent of

the National Guard has been deployed. In this city, 40 percent

have been deployed. These folks are in Iraq. Now, the Governor

testified proudly since he’s been Governor, he’s been Governor for

2 terms, 8 natural disasters, 4 plane crashes, 11 crippling blizzards, 2 major wildfires, etc. We just had a terrible hurricane, Hurricane Isabel. It is very hard for me to believe we had a representative Governor here. He would be able to say, particularly since

there’s no doubt he wouldn’t have been given the special consideration that New York was entitled to, that he could handle any disaster that came forward.

I need to know, particularly in light of what the GAO has said,

even about the definition of requirements. I need to know, I find

a real contrast with you on the testimony. I need to know what

we’re supposed to do on the home front, when these are deployed

in Iraq, we’ve got them deployed also for homeland security, and

then they’re supposed to deal with disasters as well. I still have no

understanding of how this in fact is going to occur, how long it will

take you to get to this rebalanced National Guard, or how a typical

Governor is supposed to operate during this period when that Governor happens not to be of New York State.

Mr. MCHALE. Congresswoman, if I may, what I’ll do is divide

your question into a couple of different parts. A portion of your

question falls within the area of responsibility that has been assigned to me, a portion of the question is really within the area of

responsibility assigned to Secretary Hall and General Blum. But

let me take the part for which I am accountable.

With regard to the command and control of the D.C. National

Guard, the first part of the comment that you raised, in order to

achieve a closer partnership between the Department of Defense

and the operational requirements assigned to the D.C. National

Guard, there is an ongoing review, not yet completed, within the

101

Department of Defense that would consider the possibility of transferring that responsibility from one individual to another.

You correctly noted that ultimately the President of the United

States is responsible for the Federal missions assigned to the D.C.

National Guard. And——

Ms. NORTON. And the President can nationalize any National

Guard.

Mr. MCHALE. I’m sorry?

Ms. NORTON. And can nationalize any National Guard he wants

to.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentlelady’s time has expired, so answer the question and we need to——

Mr. MCHALE. I’ll make it very brief, Mr. Chairman. What’s underway right now is the possibility of transferring the responsibility from the current executive agent, who is the Secretary of the

Army, and who has had historically the same responsibility with

regard to the D.C. National Guard that a Governor of a State

would normally have with regard to his or her National Guard.

The person or the office that is being considered is a transfer

from the Secretary of the Army to my office. My office was created

by Congress last year. It has overall supervision of all the homeland defense responsibilities of the Department of Defense. And

there is a possibility that responsibility would transfer from the

Secretary of the Army to me or to my successors.

I have met with Mayor Williams, I have talked to him about the

responsibilities in the D.C. Guard. We are eager to make that an

effective partnership.

Second, with regard to homeland defense mission, we agree with

the GAO assessment that those missions have not yet formally

been defined within the necessary documents. However, that’s because we’re new. NORTHCOM is new capability, my office is brand

new. What we have done operationally is define those missions,

and pursuant to the strategic planning guidance that’s been reviewed by the Department of Defense, by June of this year we

must develop and publish a comprehensive strategy for homeland

defense, which in turn will define the requirements that are necessary to support those missions.

Frankly, there won’t be many surprises. The missions that we

will be including are important missions that we have developed

during the past 2 years. The air caps that protect our air space,

critical infrastructure protection and the involvement of the National Guard in meeting that mission requirements, the CSTs, 32

of which we now have, an additional 23 I believe are scheduled

over the next 2 years, including 12 within the next year.

The missions are well understood by NORTHCOM. Many of

them are being executed today. And the document reflecting the

development of those missions will be published by June of this

year.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Let me——

Ms. NORTON. Could the other part of my——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The chairman is going to make a comment. We asked a number of Governors to appear, including the

Governor of New Jersey, Ms. Norton. We asked the Democratic

Governor of Michigan to appear as well. We asked the Democratic

102

Governor of Virginia to appear. We would have had a panel had

we had—I’m very grateful we had Governor Pataki, because not

only did he have September 11, he’s one of the longest serving Governors in the Nation, he’s had blackouts, he’s had transportation,

weather issues and everything else. And I think we’re—I take exception to that statement. He came here on his own accord, and I

think sitting here and bashing him is really not appropriate.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I didn’t bash——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. NORTON. You have made a personal attack on me——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I was answering something, Ms. Norton.

We gave you 5 extra minutes.

The gentlelady from Tennessee.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to

our panel. I appreciate your willingness to come and visit with us

on these issues today.

The health of the National Guard, the strength of the National

Guard is very important to all of us. I have two questions. My first

question I am going to direct to Mr. Hall and General Blum and

then, Mr. McHale, I will come to you with my second question. I

do want to be brief in consideration of everyone’s time.

One of the things I am very concerned about, Mr. Hall and General Blum, is the 168th out of Lebanon, TN, which is military police. We have talked a lot this morning about predictability, about

readiness and the quality of life with the families. And Governor

Pataki was very forthcoming with what he’s doing to address those

issues in New York.

The 168th out of Lebanon was activated in December 2002. They

were deployed in June 2003, and they are the group that just got

extended for another 90 to 100 days. And this is a great concern

to us because of the families that are involved and the length of

this deployment. We know that retention and readiness is important. But I think, I’m very concerned for the families of the 168th

and how this lengthy deployment does affect them.

What I want to know is what you plan to do as you restructure

that will keep that from happening again. Then Mr. McHale, for

your answer, the question I would like for you to answer for me,

as we look at this restructuring and we talk about having missions

that are complementary, mutually reinforcing, the one thing we’ve

not focused on a lot in this hearing is, going forward with the implementation, what is the estimated cost of stepping up the readiness. And as we talk about cost, are you looking at a 5-year frame

or a 2-year frame? Have you given an estimate to the restructuring

on the increased time and what that increased training time is

going to cost us? The different units, the equipping of these and

how, what that cost is going to be.

So backing it up, Mr. McHale, I’ll ask you to speak to the cost,

but first, Mr. Hall and General Blum, if you will address the restructuring, to keep from happening what is happening with the

168th.

Mr. HALL. We are all very concerned with having to have that

extension. We worry about the families. I spent 34 years in the

military, deployed all the time as an Active Duty person, and I

103

worried about my family at that point, and we are continuing to

do that.

That decision was made because the combatant commander felt

that he needed to have it, and as Secretary Rumsfeld and General

Myers said, we have to provide him the force. So it was a very difficult decision. We have over 6,000 Guardsmen and reservists, including the ones you mentioned, who are involved in the 20,000,

both the Guard and the Army Reserve are having town halls, meeting with the families, dedicated to every month reconnecting with

the families, trying to help them and give them as much assistance

as we possibly can.

What we’re doing to prohibit this or to mitigate it for the future

is what I mentioned earlier, we are restructuring, and in this case,

building more military police, 18 provisional battalions, I’ll let General Blum talk about it, from excess capacity and artillery and others. We want to build a larger base so that we don’t have to go

back and touch the same groups or extend them.

So we’re accelerating that rebalancing and building more military police, because we know for sure, in conflicts in the future,

military police are going to be needed and we need to build a larger

base. So that’s a major focus point, along with civil affairs. I’ll ask

General Blum if he will add something.

General BLUM. Congresswoman Blackburn, you’re absolutely

right. Nobody liked what happened to the 168th. Nobody wanted

that to happen. Unfortunately, we’re in a war where we don’t control all of the conditions. Unfortunately, they have a special skill

set that is in short supply and was needed a little bit longer in theater to keep the mission in theater from becoming at risk.

Those soldiers, because they are so superb, because they are so

well trained, because they have such good situational awareness

and have been conditioned to the environment, they are hugely effective and very valuable to the combatant commander on the

ground. The combatant commander asked for a very small number.

Now, if you’re the one that is, that number is one too many. If

you’re the family member or the employer or the service member

that’s been extended, then even that one, that’s one too many.

But it’s a very small number of units and National Guardsmen

that have been asked to extend beyond the already-extended 1 year

boots-on-the-ground policy. They will be there as short as possible.

I am in communication with the ground commander almost weekly

to make sure that they are closely examining the absolute necessity

and requirement for the 168th to stay in theater. They will be released as soon as they can possibly be released.

To answer your question directly, how do you keep that from

happening again, I have to develop the right kind of capabilities in

the right numbers of units distributed across the Nation so that

Tennessee doesn’t have to pay or bear an unfair burden in the defense of this Nation. And right now we’re not set up exactly perfectly to optimize our ‘‘shelf stock,’’ to use a civilian term. I need

more ‘‘shelf stockage’’ of the right kinds of units and capabilities in

the right modularity. We’re attempting to develop as fast as we

can.

We have converted 18 artillery units from around the country

and this month they will be certified as military police units. Then

104

they will be available to go into the rotational base, so that I can

get, when the 168th comes home, I can look those citizen-soldiers

in the eye and tell them and their families and their employers

they will probably not have to face another extended duration overseas call-up for about 5 or 6 years. That’s the best I can do. I won’t

have that perfect probably for another 24 months. But we will be

in a much better position by the end of this month to provide additional MPs into subsequent rotations, which means to the 168th

they don’t have to go back so soon.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Before I raise my point, let me express my admiration for the

work all you gentlemen are doing. You know we are fully supportive of what you’re doing.

In the 24 years I’ve served in this body, I have been involved in

many policy disputes. But I’ve never had an inexplicable dispute

with an administration spokesperson that I have in this instance.

So let me try to frame my question with great respect, but in the

hope that I will get a straight answer.

The National Guard Association of the United States wrote me

a letter signed by Richard Alexander, Major General retired,

thanking me for introducing H.R. 1345. I will just read a paragraph from this. Thousands of Guardsmen and women are currently being called to Active Duty in support of the ongoing operations in Iraq, supporting the global war on terrorism, defense of

the homeland in addition to the multitude of other State and Federal operations and missions normally performed.

Many members of the National Guard are experiencing financial

hardships when they serve their country for extended periods of

time, due to the difference of income between their civilian and

military pay. H.R. 1345, which is my legislation, will help mitigate

financial loss by making up the difference between a Guardsman,

civilian and military salaries.

Mr. Hall, since you have been the most articulate and vociferous

opponent of my legislation, let me ask you to explain something to

me which despite my best effort, I’m incapable of comprehending.

You and your superiors all the way up to Secretary Rumsfeld are

full of praise for private companies when they do exactly what my

legislation calls for by the Federal Government. I have a whole list

of quotations from a very large number of important people like

yourself, showering praise on private companies for doing exactly

what my legislation calls for.

