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

82–426 PDF 2002

S. HRG. 107–738

PROTECTING OUR HOMELAND AGAINST TERROR:

BUILDING A NEW NATIONAL GUARD FOR THE

21ST CENTURY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, TERRORISM, 

AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 13, 2001

Serial No. J–107–54

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SHARON PROST, Minority Chief Counsel 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, TERRORISM, AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairperson 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

DAVID HANTMAN, Majority Chief Counsel 

STEPHEN HIGGINS, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 5

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 1

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 7

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 32

WITNESSES 

Alexander, Richard C., Major General (retired), Executive Director, National 

Guard Association of the United States, Washington, D.C. ............................. 15

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri .............. 2

Davis, Russell C., Lieutenant General, Chief, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia .......................................................................................................... 11

Libutti, Frank G., Lieutenant General (retired), Special Assistant for Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 8

Monroe, Paul D., Jr., Major General, Adjutant General, State of California, 

Sacramento, California ........................................................................................ 19

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, Hon. 

James M. Jeffords, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, Hon. Patty 

Murray, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, and Hon. Maria 

Cantwell, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, joint letter to 

Hon. Tom Ridge, Director of Office of Homeland Security, December 12, 

2001 ....................................................................................................................... 39

Rostker, Bernard, Senior Researcher, RAND Washington Office, Washington, 

D.C., statement .................................................................................................... 35 

(1)

PROTECTING OUR HOMELAND AGAINST TERROR: BUILDING A NEW NATIONAL GUARD 

FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2001

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, TERRORISM, AND

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein, 

chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Hatch, and Kyl. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. The meeting of the subcommittee will 

come to order. 

Senator Kyl, the ranking member of the subcommittee, will be 

here about 2:30. Unfortunately, he can’t be here before, and we are 

delighted to have the ranking member of the full committee here 

and because he has got a time constraint, I would like to give him 

the opportunity to make his statement now. Then I will make a 

brief statement and then we would like to welcome Senator Bond 

and we will hear from him. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate you doing this for me because I have to be at the White 

House, but I am grateful for this timely and important hearing 

that you are conducting. I appreciate the opportunity to make this 

opening statement today. Unfortunately, as I said, I have got to depart shortly. 

As a member of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I want to 

express my keen interest in the role of the National Guard in protecting our homeland against terror. This is an important topic, 

and I commend you in particular for holding this hearing. 

As a Nation, it is imperative that we get this right. Our national 

security both at home and abroad depends on deciding the right 

mission for our National Guard and clearly articulating priorities. 

All recruiting, training and resourcing for the National Guard depends on the role they are given in the 21st century. We cannot 

afford to waste time, effort, or money. 

Currently, the National Guard has the dual mission as a State 

militia and as a national warfighter. I believe this has worked well. 

2

I would encourage a very judicious study of any new architecture 

proposed for the National Guard that would not preserve this dualism. 

Another important concept concerning the National Guard is 

jointness. The National Guard executes joint operations extremely 

well with other active-duty forces. We see that today as the U.S. 

active-duty and reserve troops prosecute the war on terrorism overseas. 

I also know that the National Guard implements jointness extremely well in its State militia role. I point to the experience of 

the Utah National Guard as they prepare to perform security operations for the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics. I believe the preparation for these Olympic Games manifests just how well the National Guard has established a partnership between State and Federal military forces. 

Yet, the National Guard’s execution of joint operations does not 

stop with the military. The Utah National Guard also established 

a strong partnership with civil authorities in the process of gearing 

up for the Olympic Games. I refer to the excellent working relationships between the Utah National Guard and the State, local and 

Federal law enforcement agencies. It is essential that these relationships between State and Federal military and between military 

and civilian law enforcement be transparent to ensure effective security for the Games. In a hearing I chaired last May concerning 

Olympic security and cooperation among the various Federal, State 

and local agencies, the message was loud and clear. The National 

Guard knows how to execute joint missions. 

I will close with just one last point. Whatever mission is handed 

to the National Guard, we all have a responsibility to ensure that 

the Guard is given the proper resources to do the job. 

I am grateful to have Senator Bond here today, who plays a significant role in this area. We appreciate having you before the subcommittee. 

So, again, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for your leadership 

and the opportunity to examine this very important topic. I think 

this hearing is a very important hearing, so thank you. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Senator Hatch. We 

are delighted that you came, and have a good trip to the White 

House. Thank you. 

Senator Bond, if you have a time problem, and perhaps you do 

and would like to go now, I will leave it up to you. I can make my 

statement or I would be happy to defer to you. 

Senator BOND. Madam Chair, if it is all right with you, this is 

a rather busy day for me and if I may be permitted? 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. I do appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

this subcommittee to express my views regarding the role of the 

National Guard, and I would thank in absentia my good friend and 

dear colleague from Utah for his excellent statement. 

As a former Governor of the State of Missouri and currently as 

the co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I understand 

3

how vital it is that we continue properly to resource the Guard for 

the missions they are assigned both at home and abroad. 

I also understand the need to preserve the National Guard’s constitutional role. The Guard aptly states that ‘‘Today’s National 

Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the States 

units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the Nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend 

the United States and its interests all over the globe.’’

I would add that during my time as Governor, I frequently called 

on the Guard to meet its civilian role. I called them out frequently. 

I was said to be the master of disaster because we had floods, tornadoes, fires, everything but earthquakes and pestilence, and the 

Guard was there. 

Now, we have seen the Guard respond to the national security 

mission, and I am very pleased and honored to testify on this, the 

365th birthday of the National Guard. If I may, I would extend my 

hardiest, most sincere birthday wishes to Lieutenant General Russell Davis and the men and women who serve so faithfully as citizen soldiers and airmen. 

We wish you, General Davis, not only a happy birthday, but as 

we would say in our line of work, many happy returns. Thank you, 

General Davis. 

It is an honor to testify because we are here today to discuss the 

role of the Guard, while celebrating the Guard’s record of unsurpassed service over 365 years. Over all these years, the Guard has 

been the bedrock on which our Nation’s security has rested both at 

home and abroad. 

Our national security depends upon the health and continued 

stability of our Guard forces. The Guard’s dual role as the States’

and Governors’ first line of defense in support of local and State 

civil authorities and as the vital reserve for our active military 

forces is well-established. 

I cite a recent Washington Post article entitled ‘‘Military Favors 

a Homeland Command: Forces May Shift to Patrolling U.S.’’ The 

author there, Bradley Graham, states that our Nation’s top military authorities favor appointing a four-star commander to coordinate Federal troops used in homeland defense. He correctly points 

out that the chain of command is not clear, and I would agree that 

that must be rectified. 

The article also suggests that the historic Federal role of the 

Guard as the vital reserve for our active forces might be reevaluated in favor of restructuring the Guard, or portions thereof, for a 

more narrow homeland defense role. While discussing the National 

Guard’s dual role, the author quotes Secretary Tom White, the interim Department of Defense Executive Agent for Homeland Security, who says, ‘‘One school of thought says we can still do both’’

for a domestic operation, ‘‘but the other side says we can’t.’’ The author also writes that Governor Ridge said the administration would 

look at whether to shift some Guard units and assets. 