Yet, incomprehensibly and illogically, you are vehemently opposed to a legislation which is totally non-partisan in character and

that would help enormously in recruitment, retention, morale, in

every conceivable arena that you as a responsible officer are interested in. Now, please explain to me how can you praise a private

company for voluntarily introducing the precise provision my legislation mandates the Federal Government to do?

Mr. HALL. I will try and be as careful in answering your question

as you posed it to me. And I didn’t realize I was the most vociferous opponent——

105

Mr. LANTOS. You are.

Mr. HALL [continuing]. Of yours. I didn’t know I had that label.

What I tried to do is to look upon this issue in a very broad aspect. First of all, I think it’s appropriate that we praise those civilian employers who do this. They do not have Active Duty people

in the same foxhole with our Guard and Reserve that they have to

worry about. All the Reserve chiefs, as Mr. McHugh has said, have

come over and have worried about the comparability of an Active

Duty E–4 in a foxhole with a Reserve E–4 and do they receive the

same Federal pay. And they do.

I spent, as I said, 34 years of my life in uniform commanding

young men and women on the Active Duty side. And we have to

honestly worry about that in the Federal——

Mr. LANTOS. May I stop you for a second?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANTOS. Your logic has already left you. Because you are applauding the private employer who pays the salary which makes

two people in the same foxhole getting different salaries. So you

can’t have it both ways. You can’t praise private employers for

doing exactly what my legislation calls for. I mean, with a straight

face you can’t tell me this, because it makes no sense.

Mr. HALL. Well, I do applaud them and they have their own imperatives and their own system and they have chosen to do that.

Mr. LANTOS. Why don’t you answer my question? You have two

people in the same foxhole getting different salaries because General Electric chooses to maintain the salary while the person is on

Active Duty. And you are praising General Electric for creating

presumably a problem for you.

Mr. HALL. I have answered it in that the Federal pay for that

Active Duty and that Reserve soldier needs to be the same and it

is the same, and that is my area to worry about. And remember,

one-third of our Guardsmen and reservists lose some amount of

pay. Two-thirds have the same amount or more.

And the average loss, and I know we focus on what is in the

newspaper, of tremendous bankruptcies, tremendous loss, that is

not the case. It’s between $3,000 and $4,000. Now, that’s an

amount of money, we worry about that, but it is not where each

and every one of these soldiers are losing their homes and going

bankrupt. We worry about that. And there are possible solutions,

such as insurance.

But we need to worry about targeting the full range of compensation to those young men and women. The Guard and Reserve chiefs

all together and the active chiefs have stated their position, that

in considering the overall compensation, and I also do not believe

this is the major recruiting and retention problem we have, this

particular pay. There are others that, if we have limited funds, we

need to look at. I think I’ve answered it the way I honestly feel

based on my background service and my position now.

Mr. LANTOS. Well, let me just pursue it a bit.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. LANTOS. If you’ll allow me, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You can ask unanimous consent to increase your time.

Mr. LANTOS. I do.

106

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Any objection to giving the gentleman a

couple, 2 additional minutes? Without objection.

Mr. LANTOS. The notion that the current situation hurts only

one-third of the people who are serving our country, and that can

be dismissed so cavalierly, is absolutely preposterous. We are passing legislation here that helps 1 percent of our population. You’re

talking about one-third of your manpower or person power which

is being hurt by this idiotic policy. It’s an idiotic policy, and I’m

using the term advisedly.

And for you to dismiss it, that it impacts only one-third of the

people, you need to give me an answer. You don’t give a damn

about that one-third?

Mr. HALL. I don’t dismiss it cavalierly. I’ve told you how seriously I view the compensation for our young men and women. And

we look at it in a broad view. I understand yours, and I think I’ve

answered it adequately about my concern for our young men and

women.

Mr. LANTOS. Well, let me for the record state, I think your answer totally lacks logic and internal consistency and is totally unacceptable.

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman

from Virginia, Mr. Schrock.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman, Admiral, General, General, thank you for being here today on what

is a very difficult subject but a very important one.

I think that as a Nation we are probably at a crossroads where

we must make a choice on what the role of the National Guard is

going to be. That choice should be made in the context of the full

spectrum of tests that we expect the men and women who serve

this country in uniform. I’ve been to both Iraq and to Afghanistan,

and I have always returned home and remarked how it was impossible to tell the difference between the reservists, the Guardsmen,

the Guard and the Active Duty forces. They look the same and they

face the same threat.

But as leaders charged with funding these troops, with equipping

them, with training them and answering to them and to their families when we ask them to go into harm’s way, we must not fool ourselves that they are the same. The Marines fighting outside

Fallujah and Najaf right now knew from day one that they were

being trained and equipped to some day go in harm’s way for this

country. They represent the finest combat force that this country

has ever produced.

Before they went to Iraq, they were specifically trained and

equipped for urban combat. They share a warrior mind set that

comes from walking out the door each day in uniform and training

for war. Unfortunately, we are not always able to give our Guardsmen that same level of training before we ask them to deploy to

Iraq and other places around the world.

They do not receive that training day in and day out. If they receive the same equipment and training they receive it at the last

minute and often hand me down equipment previously used by the

active component. Their families do not see them walk out of the

house each day in uniform and become accustomed to their proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
107

longed absences and the chance that they may have to serve in environments such as Iraq.

As a Nation, we must decide what the role of the National Guard

will be in meeting both our global military commitments and our

homeland security needs. I believe that our National Guard is

rightfully part of our first responder equation. If we are going to

continue to rely on the Guard to comprise 40 percent of our Nation’s military capability, we have to come to grips with our responsibility to train them, to equip them and to let them know that

they are part of the team.

We must ensure that funding levels and that of the authorities

and scope of Title 10 and Title 32 reflect the way that our world

has changed in the last 3 years. We must reevaluate our own commitment as leaders responsible for this crucial homeland security

force and critical military Reserve force.

That being said, I want to address several questions to you, Secretary McHale, if I might, and I hope the Chair will indulge me,

because some of it’s rather long. The Guard differs from the Reserve components in that it’s under the command and control of the

States. This positions the Guard for some unique opportunities

with the States’ Federal nexus. Question, does DOD see the National Guard’s unique Title 32 activities, such as civil support

teams, the counter-drug programs or the airport security missions,

to be unhelpful distractions, or have these uses of Title 32 been

meaningful contributors to the security of the Nation?

Mr. MCHALE. Congressman Schrock, let me emphasize in the

strongest possible terms that Title 32 has been of enormous benefit, not only to the Department of Defense but to the Nation. There

are three categories in which the Guard may be employed, in State

status or at State expense under command and control of the Governor, the Guard executes the missions that are assigned to it by

the Governor. At the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got Title 10

where the National Guard is brought to Federal service, paid for

at Federal expense and under command and control of the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense.

Title 32 is an excellent, very flexible middle ground which produces tremendous utility. The expense of Title 32 is paid for by the

Department of Defense, by the Federal Government. But in Title

32 status, National Guardsmen are exempt from posse comitatus,

so they can engage in missions that are very close to law enforcement activities, missions that would be precluded for Title 10

forces. The expense, as I said, is carried by the Federal Government, but we have flexibility in terms of command and control by

the Governor.

If anything, where we are at this point is the Department of Defense is actively reviewing the tremendous benefit of Title 32 to determine whether or not that training status needs to be expanded

in the context of the global war on terrorism for an increased number of missions in that Title 32 status, because it has proven to be

so beneficial.

Mr. SCHROCK. OK, then we go to the last question. How soon

might we expect the DOD to send to Congress a proposal to review

Title 32 and in particular, the language about training in Section

502(f), I think it is?

108

Mr. MCHALE. As you point out, Title 32 status involves National

Guardsmen who are on Active Duty, performing specific missions

that often have been statutorily assigned. We have 32 civil support

teams, we’ll have 12 more this year and presumably 11 more after

that, based upon the assumption that the Congress will provide the

funding for the final 11.

In Title 32 status, we have those forces immediately available at

Federal expense, exempt from posse comitatus, under command

and control by the Governor. I mentioned earlier in response to

Congresswoman Norton that we are preparing a comprehensive,

really I think a historic homeland defense strategy that will be

completed by June 30, 2004. I don’t want to assume that we will

necessarily ask for a statutory revision of Title 32, but by the end

of June we will know whether or not such a revision would be appropriate.

And frankly, because Title 32 is a training status in the context

of the global war on terrorism, we need to take a very serious look

at expanding Title 32 to cover additional missions.

Mr. SCHROCK. So sometime around?

Mr. MCHALE. I would think by the end of summer, if in fact we

request a change in Title 32, we would know by the middle of summer whether such a change would be required. I don’t want to preclude an ongoing review, but certainly at this point, it appears to

me as if Title 32 would be appropriate for review to include in the

future not only training missions but operational missions and specifically, the mission that I envision as being central to the future

of the National Guard and homeland defense missions, and that is

critical infrastructure protection. The use of National Guard potentially in Title 32 to defend critical infrastructure in an operational

role within our own country.

Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I continue for a

minute?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will give the gentleman 2 additional

minutes.

Mr. SCHROCK. Paul, this question is about the possibility of similar operations in the future. The airport security mission was performed under Title 32, the Federal Government provided the

money, the States executed the mission. This seems to have been

a success. But subsequently, there was a need to use the Guard for

border security, and of course for that mission, the Guard was

taken out of State control under Title 32 and mobilized to Federal

duty under Title 10.

Does this reflect an intent by DOD to tend toward Federal mobilization as the best way to use the Guard for domestic requirements or might such future requirements be evaluated on a case

by case basis for execution under Title 32 or Title 10, as the situation would demand at the time?

Mr. MCHALE. The Secretary of Defense has in the past indicated

a preference for the use of National Guard forces, including in Title

32 status, rather than the necessary use, because of a lack of an

alternative, of Title 10 forces for the same mission. In short, if

there is a clear mission requirement, and we have the choice between using Title 10 forces or National Guard forces, particularly

for the missions that are related to counter-narcotics and the supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
109

port that we provide to civilian law enforcement along the borders,

the preferred course of action is to use the National Guard while

preserving our Title 10 capabilities for overseas warfighting.

And that’s why as we look at the emerging mission requirement

in the context of the global war on terrorism, there will be more,

not less, for the Guard to do, including missions assigned in Title

32 status.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is up.

I’d like to submit two other questions to Secretary McHale for the

record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I’d be happy to keep the record open for

that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, you all have a very difficult job, and

I think you’ve done a great job but we can always do better and

that’s what we’re talking about here today.

In this country, when people feel that something is wrong, it’s an

issue. As Members of Congress, that’s why, I think you’re getting

a lot of the questioning on how long someone’s going to be in Iraq

or Afghanistan or whatever.

What I would like to really discuss right now is the short term.