I am not suggesting that the Guard force structure should not be 

adaptable to a changing threat environment. It has, it can right 

now, and it always will. But I would caution anyone who would 

seek to alter the traditional dual role and mission of the Guard. 

4

If, God forbid, we must endure another attack on our home soil, 

there is no doubt that the National Guard will be on station assisting local and State civil authorities. Any expansion of responsibilities of the National Guard must be fully supported with the resources necessary to perform its expanded mission. But any effort 

to reduce the Guard’s longstanding wartime role in support of our 

National military strategy overseas would, I believe, be met with 

fierce resistance, and for good reason. 

We all know that the First World War was labeled the war to 

end all wars. Little did we know that Nazi Germany had other 

ideas, and Japan. Ask our veterans and strategic reserves who 

served in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Desert Storm, the Balkans, 

Kosovo, and now Afghanistan, if these events were fully anticipated. We know not what the future holds, but we do know that 

our best defense is the ability to field a sound defense, and this, 

in my view, must continue to include the Guard. 

We also know that without a vibrant force in reserve, ready to 

step in when our active forces absolutely must have reinforcements, our ability to wage a sustained war is weakened. If war 

must be waged, let it not be waged on our soil. 

We are waging war in Afghanistan because we do not want to 

wage war here at home. Our active forces are designed and 

equipped to carry the fight to any enemy on his territory, but if our 

worst fears come true, if the bench is empty when our active forces 

overseas need replacements because we have foolishly weakened 

our vital reserves here at home, we are in deep trouble. 

To recap, we must, in my view, acknowledge the need properly 

to shape our forces to respond to any attack here at home or 

abroad. Furthermore, additional requirements placed on our Guard 

forces must be adequately and fully resourced. That is militaryspeak for funding it. 

Any attempt to fund the increased cost of homeland defense by 

radically restructuring the Guard and changing its traditional role 

would significantly weaken its ability to support our National military strategy. As we look to strengthen our homeland defenses, as 

we must, we must ensure our active and Guard forces are able effectively to coordinate, plan and implement a cohesive homeland 

defense strategy. And we must work to improve interagency communications and teamwork. 

The Guard has a well-established record of working with local 

and State civil authorities and Federal military forces to accomplish the Nation’s business. I am fully confident that the National 

Guard, led by Lieutenant General Davis, will continue to meet the 

requirements and responsibilities demanded by current and emerging threats. 

We have no draft. Our only bench, our only emergency call-up 

forces are the strategic Guard and reserve. The strength of the 

strategic reserve remains the flexibility of the National Guard to 

shape our forces and respond to any threat either at home or 

abroad. This is the Guard’s stated mission, and I truly believe any 

attempt to change it would be shortsighted. 

I thank the subcommittee very much for the opportunity to share 

these views. 

5

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Senator Bond. We 

appreciate your comments, and particularly as a former Governor 

they have double meaning. So thank you very much. 

I would like to acknowledge the presence of the ranking member 

of the subcommittee, Senator Kyl, with whom I have worked closely on other issues. 

Senator, I would like to make a brief opening statement, then 

turn to you. My understanding is the chairman of the committee—

Senator KYL. Might I just thank Senator Bond as well, Madam 

Chairman? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You certainly may. 

Senator KYL. I very, very much appreciated his comments, and 

look forward to speaking with you personally about more of the 

ideas that you expressed. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator BOND. Thank you, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Kyl. 

The chairman of the committee, Senator Leahy, it is my understanding, may wish to attend and make a statement, and when he 

does, we will defer to him as well. 

Senator Bond mentioned the birthday of the Guard, and actually 

there is a very interesting historic anecdote about the birthday. 

The Guard dates its founding back to December 13, 1636, when the 

Massachusetts Bay Colony Legislature—that was called the General Court—divided the militia into three separate groups, with the 

purpose of increasing its efficiency. 

For years, the Guard celebrated its birthday on the wrong day, 

October 10, not December 13, and that is because historians had 

determined that the General Court had met to reorganize the militia on the 10th day of the 10th month. However, in 1983, a National Guard historian researched the issue and determined that 

the legislature actually ordered the regiments to be formed on the 

13th, not the 10th. He also determined that the calendar year in 

1636 began in March, not January, so that the 10th month was December, not October. 

So I too would like to say happy birthday to our National Guard. 

This is a hearing on whether the National Guard should have an 

enhanced role in homeland security, not to defer or deter from its 

primary mission, but to give it another role. In many ways, such 

a role would return the National Guard more to what was envisioned by the Founders of the country. 

Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, from foreign invaders, and later helped with the Revolutionary War. And during the 19th century, the militia provided the 

bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early years of the 

Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. 

It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to increase 

the role of the National Guard as a reserve force for the United 

States Army, and that has become a primary role today. Currently, 

the National Guard acts as a strategic reserve for the Army and 

Air Force and as State militias. 

6

Because Federal law requires that the Guard receive the same 

training and equipment as the regular armed forces and reserves, 

Guard members often spend a fair amount of time preparing for 

overseas deployment, and that is their primary mission, as well it 

should be. 

However, it is far more likely that the National Guard will be 

used to respond to a terrorist threat, or even to help clean up a 

natural disaster. That is because in their role as State militias, 

they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act and thus are used 

as the armed forces’ primary provider of support to civil authorities. 

The National Guard’s access to military command and control, 

discipline, training and equipment makes it well-suited to coordinate with and back up police, firemen, and other responders. 

There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train 

throughout the year—353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000 

Air National Guard. The approximate numbers of National Guard 

in individual States run from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary according to the population of the State and the recruitment efforts. 

In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center 

and the Pentagon, as well as the October 2001 anthrax attacks on 

Congress and the media, many experts have come to believe that 

the National Guard should play a more central role in responding 

to terrorist attacks, particularly those with weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the Guard has already played an important role 

in helping respond to these attacks, not only at the site of the attacks but also at airports, around the Capitol, and elsewhere where 

it is serving today. 

The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced 

homeland security mission because it is already deployed in communities around the country, integrated into local, state and regional emergency response networks, has ties with key players in 

local, State and Federal Governments, is not bound by the Posse 

Comitatus Act while serving in Title 32 status and thus has maximum flexibility. The Posse Comitatus Act generally restricts law 

enforcement to civil authorities. 

The Guard is responsible for and experienced with homeland security missions, including air sovereignty, disaster relief, responding to suspected weapons of mass destruction events, and counterdrug operations. The Guard has existing physical, communications 

and training infrastructure throughout the United States. 

It has existing training facilities, distance learning training networks, and a number of highly skilled individuals who have left active forces. And the Guard helps preserve a constitutional balance 

between State and Federal sovereign interests, given its unique 

dual Federal/State role. 

Moreover, the Department of Defense reviews and reports, including the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve Component Employment 2005 study, have made clear that the National 

Guard should have an expanded role in homeland security. Other 

experts agree. Both the Hart-Rudman and the Gilmore Terrorism 

Commissions have both recommended that the National Guard be 

given a more direct role in the war on terrorism. 