General Blum, you said, and so far, from what I see I think your

plan for a full spectrum force looks pretty good to me. But you said

it would be about 24 months, I believe, before it’s really implemented. And eventually this plan will reduce the burden on those

already deployed and also give some sense of a plan and a commitment on how long they’re going to be.

I think one of the worst things you can do for anybody is raise

expectations and then take those expectations away. But if we’re

in a war, we have to do what we have to do. That’s what’s happening now.

Could you please tell us what you need now? Congress is in session now until next November or December, whatever. What would

you like to see on the short term to help the troops on the ground

and their families and their employers? What do we need? And

really what we’re talking about is resources, which means money,

which means we have to encourage the administration to maybe

reprioritize to do something in the short term. I’d like to hear the

short term solutions based on what you’ve seen now as far as deployment, as far as dealing with families, all those issues that

might help.

General BLUM. The first thing I’d like to tell you, Congressman

Ruppersberger, is that there is continued strong, solid, unswerving

support for the citizen soldiers and airmen, the young men and

women in uniform. People are separating differences over what is

going on, how it’s being prosecuted, and the techniques that are

being applied, separating that from the solid support to uniformed

service members that are answering the call to colors, I’d like the

Congress to continue that strong, solid support.

Now, it is absolutely critical in an all volunteer, all recruited

force that a strong message of support from both parties, from both

houses, from all elected officials be clearly understood that service

to our Nation is something that is honorable, that is necessary and

is something that we all should be very proud of and supportive of.

110

So that is the first thing that I would ask the Congress, to be very

careful in their discussions and deliberations to consider the eroding effect that it has on the morale of soldiers that are deployed

longer than they would like to be, away from their families longer

than they would choose to be and put either career and education

and lives, frankly, at risk.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In that regard, when I was in Iraq, I had

a conversation with a member of the Maryland National Guard,

and he said, with all the political rhetoric we hear, people back

home aren’t mad at us, are they?

General BLUM. That’s precisely the question that I don’t want to

have in their minds when they’re walking the streets of Fallujah.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I want to get some specifics——

General BLUM. The specifics are—I could get the specifics for

you, and I’d be glad to leave them for you for the record. Because

in the interest of time, it would probably be the better way to do

it. I’ll provide you that.

If you’ll put up that chart that talks about the strategic Reserve

moving to an operational force, everything on the left side of this

chart that’s about to go up there, that was listed under strategic

Reserve, is what is wrong with the National Guard and Reserve

components today. They are resourced wrong for today. They were

resourced exactly right for the time before September 11th. But

they’re not right for today.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Resourcing being?

General BLUM. Resourcing means money for training——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Do you have a money figure base?

General BLUM. I’ll provide that for you, sir, for the record. It’s

money for retraining soldiers to reclassify them from what they are

now to what they need to be, retrain them for the skill sets we

need for tomorrow, not what we needed for yesterday. It is money

for equipment that we do not have, we were never equipped to be

an operational force, so we have all this cross leveling. Each time

you cross level, you lessen what’s left in the pot and cross leveling

becomes more and more difficult.

Last, the most important is, full-time manning. Because it is

clearly a readiness issue. If you’re going to use the Guard and Reserve as an operational force, you must have the right combination

of full time soldiers matching up with part time soldiers. And that

is clearly out of balance today and needs addressing.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, could I have one more

minute?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Very quickly. There’s an article in the Sun

paper today and I’m sure throughout the country about U.S. reservists accused of prisoner abuse. I’m quoting in the Sun paper an

article written by Tom Bowman and Sabar, and this is one of the

individuals who has been charged, or the allegations that they

were abusing prisoners. Well, by the way, if it’s criminal conduct

we have to deal with it like we deal with anything else. We cannot

tolerate it.

However, there are a lot of gray areas when you’re at war. This,

one of these individuals said that we had no support, no training

whatsoever. They were in a prison camp. And I kept asking my

111

chain of command for certain things like rules and regulations. Another individual said, I understand they usually don’t allow others

to watch them interrogate, how to go about interrogation. So we

had no rules, no training.

The attorney for one of the individuals told 60 Minutes II that

the soldiers never have been charged because of the failure of commanders to provide proper training and standards. What I’m getting to really is that you have men and women in the National

Guard who are being put in the same situation as career, we know

that. And if they don’t have the proper command structure and

then they don’t have the training, and they’re in a situation where

they make believe that they’re at war and they are attempting to

do what they need to do, I’d like you to address the issue as it relates to these men and women, not specifically, because you can’t

talk about the trial, but about that type of training, when you’re

put in that situation, when all of a sudden you’re at home and

you’re doing your weekend duty, then all of a sudden you find yourself in a prison and now you have six individuals who are being

charged that are saying they didn’t know what to do, they didn’t

have the proper training.

General BLUM. I will not address that specific instance, because

it’s under investigation.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I understand that.

General BLUM. But I will talk on the broad issue there, and I believe what I’m about to tell you to the core of my being. We have

never as a Nation sent a force of citizen-soldiers overseas better

trained, better prepared, better equipped, better led with better

values and clearer established standards than we have sent these

citizen-soldiers that are over there right now. I believe that deep

in my heart, to the core of my being. I’ve gone and watched this

training, I’ve participated in the training, I’ve been a product of the

training, I have visited every single major unit that has been prepared before it was sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have visited those same units in theater once they’re there. And I stand on

the record of that.

Now, will you find some soldier who may not live up to the

standards and the training that they received? That’s possible. And

that may be happening or may not be happening in this case, and

that’s why it’s being investigated.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In this case and other cases, we have to

evaluate to make sure it’s not training, it is actually criminal conduct. But I think it’s important, there are a lot of gray areas and

we’re at war. It’s very, very important that we deal with the issue

of training.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

I want to first say, I have tremendous admiration for all of you,

and all of you have very excellent reputations. I would say to my

colleague Mr. McHale that I considered him one of the finest Members of Congress to serve as I have served here. And I think it’s

a real blessing that you are working for the administration and for

our country.

112

When I was last in Iraq, and this is my fifth visit with my staff,

I recently, in my capacity as chairman of the National Security

Subcommittee, which oversees Defense and State Department, I recently visited Bravo Co. first of 252nd Armor regiment commanded

by Captain Sean Moser. This North Carolina National Guard unit

is helping secure the city of Hannakin in northeast Iraq. I just

want to say for the record that these soldiers at B Co. are doing

a superb job.

But having said that, I want to say to you that the miliary has

never made it easy for us to go and visit Iraq. When we go we

learn things. I believe that Congress has not done the proper oversight job. If you had ever told me that we would send troops without proper body armament, I would have been amazed, but we did,

General. If you had told me we would have sent them in Humvees

that didn’t have proper protection, I would have been amazed, but

we did.

Because in that company, we saw one Humvee modified by a kid,

one modified by the soldiers in country and one not even modified.

And then we had the basic briefing that there were caches of weapons throughout the eastern part of Iraq, pre-deployed, they are constantly uncovering them. Then they had a 3-hour briefing in Baghdad showing us how they make these weapons.

And I just want to say to you as well, General Blum, I know

these are the best trained military. But I also know first hand, and

in the soul of my being, just as you would say, I had Army personnel tell us that they were being asked to do things they were never,

ever trained for. And that’s a fact. And it didn’t happen once. It

didn’t happen twice. It happened continually.

And for me, I didn’t even know about the inadequacy of our

Humvees until I had a community meeting in Oxford, CT, and I

had two moms show me letters from their National Guard sons

showing us the Humvees that were not in any way, with a kit or

improved or not. So I just want to put that on the record. We’re

doing the best we can do, but it is a surprise to me that when I

sent our men and women off to war I sent them in some cases

without the best equipment.

And I believe it’s the National Guard and reservists who are the

last in the food chain. I would like to think that in the future, it

will never happen again. I know you make the best of what you

can do, but for me, I thought my job was to make sure it was never

a fair fight. I think that in some cases, I’ve put our men and

women in jeopardy. And I think we have to just say it and then

deal with it. Not to mention the pay problems and the benefit problems and the health care problems that exist for our reservists and

National Guard.

I want to understand, and the other thing I want to say, and I’m

sorry to press this for so long, but having visited bases all throughout the country in previous years, I praise God I did, because you

all told us, the people you have to get to sign up is not the soldier,

it’s the spouse of the soldier. If we talk about having them be gone

every 4 or 5 years, I am going to be very surprised if we aren’t

going to lose a lot of good men and women. And not to mention our

soldiers being forced to take anthrax against their will, which affects the Air Force, General Love.

113

So having said that, show me why it isn’t harder to be a National

Guard and reservist, given that you’ve got to be trained to fight

and hopefully do your job extraordinarily well and defend yourself

and make sure you come home to your loved ones, tell me why this

isn’t a harder job than the active forces? Because you also have to

be trained to do work under Title 32 for the States. I think it is

a tougher job than the active forces. Tell me it’s no different, or tell

me in fact, is it harder?

General BLUM. It’s harder, sir. It’s been harder for 367 years. It

hasn’t gotten any easier. Nobody said it was going to be easy. Nobody said it was going to be fair.

Mr. SHAYS. We’ve made it harder, though.

General BLUM. That chart depicting our strategic to operational

shift tells the story. It is not because of anybody’s evil intent. Most

of the policies, most of the laws that have caused the pay problems,

lack of health care, the lack of properly equipping the U.S. Army

and Air National Guard, properly resourcing them with full time

training and enough money to train and operate——

Mr. SHAYS. Could I just have 2 more minutes, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Any objection? No objection.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I’m sorry.

General BLUM. Absolutely. All those things are true. But they

are not by accident. They were by design. We were supposed to be

a strategic Reserve. We did a superb job as a strategic Reserve. We

were a great deterrent force against the Russians in the Warsaw

Pact. That’s no longer a threat.

We now need to build an operational force, and we need, sir,

Congress needs to reevaluate the benefits, the entitlements, the

pay, the resourcing, the equipment and the full-time manning

issues of the Guard, or we can’t be an operational force the way

you would like it to be.

Mr. SHAYS. But to say that they’ve always had a harder job, I

think it is many times harder today because of September 11th and

the response abilities they have to train for the terrorist attacks

which we weren’t really focused on in the past.

General BLUM. Mr. Shays, we’re in agreement. I agree with you.

It’s a tough job, but it’s an essential and necessary job if we’re

going to defined this Nation.

Mr. SHAYS. I know that. But a few years ago, we also decided

they were going to be part of the force structure in a very primary

way. I feel like in a way this is a debate we did not have before

we sent them to Iraq. I have a bit of concern that it has not turned

out quite the way we had hoped.

I just want to make my point, and General Love, I’d like for you

to respond as well.