7

In close consultation with the Guard, we are currently drafting 

legislation that would do just that. It would build on two more narrowly defined missions the Guard has already assumed. The Guard 

currently has a number of civil support teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event, advise first responders, 

and facilitate the assistance of additional military forces, if needed. 

The Guard is used to provide support to law enforcement to help 

stop illegal drugs from being imported, manufactured and distributed, and in supporting drug demand reduction programs. 

Essentially, the legislation that I am thinking of and we sent to 

your office, Senator Kyl, in hopes that you would like to weigh in 

on this, would establish in each State National Guard homeland security forces that, in their non-federalized role, would have homeland security as their primary mission. That is only in one part. 

We are not taking the other part of providing people for our military. 

The legislation would also provide for appropriate command, control and coordination; statutory homeland security duties; Governors’ homeland security activities plans, similar to those for the 

Guard’s counter-drug mission; a National Guard resources plan for 

training, equipment, aviation supports and others needs; and, of 

course, as Senator Bond referred to, authorization of funds. The 

legislation would also help ensure that the Guard always supports, 

not leads, but supports civilian agencies and that any change in the 

Guard’s mission not degrade our warfighting capabilities. 

So I look forward to hearing testimony from the witnesses. It is 

a distinguished panel. 

I would now like to turn to the ranking member, my good friend, 

the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein, and 

thank you for holding this hearing. The topic is obviously timely, 

and I think the logic of the position that the National Guard has 

a key role to play in homeland defense is unassailable. Precisely 

what that means in terms of how we proceed obviously is the subject of this hearing, as well as of additional work that we will have 

to do. 

Rather than read my statement in the record, given the amount 

of time that has elapsed here, I think what I will do is just ask 

unanimous consent to put my statement in the record so we can 

immediately hear from the witnesses. I think that will be a lot 

more productive than hearing from me. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator, and I 

really want to work with you on this because all the preliminary 

work that we have done has really indicated a considerable support 

for moving in this direction as long as we protect the primary role 

and as long as we provide necessary funds. 

I know the chairman of the committee wanted to say something, 

if he is here. Well, he will be back in 10 or 15 minutes. 

Could I ask the first panel to come forward, then, and I will 

quickly introduce them. 

8

Lieutenant General Frank Libutti has assumed the position as 

the Special Assistant for Homeland Security. 

If all of you would come forward, I will just start introducing you. 

His responsibilities include establishing a long-term homeland 

security organizational structure for the Department of Defense 

and developing operational solutions to national security threats. 

Lieutenant General Libutti also serves as the Department of Defense liaison with the President’s Office on Homeland Security. 

Next on our panel will be Lieutenant General Russell Davis. He 

is the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and he serves as the 

senior uniformed National Guard officer responsible for developing 

and coordinating policies and programs affecting more than half a 

million National Guard personnel. We are delighted to have him 

and he has been before this committee before. 

The next individual is Major General Richard Alexander. He is 

the Executive Director of the United States National Guard Association. Before taking that position, he served as the 45th president 

of the organization from 1996 to 1998. He is also the former Adjutant General of Ohio and spent over four decades in uniform, beginning with his enlistment in the Marine Corps in 1954. 

The final witness is Major General Paul Monroe, Jr. He was appointed as Adjutant General of the State of California Military Department by Governor Davis in April of 1999. He has been with the 

California National Guard since he enlisted in 1961, and as Adjutant General he now leads the largest National Guard force in the 

United States, with an end strength numbering more than 16,300 

Army and 4,700 Air National Guard members. 

General Libutti, we would begin with you, please. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. LIBUTTI 

(RETIRED), SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR HOMELAND SECURITY, 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

General LIBUTTI. Madam Chairman, Senator Kyl, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in my role as Special Assistant to the 

interim Department of Defense Executive Agent for Homeland Security. 

Madam Chairman, if you will indulge me, I will make a brief 

opening statement and then answer any questions the subcommittee wishes to ask. 

The Department of Defense currently views homeland security as 

composed of two principal elements: one, homeland defense, and, 

two, civil support. Homeland defense is a Department of Defenseled task to protect the United States from threats and aggression 

in every dimension, land, sea and air. The fighter aircraft flying 

combat air patrols over Washington, New York and other major 

U.S. cities, under the operational control of NORAD, are a prime 

example of a homeland defense mission. 

Civil support is where the Department of Defense assists a lead 

Federal agency, which can include such tasks as supporting the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation with domestic counter-terrorism, 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency with consequence 

9

management, or Health and Human Services against biological attacks. 

However, we must not forget that quick resolution of such incidents begins with those on the front line and local and State first 

responders, followed by second-echelon State-controlled National 

Guard units. Federal assets are the third echelon, including unique 

Department of Defense capabilities on a ‘‘by exception’’ basis. 

Secretary White, the interim Department of Defense Executive 

Agent for Homeland Security, outlined three major objectives to 

guide us. 

Number one, the Department of Defense must unify its efforts to 

enhance the cooperation and coordination of policy, planning, and 

resource allocation responsibilities as they relate to homeland security. Unity of effort will eliminate gaps and redundancies, while 

dramatically improving our responsiveness and our efficiency. 

Second, we must develop operational solutions for the future. 

Pending revision of the unified command plan, the military responsibilities for homeland security are assigned to the unified commanders on an interim basis. The Department of Defense is exploring operational solutions for the future, but it is important to emphasize that as we look to the future we properly balance the apportionment of forces between the needs of warfighters abroad and 

the need to defend the Nation at home. Striking a proper balance 

is absolutely critical. 

Third, we must improve interagency cooperation to guarantee 

that the many Federal, State and local authorities with homeland 

security responsibilities work together swiftly and decisively. My 

staff and I work very closely with Governor Ridge and the Office 

of Homeland Security as they engage the interagency coordination 

process and press forward on homeland security improvements. 

As we do so, we remain mindful of the broad and critical responsibilities of the Department of Defense to defend our Nation 

against acts of war and terrorism; provide capability and capacity 

to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and highyield explosive incidents, whether intentional or unintentional; and 

support lead Federal agencies in the event of natural disasters. 

The National Guard, whether in State or Federal status, is an 

active partner in homeland security. Guardsmen in a State status 

are protecting critical infrastructure throughout the United States, 

and are supporting our consequence management efforts as well. 

State Governors, in coordination with the White House, the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration, are 

using Guardsmen to augment security at over 400 commercial airports throughout the country. Although operating under the control 

of the Governors, the Federal Government is paying for this mission. 

In addition, we have plans to support the Governors of States 

along our northern and southern borders and other lead Federal 

agencies by augmenting the U.S. Border Patrol, the U.S. Customs 

Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service with 

Guardsmen in a Title 10 or Federal status to support Federal security missions. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. This concludes my statement and 

I look forward to the subcommittee’s questions. Thank you, ma’am. 

10

[The prepared statement of General Libutti follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. LIBUTTI

Madame Chairman, Senator Kyl, and distinguished members of the Committee, 

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in my role as the Special Assistant to the Interim Department of Defense Executive Agent for Homeland Security. 

Madame Chairman, if you will indulge me, I will make a brief opening statement 

and then answer any questions the Committee wishes to ask. 

The Department of Defense currently views homeland security as composed of two 

principal elements: homeland defense and civil support. 

Homeland defense is a Department of Defense-led task to protect the United 

States from threats and aggression in every dimension—land, sea, and air. The 

fighter aircraft flying combat air patrols over Washington, New York City, and other 

major U.S. cities under the operational control of NORAD are a prime example of 

a homeland defense mission. 

Civil support is where the Department of Defense assists a lead federal agency, 

which can include such tasks as supporting the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

with domestic counterterrorism, the Federal Emergency Management Agency with 

consequence management, or Health and Human Services against biological attacks. 

However, we must not forget that quick resolution of such incidents begins with 

those on the ‘‘front line,’’ the local and state ‘‘first responders,’’ followed by the ‘‘second echelon,’’ state-controlled National Guard units. Federal assets are the ‘‘third 

echelon’’—including unique Department of Defense capabilities on a ‘‘by exception’’

basis. 

Secretary White, the Interim Department of Defense Executive Agent for Homeland Security, outlined three major objectives that guide us: 

First, the Department of Defense must unify its efforts to enhance the coordination of policy, planning, and resource allocation responsibilities as they relate to 

homeland security. Unity of effort will eliminate gaps and redundancies while dramatically improving our responsiveness and efficiency. 

Second, we must develop operational solutions for the future. Pending revision of 

the Unified Command Plan, the military responsibilities for homeland security are 

assigned to the unified commanders on an interim basis. 

The Department of Defense is exploring operational solutions for the future, but 

it is important to emphasize that, as we look to the future, we properly balance apportionment of forces between the needs of warfighters abroad and the need to defend the Nation at home. Striking a proper balance is absolutely critical. 

Third, we must improve interagency cooperation to guarantee that the many federal, state, and local authorities with homeland security responsibilities work together swiftly and decisively. My staff and I work very closely with Governor Ridge 

and the Office of Homeland Security as they engage the interagency coordination 

process and press forward on homeland security improvements. As we do so, we remain mindful of the broad and critical responsibilities of the Department of Defense 

to defend our Nation against acts of war and terrorism; provide capacity to respond 

to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive incidents, 

whether intentional or unintentional; and supporting lead agencies in the event of 

natural disasters. 

The National Guard, whether in State or Federal status, is an active partner in 

Homeland Security. Guardsmen in a state status are protecting critical infrastructures throughout the United States and supporting in consequence management efforts. State Governors, in coordination with the White House, the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration are using guardsmen to augment security at over 400 commercial airports throughout the country. Although operating 

under the control of the Governors, the Federal government is paying for this mission. In addition, we have plans to support the Governors of states along our northern and southern borders and the lead Federal agencies by augmenting the US Border Patrol, US Customs Service, and the Immigration Naturalization Service with 

guardsmen in a Title 10 or Federal status to support Federal security missions. 

Thank you, Madame Chairman. This concludes my statement and I look forward 

to the Committee’s questions.

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thanks, General Libutti. 

General Davis, welcome again. 

11

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS, 

CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

General DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Kyl, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thanks again for the 

opportunity to come over and talk to you about the National Guard 

and our role in homeland security. 

On 11 September when the World Trade Towers were attacked, 

two aircraft, F–15s, from the Massachusetts Guard were airborne 

and headed that way prior to the attack. Unfortunately, they didn’t 

get there in time. But those militiamen, as did the militiamen of 

1636, served our country and reacted appropriately when needed. 

Circumstances dictated that they come to the aid of the country 

and they responded. 

During the 1950’s, the Air National Guard started sitting runway 

alert, and they continue that and do it today. In like manner, the 

Army National Guard had a role with the Nike missiles defending 

our country, defending our shores for almost two decades. 

After that attack, the President asked of our United States military, ‘‘be ready.’’ I am here to tell you our United States military 

is ready. My response to him is we are—active Guard, reserve, 

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coast Guard. It is that team 

that provides readiness to our country. 

Within hours after that attack on the World Trade Center, 

Guardsmen from New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were right on the scene. They 

were joined by their fellow servicemen from the reserve, as well as 

from the active component. The Guardsmen stand shoulder to 

shoulder with first responders, and they did that day. In New York, 

we still have about 200 Guardsmen who are on duty, in State duty, 

paid for by the State of New York. 

Today, we have about 45,000 National Guardsmen who are on 

duty from all 50 States, the territories, and here in the District of 

Columbia, providing support in operation Noble Eagle and Enduring Freedom. 

On 27 September, the President asked the Governors to provide 

support at our airports. And as General Libutti said, we have almost 9,000 people out there serving today, guarding our airports, 

providing security and an armed, visible presence to assure our 

American citizens that they will be protected. 

There is no question that there has been a seismic upheaval as 

a result of what happened on 11 September. I would say to you 

that the National Guard is ready. We have both a shield, which we 

use for homeland defense, and a sword, which we combine with the 

other military components to provide that combat power that we 

can project anywhere in the world. 

As I said, within minutes after the hijacked aircraft struck, we 

went from 14 airplanes which we had on alert to almost 100 airplanes, providing 24-hour, 7-day coverage over many of our major 

cities in the United States. That force was a combination of Air National Guard, active Air Force, the United States Air Force Reserve, the United States Navy Reserve, the United States Marine 

Corps Reserve, and active Navy, ships as well as aircraft. Numerous other aircraft were involved, airlift aircraft and tankers to support the fighters. 

12

We also had set up these weapons of mass destruction civil support teams and they were brought into play. Team number two in 

New York moved down and postured itself to respond to New York 

City, and it did, has done so numerous occasions since then, as 

have the other teams. We are on an accelerated schedule to get all 

of those folks certified, and a very active, aggressive team with the 

United States Army. The Department of Defense has made that 

happen, working in partnership with the National Guard. 

Key asset protection: key assets throughout the United States 

are today being guarded by Guardsmen—bridges, power plants, nuclear facilities, and key laboratories throughout this country. 

But I think it is important that we maintain that dual mission 

of the National Guard, both here at home to perform the missions 

required here, to respond to floods and all the other natural disasters and civil disturbances that occur in the United States, but also 

available, and we do have a number of people deployed overseas, 

and I will comment on that a little bit later on. 

I want to say we stand with great pride after 365 years continuing to serve this great country, being of assistance to protect 

the life and property of American citizens. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Davis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS

Good Morning, Madame Chairman and other distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on role of the National Guard in the important Homeland Security mission. 

On September 11th, 2001, the first military response to the terrible attack on 

America was led by members of the 102nd Fighter Wing, Massachusetts Air National Guard at Otis ANGB. Two F–15 Eagle jets from Otis were the first to arrive 

at the World Trade Center, just minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 sliced into 

the second tower. While they were unable to alter the course of history on that 

morning, they now stand guard with renewed vigilance. 