General BLUM. Before he does, I just want to finish my point, if

I may. I personally and professionally feel this Nation should never

go to war without the National Guard. When you call up the National Guard, you call up America. And we should never, ever send

a force overseas that Congress and this Nation can walk away

from.

Mr. SHAYS. I hear what you’re saying, and I am not disagreeing.

But what I’m saying is, they were the last in the food chain. I know

114

that for a fact. And yet they’re being asked to do a harder job, in

my judgment, than the active force. I just would love you——

General BLUM. But for the record, sir, they are not last in the

food chain. The 81st that has just gone to Iraq were first in the

food chain. They got body armor before the active army. They got

up-armored Humvees before the active Army.

Mr. SHAYS. General, I’m going to say this as clearly as I can. I

know this for a fact, when the hand-me-downs of aircraft and so

on, they usually get some equipment that has already been used

by the active forces. And that’s a fact you and I know is true. General?

General LOVE. Congressman, thank you. And as a preface, if I

may, I will say that I was invited here today to speak on behalf

of NORTHCOM. So if I may, I will answer your questions from personal experience, rather than in my role as the Assistant Commander of NORTHCOM. I think a review of my personal experience in the Air National Guard would indicate that the Air National Guard was asked to become an operational Reserve immediately following the first Gulf war. It had the period of the 1990’s

in which to bring itself up to the status of a participant, an equal

participant in the air expeditionary forces.

Yes, there were some equipment shortfalls, and yes, there may

not have been the most modern, current equipment within the Air

National Guard. But whether it was in the transportation business

or in the fighter business, I’m proud to say that the Air National

Guard carried its role and the Congress supported it when it asked

for support to assist us in doing so.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The men and women in the National Guard and Reserves are

doing an awesome job. And I thank them for that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. I’ve just got a couple of questions. General Blum, nobody’s really asked today what we can do

here in Congress to help the Guard carry out its mission. Is there

any legislation or authorization that would be helpful along the vision that you have given us?

General BLUM. Based on most of the comment that has gone on

here today, and Governor Pataki’s earlier comment, unambiguous,

clear legislative authority for the operational use of Title 32 I think

would be highly helpful for both the Department of Defense and

the National Guard, so that we can know how we’re going to respond to the Governors and the President in the myriad conditions

that we’re asked to respond.

Right now, the ambiguity of the current code leaves it much too

subject to interpretation, and actually, that code was designated

again, for strategic force, not an operational force to be combating

the global war on terrorism. So sir, I would say that would be first

and foremost.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. General Love, let me just ask,

I know NORTHCOM just conducted two very large scale annual

training exercises called the Unified Defense that includes scenarios for protecting the homeland under simultaneous attacks.

Can you tell us a little about the exercise, who participated and

any lessons we learned?

115

General LOVE. You’re right, sir, Unified Defense, the exercises

perhaps you’re referring to were Determined Promise 03, which occurred last August, and Unified Defense 04. And yes, sir, you’re

correct as well in saying that we engaged our forces in multiple

places, responding as Secretary McHale pointed out earlier today,

that we anticipated attack on this country by our enemies in a

number of places at the same time.

The lessons we learned from that were very good and sometimes

very painful. That is that we did not have command and control

where we perhaps needed. We didn’t have the exercising we perhaps needed. But that is examined in the light of the fact that we

wouldn’t exercise if we didn’t want to warn those lessons. And

NORTHCOM is just barely, not quite 18 months old. Is that responsive, sir?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s fine. Let me must thank this panel.

There’s always a tendency in the military and politics and everything else to fight the last war. And nobody does the last war better than we do. If you look at a conventional war, the war we did

in Iraq, nobody does it better. You drive through Baghdad and

there are heaps of rubble that were military installations, defense

installations, and next to it residential buildings that weren’t

touched.

But it’s the aftermath that obviously we weren’t prepared for. No

one envisioned this. General Blum, I’m glad to see your vision now

is looking at these kinds of things. We need to continue looking

outside the box, because it may be a little more complicated in our

next era of operations. Who knows.

We just need to continue to have these conversations with us and

the other appropriate committees. This hearing has been very helpful to all of us. We appreciate our taking the time. Paul, it’s great

to have you back here on the other side, have a lot of confidence

in you and a lot of respect from your days in the House. Anything

anybody else wants to add?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, might I have about 30 seconds?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Yes, indeed.

Mr. HALL. The question you asked General Blum about things

that you might do, we have a number of rules which don’t cost a

lot of money but are rules for our Guardsmen and reservists that

go back to the cold war which does not contribute to a continuous

service. And we passed those over, we would appreciate your looking at them, such as volunteer auxiliaries.

The single biggest source of manpower that we have not tapped

are retirees. And I have a vast amount of retirees call and ask, can

I serve. They are around our bases. We would like authority to

form voluntary auxiliaries to use the retired population in the

country which can relieve the stress on our Guard and Reserve.

Many of our rules, which if you serve more than 179 days, we

count you on Active Duty list for promotion, the strength accounting.

So there are a number of those rules which I think we need to

take care of which are not costly but will make service easier for

our Guardsmen and reservists. Those are submitted and we would

ask, if they make sense, that the committee look at them and support them.

116

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. And we also will submit those

to Duncan Hunter and his committee. We’ll talk to them as well.

Mr. HALL. We think it will help our young men and women and

not cost a lot of money.

Mr. MCHALE. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would hope it was clear

in my opening statement and perhaps in some of the answers to

the questions raised by the Members that during the past 2 years

since September 11th, we have very substantially reviewed and

strengthened our homeland defense capabilities. That’s not rhetoric, those are deliverable, operational capabilities on a daily basis.

We fly air combat air patrols that were not being flown prior to

September 11th. We have Army and Marine units on alert for deployment within our own country to defend against a ground attack.

And most importantly, we have and are developing at a higher

level the ability to respond to multiple, near simultaneous WMD

attacks within our own country. We have not had that capability

historically. We have it now and it’s getting better every day.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. And let me associate myself with Mr. Lantos’ remarks at the beginning when he said

we’ve got to appreciate and respect the job you’re doing, and of

course the men and women in uniform that you represent.

Thank you very much. We’ll take a 2-minute recess as we move

to our next panel.

[Recess.]

Mr. SHAYS [assuming Chair]. We would like to welcome our third

panel, Janet A. St. Laurent, Director of Defense Capabilities and

Management, U.S. General Accounting Office; Lieutenant General

Wayne D. Marty, State Adjutant General of Texas; Major General

Timothy Lowenberg, State Adjutant General of Washington; Major

General Bruce Tuxill, State Adjutant General of Maryland.

As you know, gentlemen and lady, it is the policy of our committee to swear in all our witnesses, and I would respectfully request

you stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. Note for the record that all

our witnesses responded in the affirmative, and I appreciate others

standing up in case we need to seek their testimony.

We will go in the order I called you. We do a 5 minute clock, we

roll it over, but we’d like you to stay as close to the 5-minutes as

you can. You also know that your testimony will be part of the

record, and also feel free to respond to any question that was asked

in the previous two panels. Thank you for being here, thank you

for your testimony and thank you for your service to our country

and to your State.

Ms. St. Laurent.

117

STATEMENTS OF JANET A. ST. LAURENT, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE

CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; LIEUTENANT GENERAL WAYNE D. MARTY, ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF TEXAS; MAJOR GENERAL TIMOTHY J. LOWENBERG, ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF

WASHINGTON; AND MAJOR GENERAL BRUCE F. TUXILL, ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF MARYLAND

Ms. ST. LAURENT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO’s observations on

challenges facing the National Guard. For the sake of time, I would

like to quickly summarize our work in three areas. First, how and

to what extent Guard forces have been used since September 11th;

second, how the use of the Guard has affected readiness for future

operations; and third, challenges that DOD, Congress and the

States face in preparing the National Guard for the future.

First, let me turn to the use of the Guard. Since September 11th,

over 51 percent of Army Guard personnel and 31 percent of Air

Guard personnel have been activated or alerted for a wide range

of Federal missions at home and abroad. The chart on the board

to your left, and I believe you also have copies of these, shows that

the Army Guard has experienced the largest demand for forces.

As of last month, the Army Guard had almost 95,000 soldiers,

more than 25 percent of its forces, mobilized or on alert to support

operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and at home. Moreover, DOD has

recently placed thousands of additional soldiers on alert.

The Air Guard’s usage has also been significant, but has declined

in recent months. Currently, the Air Guard has about 7,500 personnel who are deployed overseas or conducting homeland security

missions at home, such as flying combat air patrols over portions

of the Nation.

Second, I would like to turn to readiness. Specifically, the readiness of Guard non-deployed units has declined steadily since September 11th. The decline in readiness is a more serious problem for

the Army Guard, because it has not been funded to quickly deploy

the number and types of units that have been needed within the

past few years.

In the past, much of the Army Guard’s role was to be a strategic

Reserve force that would be maintained at lower readiness levels

and given additional resources and time to train if needed in the

event of war. Although real world demands on the Army Guard

have changed, DOD’s resourcing strategy has not. For example, the

Army Guard’s eight divisions are authorized 65 percent of the personnel they need, while the Guard’s 150 enhanced brigades, which

are intended to be maintained at a higher readiness level, are authorized about 85 percent of personnel.

However, theater commanders require that units deploy with 100

percent of required personnel, and that has been the case for Iraq.

As a result, the Army Guard has had to transfer significant numbers of personnel and equipment from non-deploying to deploying

units. For example, the Army Guard has had to initiate transfers

of 71,000 soldiers since September 11th. To get two enhanced brigades ready to deploy to Iraq earlier this year, the Army Guard

had to transfer about 2,000 soldiers, about a quarter of the total

required for these brigades, worsening shortfalls elsewhere.

118

The readiness problem also affects equipment. To mobilize forces

to Iraq, the Guard transferred about 22,000 pieces of equipment,

such as night vision goggles, machine guns, trucks, and radios.

This is an important point, because it further degrades the readiness of some units that may be needed in the near future. Moreover, some of this equipment is the same type of equipment that

may be needed to deter a response to potential terrorist threats at

home.

In addition, the Army and Air Guard’s readiness for homeland

security missions is uncertain because DOD has not fully established requirements or readiness measures for these missions. Officials in one State we visited were somewhat concerned that ongoing Guard deployment may lead to situations in which Guard units

are not available when needed at home.

I would like to refer you to two charts that provide a snapshot

of Army and Air National Guard personnel deployed in March

2004. The first chart, which refers to the Army National Guard,

shows that 15 States had 40 percent or more of Army Guard soldiers alerted or activated in March and they’re unavailable to the

Governor. A couple of States had over 60 percent deployed.