It is fitting that the Massachusetts National Guard responded that frightful 

morning; for it was Massachusetts that formed the first militia in the colonies in 

1636. Homeland security was a critical priority of the Massachusetts Bay Colony 

when they formed a militia of citizen soldiers to defend themselves. For almost 365 

years, the citizen-soldiers and airmen of the National Guard have been the solid 

shield that has defended America at home, and the sword that America has wielded 

overseas in all her wars since that early period. 

In the 1950’s, the Air National Guard was sitting runway alert all over America 

to ‘‘Defend America’s Skies’’ against enemy air attack. The Army National Guard 

had a similar role during that period manning Nike missile defense batteries for almost two decades. 

As the Cold War threat receded, America chose to reduce its commitment to Continental Air Defense. America turned to other priorities, mostly overseas. The National Guard has played a significant role in every major contingency since the Gulf 

War in support of the combatant CINCs. 

Now we have been asked to respond once again. President Bush has asked our 

armed forces to ‘‘Be ready’’. We are. He said the hour will come when America will 

act, and ‘‘you will make us proud.’’ Your National Guard is responding everywhere in thousands of ways, to the destiny that has been thrust upon us. 

Within hours, National Guardsmen from New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, 

North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Maryland were among the first on the scene supporting the responders and civil authorities at the scenes of the disaster. National 

Guardsmen responded to the recent tragic events by supporting our governors, the 

several states, territories, and the District of Columbia plus the many other civil 

authorities in answering the needs of our nation. 

The National Guard stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the civil responders in this 

crisis, and remains a vital component of the recovery process. We are proud to have 

supported the brave firefighters, EMS and law enforcement officials at the scene of 

13

the disasters. We provided medical personnel to care for the injured, military police 

to assist local law enforcement officials, key asset protection, transportation, communications, logistics, and a myriad of other support functions. We are making our 

resources available as needed, to restore order, stability, and safety to our fellow 

citizens. Our newly certified Civil Support Teams provided WMD support in their 

operational debut. 

At the latest count, (Dec 11) about 42,000 Guardsmen from 54 states, territories, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had been called to service in response to 

Operations ‘‘Noble Eagle’’and ‘‘Enduring Freedom’’. We are responding as we are designed—‘‘dual-missioned,’’—to both federal and state requirements. 

The machinery of accessibility has worked just as it was designed, and the National Guard has been both prompt and flexible in meeting the levy of the President 

and the governors in responding to the needs of the nation and the individual 

states. Our dual status (state and federal) has proved to be a particularly useful feature of our organization. 

On September 27, President Bush asked the governors to call up over 7,000 National Guardsmen to supplement security at the nation’s 420 commercial airports 

for up to six months. The first National Guardsmen were on duty the very next day. 

They were joined shortly by others. The purpose is to restore the faith and confidence of the public in commercial air travel until more permanent arrangements 

can be made. Our commercial airline industry is a key link in the national economy 

and vital to our nation’s interests. Once again, the governors and the adjutants general who command the National Guard at the state level responded very rapidly to 

these requests. 

We were ready and are prepared to ‘‘call out more of the National Guard’’ as needed for these important missions. National Guardsmen add an armed, comforting 

presence visible to the traveling public. Uniformed Guardsmen provide a visible display of American resolve, in order to reassure the public and to deter our foes. And 

not just in the airports. 

More will surely follow. 

There is no question that we have experienced a seismic upheaval in the way we 

think about national defense. How did we respond to the attack upon us on September 11th? Swiftly, with determination, and resolve. Swiftly, because we are in 

a war and that gives us a sense of urgency regarding the safety and security of our 

citizens. With determination and resolve because this war promises to be a long 

campaign. Like the Massachusetts militiamen, we face foes on several flanks. The 

United States must guard against further attacks at home, while it prosecutes an 

expeditionary campaign abroad. 

That is precisely the role of today’s National Guard. We are part of the same team 

that is girding itself to provide both the shield of homeland defense, and at the 

same time to wield the sword of combat power in support of the Combat CINCs 

to protect America here at home or far from her shores. 

As the president said, our primary task is to ‘‘be ready.’’ The National Guard must 

continue to be prepared for our responsibility as the first-line, ready—reserve defense force for America. It is the combat mission we have always had, at home and 

abroad, since the first Regiments of 1636, through the intervening years, and today, 

remains one of our fundamental responsibilities to recognize these roles alongside 

the combat role. 

Review of Activity Since Sept 11, 2001

Prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001 the National Guard had 12,400 personnel on duty performing federal and state missions. Over 450 National Guard 

members were in state active duty status fighting forest fires, protecting our communities from natural disasters, such as floods and storms, providing drinking 

water or electrical power, and other domestic missions. Nearly 12,000 National 

Guard soldiers and airmen were deployed in support of CINC or Service requirements world-wide in a variety of combat and combat support missions, Bosnia/

Kosovo, Southern and Northern Watch in Southwest Asia, and the enduring air sovereignty mission of Air National Guard and 1St Air Force air defense units. 

Within minutes to hours of the hijack notification 34 Air National Guard fighter 

units were ‘‘generated’’ (prepared for combat operations), ready or flying over the 

Nation’s skies performing combat air patrol missions, leveraging critical combat 

skills and equipment, including Presidential Aircraft escort. In New York and New 

Jersey, the National Guard immediately began what was to become a response involving over 8,000 soldiers and airmen to provide support to efforts at the World 

Trade Center site. Eighteen Air National Guard refueling wings, multiple strategic 

and tactical airlift units (C–5, C–141 and C–130), along with Army National Guard 

aircraft, provided necessary lift support to the combat air patrols, consequence manVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:38 Dec 12, 2002 Jkt 082426 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\82426.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
14

agement activities and Enduring Freedom response requirements. National Guard 

units provided rescue support, civil engineers, communications and power generation capability, air traffic control, medical teams, chaplains and other service support operations, i.e., food and shelter service, public affairs and command and control entities. New York’s WMD Civil Support Team provided analysis confirming the 

absence of Chemical, Biological or Radiological contamination at the scene, thus expediting efforts of the fire, police and medical support. 

Since that disastrous day, because of its unique community-based structure, the 

National Guard, significantly increased its ‘‘dual mission’’ (state and federal) responsibilities to meet the requirements of the nation at home and abroad. As I said earlier, about 42,000 National Guard soldiers and airmen have been called to duty to 

help manage the consequences of the attacks and prosecute the resultant war on 

terrorism. 

The National Guard’s unique WMD Civil Support Teams have responded to more 

than 300 suspected chemical/biological incidents in which they put their cuttingedge 

training and technology to precisely the use Congress envisioned. 

Even National Guard counterdrug equipment and personnel responded to fill specific gaps in transportation, and to provide photo reconnaissance and command and 

control support to Law Enforcement in the days immediately following the terrorist 

attacks. 

In addition, several thousand National Guardsmen are providing force protection 

at military installations and protecting other critical assets around the country. 

Finally, the National Guard responded to the President’s request to provide airport security to more than 400 airports across the nation. 

Today the Guard is performing these missions along with providing combat and 

support units and personnel deployed in the operations to defeat terrorism across 

the globe. As of 26 November 2001, National Guard personnel deployed are comprised of 3,000 on state active-duty and over 47,000 soldiers and airmen in support 

of CINC or Service requirements worldwide in a variety of combat and combat support missions. This is a near three-fold increase since the September 11 attacks. 