The next chart shows that the Air Guard was less affected by

high deployment. Only a few States have more than 20 percent of

their Air Guard personnel deployed during March.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we see three major challenges that DOD,

Congress and the States will need to collectively address. First,

DOD’s current practice of transferring large numbers of personnel

and equipment from non-deploying to deploying Army Guard units,

in other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul, will not be sustainable

if the high pace of operations continues. Although DOD is aware

of this issue, it has not developed any comprehensive formula, plan

or identified specific funds to address it.

Second, although the Army National Guard plans to restructure

its forces for the long term and would like to meet a greater percentage of its full time manning requirements in the future, DOD

has not yet fully budgeted for these initiatives or developed detailed implementation plans.

Finally, the Guard has taken some steps to identify the types of

capabilities that each State should have for homeland security,

such as aviation, transportation, engineers, security units, and to

develop a rotation scheme that will try to keep 50 percent of the

forces in each State at home. However, details have not yet been

developed in coordination with the States that will be required to

implement the plan.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, declining readiness, combined with

the continuing high pace of operations, suggests that a comprehensive reassessment of the Army Guard structure and resourcing assumptions is needed. Moreover, once homeland security requirements are better defined, additional analysis will be needed to assess the impacts on both the Army and Air National Guard.

This completes my statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. St. Laurent follows:]

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

General Marty, welcome.

General MARTY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee. Let me just say that it’s an honor for this Texas soldier to come before this committee to testify. Thank you very much.

Mr. SHAYS. General, you need to know it is an honor to have you

come before us. Don’t even wonder.

General MARTY. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to discuss

the transformation of the Texas military forces. The Texas military

forces include the Adjutant General’s Department, the Texas National Guard, both the Army and the Air, and the Texas State

Guard. We are a diverse team of approximately 21,000 Federal and

State personnel in 106 installations in or near 86 cities and towns

across Texas.

Since September 11th, the Texas military forces have responded

to homeland security respondents and other public emergencies in

a variety of ways that demonstrate the versatility of the force.

These include the fighter escort of Air Force One immediately following the September 11 attacks, the security of 26 airports statewide, assisting the FBI in review of airline manifests, augmenting

Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Border Patrol, the

Customs Service along the Mexican Border and Gulf Coast line,

conducting combat air patrols over Houston, the Gulf Coast, New

York City and Washington, frequent interception missions against

unidentified aircraft entering U.S. air space and security of critical

national assets at at least 20 locations across the United States.

Additional activities include augmenting search, security and

rescue forces at the World Trade Center and the 2002 Winter

Olympics in Utah, both air and ground support of local, State and

Federal law enforcement agencies along the Mexican border and

throughout the State, assisting with the joint recovery of the space

shuttle Columbia, medical and dental support to the needy in south

Texas border region, and emergency response to hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, snow storms, floods and wildfires.

Our ability to respond like this is based upon close working relationships with State homeland security and emergency management officials, and clear guidance from them on their requirements.

The shuttle recovery operation in particular highlighted the value

of Title 32 mobilizations, which provided Federal funds but allowed

the Governor and me to continue to use the established system of

command and control and the habitual relationships with the State

emergency agencies and responders.

In addition, since September 11th, Texas military forces have developed on land and deployed on land, at sea and in the air in support of the global war on terrorism at 195 locations within the

United States, on Coalition Naval vessels in the Mediterranean

and in 38 countries. I must tell you that we could not have done

this without the support of the U.S. Congress and the American

people. For that, we are very grateful.

Our ability to meet the demands of this expanding roles is also

greatly facilitated by the drive for the joint transformation by the

Department of Defense and the National Guard Bureau. In Texas,

we are pursuing transformation along five closely related lines. We

have transformed the various headquarters into a single, joint

152

State headquarters. We are transforming the Texas Army National

Guard into agile, versatile, modular, independent units of action.

We are transforming the Air National Guard into a more relevant force, anchored in precision strike, fighter training and

worldwide tactical airlift. We are transforming the Texas State

Guard, a voluntary auxiliary for Texas National Guard, into a joint

forces specialist to augment the medical infrastructure in Texas in

public health emergencies, including terrorism.

We continue to serve both the global war on terrorism and homeland missions. As should be apparent, the preparation for one role

has enhanced our preparation for the others. Because both missions require agility and the ability by diverse agencies and services to work closely together and effectively.

You have asked how you could help. I have some suggestions.

Continue to support the Department of Defense and U.S. Government’s drive for joint transformation. To assist the Department of

Defense in adjusting incentive programs, retention incentives can

be redirected for military and military occupational specialists bonuses to post-mobilization retention bonuses. To assist the Department of Defense in assuring that our soldiers and airmen have the

equipment they need, including ammunition for training, aircraft

upgrades and engineer equipment. Assist the Department of Defense in making various funding streams which began with Congress, less stovepiped and more flexible and more joint.

I’d like to thank you very much for having me here, and I appreciate your efforts on behalf of the National Guard soldiers and airmen, their families and employers, as well as the soldiers, the sailors, the airmen, Marines, members of the Coast Guard personnel

who serve this great Nation. These are great young men and

women and I am extremely proud of them. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of General Marty follows:]

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. We are extremely grateful for

your work and proud of the men and women who you work with,

General. Let me introduce and recognize General Lowenberg, and

just say, General, my staff has wanted me to just know, so I want

to put it on the record that your statement, which is 73 plus pages,

my staff, excuse me, the chairman’s staff’s view is that it is almost

a bible of what should be done, and are very grateful for your very

significant effort to try to accommodate this committee and its

work. We’re grateful as well that you have summarized your statement. [Laughter.]

I want very much to put on the record that your entire statement

is going to be very helpful to this committee and we may not plagiarize, but we’ll come close.

General LOWENBERG. I thank the Chair for those kind words.

Members of the committee, it’s an honor to be with you today in

my capacity as the Adjutant General for the State of Washington

and as chair of homeland security for the Adjutant General’s Association of the United States.

Like the Adjutants General of all States, I have military and civilian responsibilities that are unique throughout the military services and, for that matter, unique throughout the remainder of State

and Federal Government. In addition to my joint Army and Air National Guard command responsibilities, I am the State’s senior

emergency management official. I’m charged with administering

the comprehensive emergency management plan for the State of

Washington. I oversee our Statewide enhanced 911 telecommunications system and serve on the State interoperability executive

committee.

I serve as the State’s homeland security advisor, in that respect

for every week since the attack of September 11, 2001, I have

chaired a weekly meeting of the Governor’s chief of staff, senior

cabinet officials and policy advisors and the State attorney general.

As the State cabinet level official for homeland security, I deal directly with my Federal counterpart, Secretary Tom Ridge. I also

serve as the Homeland Security Grant Administrator for our State,

and therefore lease with other States, interface with senior officials

in other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense,

Health and Human Services, Energy and others.

I mention these interwoven civil and military responsibilities, because they are not unique to me. Portions of my own portfolio are

reflected in the central roles of General Tuxill and others, and

other National Guard adjutants general throughout all the States

and territories. We are a fusion point that assures a unity of effort

within our States, between the States and the Federal Government

and perhaps most significantly, between the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies where the risks and

vulnerabilities are the greatest at the State and local level.

Just as our responsibilities are unique, so too the military forces

that we command have a unique legal status. It’s that unique legal

status that is our biggest strength and offers extraordinary flexibility to State and Federal authorities on how our forces can be used

to enhance homeland security. That strength should be leveraged

by using the National Guard in Title 32 status to the maximum extent possible for all domestic operations, not just for training as is

170

currently and unambiguously authorized in 32 U.S. 502, but also

for the full scope of domestic operations. The practical, fiscal and

legal advantages of using the Guard in Title 32 status are well documented in the Defense Science Board study which will soon be released, and a resolution adopted by the National Governors Association last year and in my formal testimony.

This country needs bold, visionary leaders at the national level

to revise Title 32 for the 21st century. To remove bureaucratic obstacles, I encourage the Congress to take strong action to make it

unambiguously clear that Title 32 may be used for domestic operational missions in addition to training. If properly authorized and

resourced with civil authorities in addition to preparing for our

overseas combat missions, the Guard can make a wealth of experience and expertise available to State and local authorities for planning, training and exercising for synchronized and complex responses.

Our experience in intelligence fusion and analysis can and

should be made available to State and local authorities. This integration would contribute greatly to the operation picture needed by

NORTHCOM. As has been previously noted, the Guard has provided counter-drug support to State, Federal and local law enforcement agencies for more than a decade and a half. The nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism is clear. Congress should expand the existing National Guard counter-drug program to enlarge

the focus that authorizes and funds a Governor’s narco-terrorism

plan in each State. And just as we do with the current counterdrug program, that narco-terrorism plan should be fully vetted and

approved by the Department of Defense.

Taking a successful program like the current counter-drug program and updating it to combat the 21st century narco-terrorism

threats confronting our Nation will be transformational indeed. To

effectively rebalance the force in consort with everything General

Blum and the other speakers have outlined for you, the Army National Guard must be resourced at a similar level of readiness that

exceeds what it is now—in contrast to the Army, which is fully

resourced, and the Air National Guard, which is at 100 percent of

its requirement.

We can build an Army National Guard force with an equal state

of readiness, but only if the Department of Defense and Army

choose to fund the Army National Guard to a similar level as the

Air National Guard. These are policy choices with operational and

national security consequences. DOD has a number of high demand, low density mission areas that are currently in short supply,

and it should be recognized that some capabilities are also desperately needed by the States for domestic homeland security.

These mission areas should be expanded and resourced as quickly

as possible.

Secretary McHale’s presence here underscores how dramatically

the Department of Defense itself has reshaped and reformed to

meet the challenges of the global war on terrorism. The purpose

and charter of the National Guard needs to be similarly updated

to give the Chief of the National Guard Bureau clear statutory authority to deal directly with Secretary McHale and with

171

NORTHCOM, and with all the other players in this newly reorganized Department of Defense Homeland Security architecture.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I look forward to

answering your questions. Thank you for your kind attention.

[The prepared statement of General Lowenberg follows:]

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, General, and General Tuxill,

thank you so much. You have the floor.

General TUXILL. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.

I’m here representing Maryland’s Governor, Robert L. Ehrlich,

Jr. Mainly, he asked me to come to discuss our readiness and the

National Guard for our some 8,300 men and women that comprise

the National Guard in Maryland. In keeping with the 367 year tradition, Maryland citizen soldiers and airmen continue to respond

today. We have over 1,100 soldiers and airmen deployed in support

of either Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom or

Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since September 11, we’ve deployed over

4,100 citizen soldiers and airmen in response to the global war on

terror.

Our soldiers and airmen fully understand that our Nation is at

war with terror, and likewise expect to serve. These young men

and women have volunteered to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We owe it to them to ensure they

enjoy capable leadership and are provided nothing but the best

training and equipment. To do this, the National Guard must be

organized, trained and equipped at the same levels as our Active

Duty counterparts.

But the reality is, as a result of our cold war design to be used

as a force in Reserve, many units are currently funded at C3 level,

thus impacting training and equipment. As a workaround to provide the combatant commander with National Guard units that are

fully equipped to support the warfight, it’s become necessary to do

what we call a cross-leveling. Cross-leveling is gaining personnel

and equipment from other units within the State and across State

lines. In essence, we are breaking units to provide the appropriate

equipment and personnel to the deploying unit. This becomes a vicious circle, in that units that gave in many instances do not have

the appropriate equipment with which to train. Thus, the losing

unit is no longer to even keep a level of C3.

Another one of my major concerns continues to be the length and

predictability of deployments and how that personnel operational

tempo impacts not only the quality of life but also the very retention of our soldiers and airmen. Currently, the U.S. Air Force employs an air expeditionary force which provides predictability for

their personnel and their families. If we are to count on the continued support of employers and families in a war that will be conducted over many years, we need to have and provide predictability.

I am very supportive of the National Guard Bureau’s rotational

concept that will give Governors 50 percent of the forces available

for the State mission and homeland defense, approximately 25 percent that are engaged in extensive training to be deployed and 25

percent of the force employed in an operational capability. One

more concern that I have is the proper force mix of soldiers and airmen with our Active Duty counterparts. By that I mean, the low

density, high demand missions must be addressed.

The current efforts underway between the National Guard Bureau and the services are steps in the right direction to correct this

imbalance. While I understand the Secretary of Defense’s need for

251

a rapid reactive force in the Active Duty military, we must be able

to spread all missions to the active Guard and Reserve. We cannot

be the sole owner of a mission in either the active Guard or Reserve. To do so will continue our history of the Guard and Reserve

maintaining legacy missions that will never be mobilized. If we

field an operational mission within our active component, we

should pull the Guard and Reserve with that fielding wherever

practical.

I did have a little blurb on Title 32. I will defer to General

Lowenberg, he has a much better description of that, so I will pass

that. But I did want to bring out one more thing that I think is

very important. The unique infrastructure and population of the

State of Maryland and its portion of and proximity to the National

Capital region presents a very complex set of coordination boundaries for emergency response. We have drafted a memorandum of

agreement between the commanding general, D.C. National Guard,

the Adjutant General of Virginia and myself to ensure mutual aid,

support and cooperation between and among the parties in response to a critical incident or event occurring within the National

Capital region. This clarifies military command and control of National Guard forces pursuant to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact.

The Joint Task Force, National Capital Region Plan, has been

approved by the commander of NORTHCOM and the DOD. The

Guard is not included in that current document. Subsequent meetings with NORTHCOM, Military District of Washington and the

National Guard Bureau may alter that plan. But the planning that

the Adjutants General and the commanding general of D.C. are

doing right now will not be affected. We see that we are looking

at the Guard doing an all-hazards approach to emergency management within the National Capital region.

Finally, in addition to my duties with the Maryland Guard, I

have Maryland emergency management under my purview. One of

the points I’d like to make, we had two major incidents, a snow

storm and Hurricane Isabel last year. Two points out of this. The

first is that the Guard functioned wonderfully in the State mission.

The second is, we continued with Operation Noble Eagle, Operation

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And we did that

without missing a beat.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I look

forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of General Tuxill follows:]

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Before recognizing Mr. Schrock, I just

want to thank General Blum and General Love for staying and listening to your testimony.

Mr. Schrock.

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have never known anybody who’s written a Bible, but this document henceforth and forever more will be referred to as the

Lowenberg bible. And I will read it. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Ms. St. Laurent, for being here and thank you for

bringing folks from the district I’m privileged to represent as well.

Believe it or not, I read your entire testimony in two nights, but

I read it, and there are some mighty good things in there, and I’m

going to start the questioning with you if I could.

What do you think are the greatest challenges that the National

Guard is going to be facing in the next few years, and do you think

the Army has an adequate plan to deal with the eroding readiness

that we seem to be experiencing?

Ms. ST. LAURENT. I would categorize the challenges as being

some of a short term nature and some of a longer term nature. And

we are concerned about the effect of these extensive transfers of

personnel and equipment from one unit to another, to ready deploying units.

General Blum mentioned that the Guard soldiers that are deploying to Iraq, after having spent time on mobilization stations,

have gotten additional equipment, they are well trained when they

leave there, but I think what we are concerned about is the longer

term and cumulative effect of continuing rotations and having to

support Iraq and Afghanistan potentially for a number of years,

and over time, how this will translate into continuing eroding readiness.

Again, we haven’t seen the details as to how the Guard might

be able to address that situation, haven’t seen DOD providing the

funds to address it. But the more we can identify units earlier and

give them equipment and personnel that they may need earlier,

they will be in a better situation and better trained once they get

to mobilization stations.

Mr. SCHROCK. I could be wrong, but I’m guessing never in our

history have we had to use the Guard and Reserves to the extent

we’re using now, is that right? I think that’s why all these things

are getting spread out.

Ms. ST. LAURENT. And another major change is that the focus of

DOD planning has been on preparing for the combat phase of operations, and we’re now seeing a lot of demands caused by having to

do stability operations.

Mr. SCHROCK. Yes. Adjutants General of 25 of the States and territories have been vested with dual military force provider civilian

emergency management responsibilities. I understand that you,

General Lowenberg, are also the homeland security advisor for the

State of Washington. It seems you’re all in unique positions to discuss how well the Federal Government, in other words, the Departments of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, are doing

and helping with your State’s homeland defense and homeland security initiatives.

263

What help have you received from DOD and DHS in identifying

those requirements?

General LOWENBERG. We are working with both of those agencies

to identify the requirements as a collaborative effort between the

State and Federal Government. It’s an ongoing process. It’s not

prescriptive. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense are not presuming to come to any of the several States and territories and tell us what those requirements are.

We’re building this from the ground up.

The national homeland security strategy was intentionally designed to be a collaborative effort and it’s proving to be so. The relationship the States enjoy with Secretary Ridge and members of

his Department I would say are very healthy. So right now, we just

formally promulgated our State homeland security strategic plan,

which has performance measurables, it has a balanced score card

matrix. We’re developing the action plans and business plans to affect enhancement of homeland security preparedness in our State

as funds and other resources become available.

We’re also working with the Department of Defense, with General Eberhart and others at Northern Command, to identify the

communications requirements needed to give NORTHCOM and the

Department of Homeland Security a seamless communication sight

picture, so they have a common operating picture, and the development of a joint communications coordination support environment

is one of the major recommendations of the Summer Study of the

Defense Science Board.

I’m very happy to say that report, having been delivered to Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Department of Defense, is undergoing implementation even as we speak, even though the formal

volume two report of the DSB is still awaiting security review. So

I’m very encouraged by the proactive stance of both these Federal

agencies.

Mr. SCHROCK. You said the relationship with Department of

Homeland Security is healthy. What about DOD?

General LOWENBERG. I didn’t mean to exclude DOD. Our relationship with Northern Command is very healthy as well. As Chair

of Homeland Security for the Adjutants General Association, I

served on Northern Command’s general officer work group, as do

some of my colleagues and we are full partners at the table in developing the NORTHCOM homeland security requirements.

Mr. SCHROCK. Let me ask the three generals, what role do you

believe DHS should play with the Guard’s mission in homeland

protection?

General LOWENBERG. I think the Department of Homeland Security should recognize that there are some State security programs,

taking a holistic approach to it, that can best be aided by use of

the National Guard. So this is going to require a very close policy

coordination between Secretary McHale and Secretary Ridge to

identify those areas that should be funded perhaps by the Department of Homeland Security, those programs that perhaps should

entitle the National Guard to draw Department of Homeland Security Funds, as a State agency and in State Active Duty, and those

programs that should be funded by the Department of Defense

itself, utilizing the National Guard in Title 32 status, for a paraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
264

mount Federal purpose, to develop programs in accordance with

federally prescribed tasks, standards and conditions.

So again, it’s a major policy coordination and collaboration effort.

Mr. SCHROCK. General Marty.

General MARTY. In Texas, we have an emergency manager and

we also have the chairman of the homeland security. As the Adjutant General, I support both of those operations. Just recently,

there’s been a change of policy in Texas where I have now a member of the Texas National Guard, one of the members from our J3,

our operations center, that is now the co-chairman of the homeland

security committee. What this has done now is it’s tied in homeland security closer to my operations and to my ability to respond

quicker and more efficiently to the needs that we have in homeland

security. So this is a move that we’ve just done.

The support that we’re getting now is, I think, much better, and

I think the plans are in place that I think the support we can anticipate is coming. It’s not completely there, but I think in the future we’ll see more activity there.

Mr. SCHROCK. General Tuxill.

General TUXILL. One of the things that’s, homeland security goes

across the gambit, as you well know. In our recovery form Hurricane Isabel, I can tell you that the Federal Emergency, FEMA and

that part of DHS just did a wonderful job of mitigating and helping

us. For the first time, they did many things that we had not seen

before, to include soil mitigation.

So they are doing everything they can to help. I agree with General Lowenberg, there are still many things, many areas and many

procedures, policies, that we do need to take a look at to see how

they will affect and work with the National Guard, because he is

correct when he says there are many missions that are what the

Guard should be doing, and we should have the opportunity to

have some funding from DHS.

Mr. SCHROCK. Let me followup with that. Do you believe there’s

adequate coordination between DOD and DHS in preparation for

the protection of homeland when it comes to the role of the National Guard?

General TUXILL. I would hesitate to answer that for fear that I

would—I’ve got some ideas but I think that’s all they are, sir.

Mr. SCHROCK. All right. Now I’m intrigued. [Laughter.]

General Lowenberg.

General LOWENBERG. I think there’s excellent coordination. As

the two agencies mature, I think we have to be mindful that both

the Department of Homeland Security and the Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Homeland Defense are new creations chartered by

Congress. They’re getting their legs under them. And as those processes mature, the dialog becomes stronger, and more directly results in positive effects in the States.

Mr. SCHROCK. General Marty.

General MARTY. In our States, the cooperation among the many

agencies that we have to deal with when we have an agency has

matured. And this has matured over years and years and years.

What I see right now is you have two new agencies that have just

been brought into being. And they’re working extremely hard to

reach this great amount of cooperation that’s going to be needed.

265

I see that growing every day with great anticipation. I think the

maturity will be there, and the cooperation will be what we expect.

Mr. SCHROCK. Would it be helpful if DOD and DHS could agree

on a plan that would involve the Guard for homeland security and

defense?