Successes In Executing Our Responsibilities 

The mission of the National Guard, like all other military organizations, is driven 

by its the roles and capabilities needed to meet the threat; and the resources that 

must be allocated to sustain needed capabilities. 

Let me just recap what went well on and after September 11. 

We were able to get National Guard troops rapidly into federal status. Maryland 

Army National Guard military police units were dispatched to provide security at 

the Pentagon in less than 24 hours after the attack. As I mentioned earlier, Air National Guard fighters were on the scene within minutes. 

We were able to bring even fairly large amounts of military personnel and equipment rapidly to bear on the mission. Even after the on-site civilian Incident Command structure was tragically lost during the collapse of the World Trade Center, 

the NY National Guard was able to effectively receive and fill requests for support 

from the FDNY ‘‘second team’’ after they were up and running. 

We were able to employ National Guard forces across state lines. New Jersey National Guard readily joined in support of the recovery efforts. California-based Cargo 

Inspection Systems were sent to enhance border security operations in the state of 

New York. The ability of National Guard forces to operate across state lines was 

also perfectly demonstrated recently when the state of West Virginia fought floods 

using National Guard assets from five states under provisions of the Emergency 

Management Assistance Compact. 

We were able to integrate requested federal forces into the response, in this case 

because of the unique institution of the New York Naval Militia, the Governor of 

New York was able to gain access to Navy and Marine Corps Reserve assets inside 

his state as they were needed. 

Although the National Guard has a long history of very effectively responding to 

domestic emergency situations—every year, in every state—we recognize that for a 

more robust level of Homeland Security to exist, some changes are necessary for the 

National Guard. 

Within 10 days of the attacks, we took steps to establish a NGB Homeland Security office to acquire, manage, and distribute the necessary resources and information. This office was an expansion on an already existing cell and has been the central hub for the nearly overnight execution of the airport security mission. 

We established this office because as the National Guard’s roles and missions in 

the security of the homeland expands and strengthens, we at the National Guard 

Bureau understand that a commensurately expanded capability to oversee that role 

will be needed. Fortunately, the National Guard Bureau has a demonstrated capaVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:38 Dec 12, 2002 Jkt 082426 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\HEARINGS\82426.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
15

bility and many years of successful experience in effectively coordinating across 54 

states and territories. 

The Future of the National Guard in Homeland Security 

Madame Chairman, the National Guard needs to be empowered for success on 

both the homefront and the warfront—precisely where it has always been oriented. 

The tremendous cost-effectiveness of the National Guard over large standing forces 

is not an advantage to be cast aside lightly. 

In addition to our current Key Asset and Force Protection missions, we are also 

evaluating other Homeland Defense roles that the National Guard could receive as 

America’s homeland security is strengthened. 

Dual Mission Orientation is Essential 

The magnificent efficiency of the National Guard has always been its orientation 

on both protecting the lives and property of Americans here at home and on going 

to war to support American interests globally. 

The National Guard has participated with distinction in every major armed conflict of this nation and this mission should not change. The special utility for the 

Nation is that in addition to being a critical war-fighting asset, the National Guard 

is also a crucial source of local and state emergency response support. Both are critically important to the nation and keeping both missions together is critical to the 

future strength of the National Guard. The resources, personnel, equipment, and 

training provided to accomplish the war-fighting allow the National Guard to support their local and state missions. 

One specific example of this ‘‘dual-missioned’’ capability is found in the combat 

capability of National Guard F–16’s flying combat air patrols over America since day 

one. These same units rely heavily on precision targeting equipment for visual identification while at the same time using this same critical equipment in their AEF 

Air Superiority role in Operation Southern and Northern Watch. The National 

Guard clearly could take on a greater role in performing the Homeland Security 

mission, however it is equally or more important than ever that it maintain its combat and combat support mission capability. All adversaries and enemies of the 

United States take note when the National Guard is deployed in our combat conflicts because they recognize the National Guard as the grass roots support of the 

local people in that conflict. 

Summary 

In summary, Madame Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee 

the National Guard has tremendous local and state-based, quick response capability 

to support the local, state and federal agencies in accomplishing the Homeland Security Mission. It has been performing that role at the local, state and federal level 

since its inception 365 years ago today. It will continue in the important effort to 

protect and defend our nation against all enemies foreign (as deployed combat 

forces) and domestic (as Homeland Security forces.) 

It has been my distinct pleasure to be here today, I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on this critically important aspect and mission of the National Guard. I 

welcome any questions you may have.

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, General Davis. 

General Alexander? 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL RICHARD C. ALEXANDER 

(RETIRED), EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

General ALEXANDER. Madam Chair, thank you so much for this 

invitation to appear before this subcommittee and present the 

views of the more than 40,000 officers in the National Guard Association of the United States, and also the 54 adjutants general of 

our States and territories. 

The National Guard, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution 

and longstanding integration with Federal, State and local authorities, uniquely connects every fire hose to the Pentagon and every 

State house to the White House. 

Although there is a need for selected units and personnel to be 

dedicated primarily or exclusively to homeland security, the homeVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:38 Dec 12, 2002 Jkt 082426 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\82426.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
16

land security mission can be most effectively and efficiently accomplished as a dual mission that complements, enhances, and draws 

its essential strength from the National Guard’s continued combat 

force structure, its training and experience. This is as referenced 

in the Hart-Rudman Commission report for Phase 3. 

Specifically, the Adjutants General Association and the National 

Guard Association of the United States urge implementation of the 

following key tenets for a successful homeland security strategy. 

The statutory charter of the National Guard Bureau should be 

amended to reflect its unique role as a channel of communication 

between the States and the national security authorities. The Bureau is the official channel of communication between the several 

States and the Department of the Army and the Department of the 

Air Force. The charter should be amended to also make the Bureau 

the channel of communication for homeland security between the 

several States and the supported CONUS CINC, the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security; also, authorize and 

fund a program for National Guard execution of a Governor’s plan 

for homeland security. 

Program oversight and resourcing would be primarily provided 

by the National Guard Bureau based upon the decade-long National Guard counter-drug program model, in which each State 

Governor adopts and administers a program of full-time National 

Guard support, with AGRs, for law enforcement agencies. Within 

prescribed national standards and guidelines enforced by the Bureau, the Governor’s plan for each State and territory marshals 

Guard resources to best meet the unique needs of each State and 

territory. 

Provide funding to the National Guard Bureau to complete the 

fielding of the National Guard civil support teams in each State 

and territory; also, authorize and fund a program for organizing 

and training and equipping National Guard units for homeland security missions. Oversight of the homeland security mission should 

be provided by the National Guard Bureau based upon longstanding garden plot models in which National Guard units are 

trained and equipped to support civil authorities in crowd control 

and civil disturbances. 

The program should also authorize and fund National Guard 

training with civil authorities, to include local first responders to 

assure a heightened state of collective preparedness for consequence management of domestic chemical, biological, radiological, 

nuclear, and explosive events. 