General LOWENBERG. I think it would help immensely if both of

the Federal agencies with primary responsibility for homeland defense and security could develop a master concept of employment

of the National Guard, and I’m quite confident as they do that the

use of the National Guard in its broad spectrum of flexible response in Title 32 status, particularly if Congress unambiguously

charters the National Guard to be used in Title 32 status, will be

key to the success of that strategy.

Mr. SCHROCK. I know my time is up, but let me say, I have a

great appreciation for what the Guard does. The Guard unit, the

Red Horse unit in the district I represent, a little over 2 years, a

plane crashed a large number were killed. I know the impact it

had, and I think that was my first realization of really what the

Guard did and how important they were. I’ll never forget that. I

may have been Active Duty for a career, but the Guard and Reserves, I have a son who’s a Reserve and a chief of staff who is a

Reserve, so I get reminded of that all the time.

But I appreciate what everybody does and the role you all play.

I’m glad you came here today, and I really appreciate Ms. St.

Laurent’s report that the GAO did, it was great. I think it really

made us understand what some of the problems are, what some of

the issues are. And we here on this side of the room need to get

this addressed and need to get it addressed pretty quickly. But

thank you very much.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. And I would just say, as a

parent, it’s amazing what we learn from our children.

Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Sure. I’m going to get a little parochial

here. I’m from the State of Maryland, I’ve worked with General

Tuxill and General Blum. I think I can be parochial when we have

two generals both on the panel, so I’m glad you’re both here today.

I know since my Maryland Second Congressional District has the

Port of Baltimore, BWI Airport, a lot of those different areas that

we’re working with with respect to homeland security, I know a lot

of what you’re doing. My concern, though, is in the capital region.

Maryland and Virginia have basically responsibility from a National Guard point of view for Washington, DC. Washington, DC,

does not have any National Guard.

General TUXILL. No, sir, they do.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Oh, they do? OK. Well, then, let me ask

you this question. Tell me what you feel needs to be done, how is

the cooperation with NORTHCOM or whatever, but as it relates to

National Guard, both in Maryland, Virginia, that makes your job

more difficult than what you might recommend we do to make it

easier for national security?

General TUXILL. This is evolving, and it’s a very positive evolution. We have gotten the three, the commanding general for the

District of Washington and the two Adjutants General of Maryland

and Virginia have sat down and forged out a letter of, or a memoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
266

randum of agreement on how we will actually work the EMAC and

how we will come into each other’s areas to make sure we take care

of the National Capital region. That right now is, it’s being sought,

we’re seeking level review through the Army, since the Army is the

executive agent for the D.C. National Guard.

That’s where it’s sitting right now. We hope once that’s done, we

will start going down this further. The next thing that I think we

should do is the joint task force, we need to be part of the Military

District of Washington. We’ve had one meeting with the Military

District of Washington and that went very, very well. We will continue to have meetings so that we start talking about how the

Guard can be employed, how the Guard can be used and how we

will be probably helping the first responders, because when September 11 hit, the on-scene commander was from Virginia, he was

a first responder in a fire company. There was no Federal involvement in that until well after.

And the first people to guard the Pentagon was the 115th Military Police Battalion out of Parkville and Salisbury. They were

there the very next day at 11 a.m., with 136 soldiers. So we see

right now that the Adjutants General and the commanding general

of the National Capital region will be pivotal to putting together

and helping assemble a plan that will make sure that the Guard

is tasked appropriately.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me change the subject matter. When

we talk about priorities and we talk about transformation, when

we talk about all the issues we’ve talked about today, in the end

it comes down to money, the resources that have to go in order to

implement the programs you’re talking about.

Now, there’s a debate on how much the States should pay or the

Federals should pay. When it comes to homeland security and that

role, I think it’s important that the Federal Government stand behind the National Guard, especially with the States now having extremely difficult problems with respect to their budgets.

The issue, and General Tuxill, you and I discussed this when we

were talking about the issue between Title 32 and Title 10, I think

right now the issue that we should change, and I’m going to ask

you, General Lowenberg, to address this, since General Tuxill said

you were the expert, I’m not sure whether you are or not——

General LOWENBERG. He’s setting me up, sir. [Laughter.]

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK. It’s the stars you have on.

Right now, the other than a couple of issues such as drug activities or basically all that the Title 32 money can be used for, it’s my

understanding, is for training. If there are other areas, let me

know. But what would you recommend that we do? I know the

Governors would love to be able to federally, to have the orders

that you’re under the Federal mandate or whatever that order is,

to be able to do some of the things that are being done in the State,

which really could be considered homeland security.

Let’s talk about what you would recommend, what type of legislation or what type of mandate you would like to see, and second,

how much would this be? Because whatever we talk about, what

we’re going to do, we have to talk about money.

General LOWENBERG. Let me be very clear at the outset in stating that when the States or territories use the National Guard for

267

a State purpose, they pay for 100 percent of all the expenses of the

utilization of those National Guard forces. There is no FederalState match. So the Governors, as they ask for unambiguous authority to use the Guard in Title 32 status, are not asking for the

Federal Government to pay for something for which the paramount

interest lies in the State.

There are a broad range of issues in the realm of homeland security, however, in which there are both State and Federal interests,

and in which when there is a paramount Federal interest, it’s in

the national interest to use the National Guard, such as for airport

security or border security or protecting DOD critical infrastructure

or critical infrastructure for other Federal agencies.

It is that realm in which the Governors and the Defense Science

Board and the Adjutants General have urged Congress to unambiguously authorize use of the National Guard in Title 32 status for

these homeland security and defense related areas in which there

is a paramount Federal interest, and there’s a Federal interest in

assuring that the mission is executed among the several States or

the affected States in a consistent manner. So whether that’s done

by Federalizing the National Guard, including a lot of additional

expenses in doing so, or whether it’s done in Title 32 status in

which the service itself is paid for by the Federal Government but

we take full advantage of all existing command and control structure, so there are no added costs, that’s really the question for Congress.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. One other issue, then I’m finished. The

issue of retention and recruitment. I asked that question of the

general, and I’d like to hear from the panel where we are, what we

need to do. The general mentioned the issue of medical insurance,

those types of issues.

General TUXILL. Recruiting and retention for the National Guard

continues to be one of our challenges. One of the things that I have

noticed and I will let my fellow Adjutants General talk to this as

well, but those units that we have used, that we have deployed,

that we have done our Noble Eagle, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, when they come back, they’re very, very proud of their service. They’re very proud they had the opportunity to be a part of the

larger picture and a part of our global war on terror.

And for the better part, these people that we are deploying and

bringing home want to stay. They don’t want to get out. And this

is anecdotal information that I’m coming up with, but I’m watching

these units. We just got a 115th Military Police battalion back from

Iraq. They had been called up for No. 1, the Pentagon. They were

then pulled off that and they were sent to Fort Stuart for duty

down there under Noble Eagle. They came out and they were told

the next thing they were going to do was Guantanamo, Operation

Enduring Freedom. Then they finally had the opportunity to go to

Baghdad.

So they’ve done all three. Surprisingly enough, that unit is enjoying retention that I didn’t think I would see. Now, we are correct,

when you sign up a soldier or airman, you’re signing up the spouse.

And we need to be very, very aware of that.

But these young men and women are very happy with their service to this Nation, and we should be very proud of them. But two,

268

I think the health care is an issue, Tricare for our members would

be great. Those things that give them incentives for education and

other incentives for our soldiers and airmen.

General LOWENBERG. Recruiting and retention in the State of

Washington, as I’ve heard in most States, is at historic highs. It

has been for the past 4 years, predating the attacks of 2001. What

we don’t know is the effects of these prolonged periods of mobilization and assignment overseas, and what an impact that will have.

To this date, for shorter duration deployment, the retention has

been the very highest among the units most frequently deployed.

But again, we’re entering an arena in which we have no national

experience.

On the point of medical and dental coverage, which many Guard

men and women are unable to provide for themselves in their private capacity, it’s only collaterally a benefits issue. It is first and

foremost a military readiness issue.

A disturbingly high percentage of the Army National Guard soldiers now deployed and currently serving in Iraq were delayed,

there were obstacles to their assimilation into the training because

they needed medical and primarily dental attention. Some of them

are still awaiting deployment because of correctable medical and

dental conditions that would have been obviated if they had access

to the Federal Tricare program.

So medical and dental coverage is a military readiness issue first

and foremost.

General MARTY. In Texas, we’ve had 4 years of record setting recruiting. This year, we’re approximately 19 percent ahead of where

we were last year in the area of recruiting. So I don’t see a problem. We’ve met all the National Guard Bureau’s goals for strength

at the Army National Guard. The Air National Guard seems to be

steady and holding tight.

The retention this year, we’re about 2 percent lower in our losses

than we have been in the last 10 years. So that’s an indication that

our retention is holding well.

Now, I will tell you, we have had a test program in the State of

Texas where I have put dedicated retention mangers in every Army

battalion. I think this may be a reason why our retention is going

up and our losses are going down, at least I hope that’s the indication. But at this particular time, I don’t think there’s any panic

button to push as far as the retaining. Our men and women are

very dedicated and they are very loyal and very pleased to be serving a worthwhile mission at this particular time.

And the amount of volunteers we have that would volunteer for

a second tour is amazing. So I think if we do some right things,

if we take care of some of these things, if we take care of the families of these deployed individuals, and work with the employers, I

think this is going to help in the retention arena.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you all very much.

Ms. ST. LAURENT. GAO’s perspective would be that this is an

issue that definitely needs to be carefully watched over the next

few years, that it’s probably a little too soon, and some of the initiatives that General Blum has underway that could bring more

predictability to the force and establish rotation cycles would probably be very helpful. I think there is a question of how soon we can

269

get the Guard to the level where they are on a more predictable

schedule that’s spaced out over one every 6 years.

Then also I think the issue has to be watched from a skills perspective. As our testimony states, 92 percent of MPs have been deployed and 18 percent more than once. So there are certain skills

that need to be rebalanced.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The Chair wants to move on. One suggestion I want to throw out is retirees. We’ve gotten calls in our office

about retirees that would like to be involved somehow, and a plan

that could use retirees for certain desk work, whatever, I’m just

throwing that out as a suggestion.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman wants to pursue that, I’d be happy

to allow.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, again, I’m putting it out to evaluate

it. General Blum, you’re still here, the retirees, and we’ve seen that

in other parts of Government, people who are well trained, well

qualified, and yet they’re retired and they might be able to do

something or have the expertise to take the burden off of some of

our duties.

Mr. SHAYS. If General Tuxill would like to respond.