Also, the strategy should embrace the standardized equipping of 

State contingency stocks with chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive equipment, and the equipping of State task 

forces with modern National Guard communications and transportation assets. Each State and territory should have self-contained 

National Guard aviation assets capable of air-lifting civilian and 

military homeland security personnel and equipment within and 

outside the State or territory. 

Further, the strategy should include increased full-time support 

to the National Guard military support offices in each State, territory, and the District of Columbia. Increased full-time National 

17

Guard homeland security staffing at the National Guard Bureau 

and Joint Forces Command should also be a consideration in this 

strategy. 

It should also authorize and establish a joint State task force in 

each State, territory, and the District of Columbia that is staffed 

appropriate to each mission that will be scalable in organizational 

structure and personnel in modular units with a variable command 

structure dependent upon the size of the task force, and also 

staffed by Army and Air National Guard soldiers and airmen with 

emergency planning and liaison officers from the Federal reserve 

components. 

Further, we should have a National Guard officer in Title 10 status, if necessary, to exercise command and control of Title 10 military personnel who are added to this task force. The grade of the 

National Guard task force commander should be determined by the 

size and composition of the task force and be under the tactical 

control of the adjutant general and, in turn, the Governor in order 

to assure unity of command and unity of purpose. This would occur 

when Federal forces are called into a State. Further, it should support the State and Federal response plans. 

One final element needs to be emphasized on behalf of the Nation’s Governors. Use of the National Guard as a primary fusion 

agent in executing a balanced, integrated national domestic security strategy preserves the constitutional role of the sovereign 

States, and assures that Governors and other State and local civil 

authorities remain responsible and accountable for public safety 

and security of their State, territory, or local jurisdiction. 

The use of the National Guard in State active-duty status and 

in Federal pay status under Title 32 permits military forces under 

the control of the Governor to assist civil authorities in executing 

all the laws, Federal, State and local, without violating Posse Comitatus. 

Madam Chair, that completes my remarks. Again, I thank you 

for this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and I am 

ready to respond to any questions you might have at your convenience. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Alexander follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL RICHARD C. ALEXANDER

AGAUS POINT PAPER ON HOMELAND SECURITY

The National Guard, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and long-standing 

integration with federal, state and local civil authorities, uniquely connects every 

firehouse to the Pentagon and every state house to the White House. The Adjutants 

General Association of the United States (AGAUS) and the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS) therefore urge the President to direct the Secretary of Defense, and request the Congress where necessary, to authorize, support, 

equip and fund the National Guard to assume a primary homeland security mission. 

Although there is a need for selected units and personnel to be dedicated primarily 

or even exclusively to homeland security, the homeland security mission can be 

most effectively and efficiently accomplished as a dual mission that compliments, 

enhances and draws its essential strength from the National Guard’s continued 

combat force structure, training, and experience (see the Hart-Rudman Commission’s Phase 3 Report). 

Specifically, AGAUS and NGAUS urge implementation of the following key tenets 

of a successful homeland security strategy: 

1. The statutory charter of the National Guard Bureau should be amended 

to reflect its unique role as a channel of communications between the states and 

18

national security authorities. The Bureau is the official channel of communications between the several states and the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force. (10 USC 10501(b)). The charter should be amended to 

also make the Bureau the channel of communications for homeland security between the several states and the supported CONUS CINC, the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. 

2. Authorize and fund a program for National Guard execution of a Gov- ernor’s Plan for Homeland Security. Program oversight and resourcing would be 

provided by the National Guard Bureau based on the decade-long National 

Guard Counter drug Program model in which each state’s Governor adopts and 

administers a program of full-time National Guard support (AGRs) for law enforcement agencies. Within prescribed national standards and guidelines enforced by the Bureau, the Governor’s Plan for each state and territory marshals 

Guard resources to best meet the unique needs of each state and territory. 

3. Provide funding to the National Guard Bureau to complete the fielding of 

National Guard Civil Support Teams (CSTs) in each state and territory. (See 

NEMA–AGAUS–NGAUS–IAEM White Paper on Domestic Preparedness) 

4. Authorize and fund a program for organizing, training and equipping National Guard units for Homeland Security missions. Oversight of the homeland 

security mission should be provided by the National Guard Bureau based on the 

long-standing Garden Plot model in which National Guard units are trained 

and equipped to support civil authorities in crowd control and civil disturbance 

missions. The program should also authorize and fund National Guard training 

with civil authorities, to include local first responders, to assure a heightened 

state of collective preparedness for consequence management of domestic 

CBRNE events. (See NEMA–AGAUS–NGAUS–IAEM White Paper on Domestic 

Preparedness) 

5. Prioritize standardized equipping of state contingency stocks with CBRNE 

equipment, and the equipping of state task forces with modern National Guard 

communications and transportation assets. Each state and territory should have 

self-contained National Guard aviation assets capable of airlifting civilian and 

military homeland security personnel and equipment within and outside the 

state or territory. (See NEMA–AGAUS–NGAUS–IAEM White Paper on Domestic Preparedness) 

6. Increase full-time support to the National Guard military support offices 

of each state, territory and the District of Columbia. Increase full-time National 

Guard homeland security staffing at the National Guard Bureau and Joint 

Forces Command/CJTF–CS. 

7. Authorize and establish a joint state task force in each state, territory and 

the District of Columbia that is staffed appropriate to each mission and which 

is: 

A. Scalable in organizations structure and personnel in modular units 

with a variable command structure dependent upon the size of the task 

force; and 

B. Staffed by Army and Air National Guard soldiers and airmen with 

EPLOs from the federal Reserve Components; and 

C. Commanded by a National Guard officer (in Title 10 ADSW status if 

necessary to exercise command and control of Title 10 military personnel 

who are added to the task force). The grade of the National Guard task 

force commander should be determined by the size and composition of the 

Task Force; and 

D. Under the tactical control (TACON) of the Adjutant General and, in 

turn, the Governor in order to assure unity of command and unity of purpose. 

E. Supportive of the state and federal response plans. 

F. The National Guard POMSO Office would provide the nucleus, planning and exercise functions for the standing task force element. 

8. The Office of Homeland Security should include a National Crisis Action 

Center (NCAC) directed by a two-star National Guard general, with full-time 

representation from the other federal agencies involved in homeland security. 

(see Hart-Rudman Commission report at p. 17) 

One final element needs to be emphasized on behalf of the nation’s governors. Use 

of the National Guard as a primary fusion agent in executing a balanced, integrated 

national domestic security strategy preserves the constitutional role of the sovereign 

states and assures that governors and other state and local civil authorities remain 

responsible and accountable for the public safety and security of their state, territory or local jurisdiction. Use of the National Guard in state active duty status and 

19

in federal pay status under Title 32, USC permits military forces under the control 

of the governor to assist civil authorities in executing all laws, federal, state and 

local, without violating the Posse Comitatus Act. Any attempt to repeal or substantially amend the Posse Comitatus Act would be met by a firestorm of resistance 

from the nation’s governors and state and local civil authorities. 