General TUXILL. If I could, thank you, Mr. Chair. What we have

in the State of Maryland, and I can only speak for the State of

Maryland, we call it the Maryland Defense Force. It is a force of

professionals. Those professionals are doctors, lawyers, health care

providers, crisis response personnel, chaplains, etc. And what we

try to do here is, we try to use both the lawyers and the medical

end of the house to do what we can for our deploying soldiers to

make sure that they’ve got a good will, to make sure they are getting some good health care.

But also what we’re doing is using that in emergency management as a response force. So yes, sir, and we are also looking in

the cyber world for that same retired group to take a look at

cyberterrorism and what we could do with that defense force.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Just make sure that it’s beyond the age of

72, because a lot of the calls we’re getting are over the age of 70.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.

This is a very important hearing, and it is, I think, somewhat

scratching the surface. There are so many questions we could ask.

But I find myself writing the question, does the National Guard

have an impossible task? Then I’m thinking, because they have to

do two things, they’ve got to fight a war, be prepared to fight a war

and fight a war, and then they’ve got to protect their homeland. I

realize there is some synergy between the two, but there are clearly some differences.

So then I think, and I know that our National Guard are components to a full force structure. So then I think, well, maybe they

have the role of MPs so they don’t have to take the hill, where our

active forces may in fact have to take the hill and it’s a different

kind of training that you want constantly to have.

I’m hearing our GAO say some things that you all didn’t really,

in my judgment, respond to. You made very important points, but

they didn’t respond to them. I want to say that I want to get a response to the idea that we say our retention is up, excuse me, our

270

retention is stable, we are getting new enlistees. And yet, we don’t

have the full force structure within the National Guard. So that

unit has to take from another unit.

And that bothers me, because we haven’t been working with each

other. And I know for a fact that the equipment they have is handme-down. It may not be bad, but it’s hand-me-down. They don’t get

the new airplanes, they don’t get the new vehicles, they get the

hand-me-downs, in my judgment.

So would you first, Ms. St. Laurent, tell me the first, second and

third point you want to make, and I want each of our Generals to

respond.

Ms. ST. LAURENT. In terms of?

Mr. SHAYS. Your major points. I want you to summarize your

major points.

Ms. ST. LAURENT. I would say, near term readiness is an issue

that needs to be looked at very carefully. We would like to see a

plan to address that.

On the homeland security issue, I think those requirements need

to be defined better. And once they’re defined, there’s still a lot of

analysis that needs to be done of how that’s going to be

operationalized, what kinds of training, what kinds of equipment

are going to be needed. I don’t think we’re there yet on that.

Mr. SHAYS. This is homeland security.

Ms. ST. LAURENT. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just throw that out for all our three Generals

here. We were briefed that the DOD has not fully defined requirements, readiness standards and readiness measures for homeland

defense and security missions that will lead or support. So Guard

preparedness for homeland defense and security missions is

unmeasured and unknown. That’s what we’ve been told.

Now, you also made another point that they are not fully staffed,

correct?

Ms. ST. LAURENT. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. And that they then have to what?

Ms. ST. LAURENT. They have to transfer personnel and equipment. But one other issue is the full time manning of Army Guard

units. Although most Guardsmen are part timers, each unit does

have some full time personnel. And the Army Guard only has

about 15 percent, whereas the Air Guard has about 33 percent. The

Army Guard has a plan to increase that, but even by 2012, they

are only going to be at about 71 percent of their requirement.

Those people are critical to keeping units running, planning the

training, tracking training, tracking medical status readiness.

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s first take just the readiness issue. An honest assessment.

General MARTY. For the last 10 years, I’ve chaired the readiness

committee in the State of Texas. When I first got there in 1993,

out of 58 reporting entities, 54 of them met the readiness standards. As we decreased the full time manning, the readiness of those

units decreased. Also the fact that the structures that we have in

the National Guard today do not meet the needs that we have in

today’s Army.

The majority of the forces in Texas are from an armored division.

Of all the men and women we have deployed out of Texas, not one

271

tank has been deployed, not one Bradley has been deployed. We’ve

taken people out of the tanks and made them infantrymen or given

them the M1s and have them guarding places throughout the

United States. They have not been used in their capacities as armored crewmen.

So that does affect the readiness of the organization. The fact

that we have been manned at C3 level and below is, there’s no way

in the world we can bring that unit up to 100 percent of its authorized strength without going to other units. The minute we do that,

we automatically break the other units.

So the answer to that is, once we go through this transformation

and we get the right type of formations that we can man at 90 to

100 percent, I think that’s going to take care of some of this readiness issue. Resourcing is going to be the problem. In the State of

Texas, the full time manning, we’re about 40 percent of what we’re

authorized in our full time manning. That has a direct impact upon

the readiness.

Mr. SHAYS. Is that a cost issue or a volunteer issue?

General MARTY. This is the full time——

Mr. SHAYS. Is it a matter of cost or is it a matter that you don’t

have the people?

General MARTY. It’s a matter of funding.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. General Lowenberg.

General LOWENBERG. Readiness for both homeland defense and

homeland security, for both overseas missions and domestic missions is a function of articulating the requirements and funding to

meet those requirements. Full time manning, as has been previously noted, is the No. 1 weakness of the Army National Guard.

It’s the No. 1 failure of the Department of Defense and the Department of Army.

And as you’ve noted, Mr. Chairman, equipping the National

Guard with front line equipment as part of a force funding plan for,

in particular, the Army is something that is handicapping our level

of readiness for both combat and domestic security issues. As has

been noted, and you are correct, the requirements for employment

of the National Guard for homeland security purposes has not yet

been articulated by Northern Command or by the Department of

Defense. When that happens, we’re going to need to be resourced,

particularly in the Army National Guard, to meet those homeland

security needs.

General TUXILL. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are cold war construct still. And if you take a look, we have

been funded at a level, I mimic what my fellow Adjutants General

said. We’re funded at C3. You can’t expect—and that’s minimum

mission ready, that’s minimum. So we end up cross-leveling, we

bring equipment in, we bring other troops in. One of the reasons

is that if you have, let’s say, an infantry battalion, you have X

number that you’re sending to basic infantry school, you’ll have X

number that are going to basic training, you’ll have X number in

school and you’ll have so many that you will not be able to account

for, for one reason or the other, maybe sickness.

That means while you’re funded at 82 percent or so, you’ve got

X number of people that you cannot reach out and take, so you

have to reach over and take them from another unit. You’ve alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:27 Sep 13, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95597.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
272

ready got a built-in structural deficiency for how many people you

actually have in that battalion. You’re authorized this many, but

you only really realize a much lower number.

General Blum right now is addressing that situation so that we

can start having a school account, if you would, a holding account

that does not count against the readiness. The Army has it, the Air

Force has it. But the Guard, on the other side of the house, does

not have it.

As far as clearly defined homeland security requirements, we do

not have those yet. We are right now making them up as we go

for our various States. As far as critical infrastructure, what we

should be doing there, one of the things that was very interesting

to me were the amount of critical infrastructure plans that are out

there, and denoting what critical infrastructure is around. In the

National Capital region, everyone’s got a dog in the fight. I think

we need to ferret through that and come up with a requirement as

to what we really should do.

Mr. SHAYS. The challenge we have is that we have to do it while

we’re in the midst of a very real war. That makes this an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.

Let me ask you, Ms. St. Laurent, to respond to what you heard.

It sounds to me like you all are pretty much in agreement. Is that

your sense?

Ms. ST. LAURENT. I think that’s very true. I think there is a consistent theme. In doing our work, we saw a very consistent pattern

going to all the States that we visited, Georgia, Texas, Oregon and

New Jersey. They all had a wide variety of State missions and critical infrastructure protection missions that they were dealing with

at the same time they were getting ready to deploy units overseas.

So I agree with the comments that have been made.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I would say to General Blum and General Love,

we know as well that this is a challenge for Congress, to step up

and make sure that we are beginning to address this. I think our

committee will develop a very honest report about what Congress

needs to do, what the administration needs to do, what Defense

needs to do, and hopefully how we get there.

I’m going to ask professional staff to ask a question or two, and

then we’re going to call it quits.

Ms. WASHBOURNE. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

I have a two part question just for the Adjutants General, talking about readiness. Since there is no Federal or national readiness

standard for homeland defense and security missions performed by

the Guard, how do you judge or certify the readiness of the Guardsmen for your Governor in these roles? And how might the Federal

Government begin to judge that readiness for homeland defense

missions?

General LOWENBERG. In the State of Washington, we certify, to

use that term, I attest to the Governor as to our readiness for the

homeland security mission by looking at the homeland security

strategic plan that has been developed solely in coordination with

the Department of Homeland Security. That’s not to say the same

level of readiness or the same requirements would necessarily be

articulated by Northern Command, as best I try to divine what

those requirements are. They may have a different perspective

273

based upon classified information that they have available to them

that has not been shared with me, notwithstanding my security

clearance.

General MARTY. I think it’s important that we look at the fact

that we train for war time mission, at this particular time our

training focus is on the war on terrorism. This brings our soldiers

and airmen up to a readiness level. There are skills that we train

to that are transferrable that we need to go into the homeland security mode, we’ve done this for years and years. Even though the

requirements are not defined by homeland security by Northern

Command, we still have to maintain our war time skills within our

organizations and our formations. And again, like I said, they do

transfer to the skills that we do need when we perform either State

Active Duty or homeland security missions.

General TUXILL. I agree. Really the byproduct or the benefit to

homeland security is the training that we do for that Federal mission. And we have many disciplines and many skill sets, and they

are readily, as General Marty said, transferrable to the public sector. When you look to certify a full-up military police unit, you

know that they’re ready to do the job, because many of those in

there are local police that are in that, that are already going to

work in that area. They’re just putting on a different uniform.

Ms. WASHBOURNE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I’d like to know, is there anything that

you basically prepared for that we didn’t ask that you think we

should have asked, or you thought we shouldn’t ask but you know

you need to answer? [Laughter.]

Either one. In other words, is there a question I should have

asked that we didn’t that you need to answer? Is there anything

you want to put on the record before we adjourn this hearing? I

think we’re all set then.

General LOWENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I think I speak for the Adjutants General in thanking you for your generosity and extending

the time and for the particular interest you and other members of

the committee have shown on these subjects. I recognize that there

are a lot of questions that could be asked, and a lot of answers that

were perhaps left unspoken. But I’m confident and very grateful for

the interest of this committee.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We will be getting to all those questions,

and that will be some of the informal dialog that occurs between

all of you and our staff. It’s very helpful in ultimately helping us

make our recommendations. So I thank you all for your service to

our country. Again, I want to thank General Blum and General

Love for their participation by listening to what all of you had to

say.

I’m going to adjourn this hearing and hopefully get a 2:30 flight.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Katherine Harris and Hon.

Carolyn B. Maloney follow:]

274

275

276

277

Æ