AGAUS—15 October 2001

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thanks, General Alexander. 

General Monroe, welcome to Washington. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL D. MONROE, JR., ADJUTANT GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, 

CALIFORNIA 

General MONROE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and good 

afternoon to Senator Kyl, too. I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide insights from a State perspective on the role of 

the National Guard in the important homeland security mission. 

While the issue of homeland security is one that has recently 

been thrust in the forefront of national awareness, it is important 

to recognize that these issues and concerns have been a central element of readiness, daily planning and operations at the State level 

for many years. My remarks today are a reflection based on the experience gained from State mobilizations for earthquakes, floods, 

wildfires, and civil disturbances. I have been involved in Federal 

mobilizations to support national security events during Vietnam, 

Desert Storm, and virtually every conflict or peace-keeping activity 

since. 

There are many important reasons for considering the role of the 

National Guard in homeland security. Allow me to describe a few 

of the most crucial that are key to our success and ultimately to 

the success of homeland security of our Nation. 

Specifically, this mission belongs to the National Guard. The National Guard is uniquely positioned to support homeland security 

for three reasons. First, we are the Nation’s homeland force. This 

is why our Founders established the militia. Our units are located 

in over 300 communities across the United States—

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Three thousand. 

General MONROE. Three thousand. Thank you very much. 

The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 

the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. More importantly, we have been the homeland security force since 1636, with 

the formation of the first unit in Massachusetts. 

The National Guard supports civil authorities in a myriad of missions, from community and national security to natural disasters 

and civil disturbances. We have also supported civil authorities in 

missions ranging from the war on drugs to participating in programs to encourage the youth of our Nation to embrace the value 

of education and the social skills that define the fabric of our Nation. 

Finally, the National Guard is an integral element within each 

State government, fully integrated into the States’ emergency response systems, even serving in many cases as the Governor’s executive agent for emergency management, and in all cases the Governor’s trained, equipped and deployable force to meet immediate 

emergency situations. 

20

Homeland security is not the single mission of the National 

Guard, but one that should be codified in law and resourced in conjunction with identified requirements. Current National Guard 

force structure is designated by the active services to support their 

warfighting requirements, and that resource should be maintained 

as the most cost-effective method to meet the needs of the active 

services. 

Adding force structure to the National Guard makes strong fiscal 

and operational sense for two reasons. First, adding homeland security capabilities to the National Guard, as opposed to other components, increases both Federal and State response capabilities. 

This is because a full spectrum of assets are available to both the 

Governor and for Federal mobilization. 

Migrating current combat and combat support capabilities away 

from the National Guard to other components would reduce the 

available support to the active component until the same capabilities could be generated elsewhere. 

Secondly, current capabilities of the National Guard provide the 

capacity currently required by each Governor in exercising military 

support for civil authorities within their State. Any capabilities 

that are migrated out of the National Guard become unavailable to 

the Governor, except under Federal mobilization. 

Homeland security is a function that requires national authorization and coordination. However, planning and execution is best accomplished at the State and local level. In all cases, military support activities under homeland security will be subsequent to and 

in concert with local first responders, such as police, sheriff, firefighters, medical personnel, and emergency management offices. 

This support role necessitates close coordination and planning 

well in advance of any development and response to any specific incident. This planning is best accomplished between the primary 

first responders and the National Guard, who are the military first 

responders. In virtually every State, this planning and coordination 

is routinely accomplished between the first responders and the National Guard as part of the current incident response system. 

The appropriate response for supporting homeland security is to 

balance the current capabilities of the National Guard with the increased needs for this most recent mission. To meet these requirements in the most cost-efficient manner, the National Guard needs 

to establish a core of dedicated units and capabilities for homeland 

security. 

It is not necessary to have 100 percent of the requirements in 

dedicated structure. The likelihood is slight that all National 

Guard units within a State would be federally mobilized in support 

of the Army and Air Force concurrent with requirements for homeland security. But it is possible that relying solely on federallydeployable units to plan, coordinate, exercise and conduct homeland security missions could result in the need for two critical missions being simultaneously required. 

For example, currently the majority of the military police units 

in California have been federally mobilized to support Army and 

Air Force Federal missions. Yet, many of the missions currently 

underway in California could best be accomplished with these types 

of units. It is certainly reasonable to anticipate that assets that are 

21

in demand for homeland security could also be in demand for Federal activation at times of crisis, so some redundant capabilities 

may be necessary. 

To facilitate economy of scale, career management, training efficiencies, and to protect current Federal mobilization requirements, 

establishing a limited dedicated force for homeland security, sized 

to meet the unique requirements of each State, should be authorized. 

There has been demonstrated a recurring need for a national 

method of connecting responsible agencies across local and State, 

as well as agency boundaries. After-action reviews of recent events 

show that this significantly impacts the efficiency of homeland security missions. The National Guard is in the process of fielding a 

nationwide network called GUARDNET that, if extended to all National Guard facilities, would provide low-cost access to first responders nationally. 

Extending GUARDNET to all National Guard facilities and first 

responders could resolve the issue of the lack of an integrated 

warning information system such as that identified by authors 

Colonel Randall J. Lawson and Dr. Ruth A. David in their article. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. General Monroe, I neglected to tell you 

about the red light. We are asking people generally to be confined 

to 5 minutes. If you could possibly sum up briefly, then we will get 

to questions. 

General MONROE. Indeed. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Senator Kyl and I both have an Intelligence Committee hearing in about a half hour and I think we 

need to go to that. 

General MONROE. And I probably would have gone that long if 

you hadn’t stopped me. 

In summary, then, the National Guard is the logical source for 

first military responders for homeland security. That need can best 

be met through limited increases to the National Guard force structure capability dedicated to this mission. 

The national command authority must establish overall policy 

and maintain oversight of the development and training of these 

new responsibilities. However, each State must develop its own 

plan, based on Federal policy, that best meets the unique needs of 

each State. Success will be achieved through proper organization, 

equipping and training those National Guard units to meet critical 

shortfalls in accordance with the Governors’ State plans and ensuring connectivity and coordination between the civilian and military 

first responders. 

Homeland security requirements are an extension of the current 

military support-civil authority mission continuum that has been 

the hallmark of National Guard operations for over 350 years. With 

proper authorization and resources, the National Guard will accomplish this mission requirement with distinction, with no degradation to the support we have committed to the Army and the Air 

Force. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Monroe follows:]

22

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL D. MONROE, JR. 

Good Morning, Madam Chairwoman and other distinguished members of this 

committee. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to provide insights from the 

states perspective, on the role of the National Guard in the important Homeland 

Security mission 

While the issue of homeland security is one that has recently been thrust to the 

forefront of national awareness, it is important to recognize that these issues and 

concerns have been a central element of readiness, daily planning and operations 

at the state level for many years. My remarks today are a reflection, based on the 

experience gained from state mobilizations for earthquakes, floods, wildfires, and 

civil disturbances. I have been involved in federal mobilizations to support national 

security events dating to Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and virtually every conflict or 

peacekeeping activity since. 

There are many important reasons for considering the role of the National Guard 

in homeland security. Allow me to describe a few of the most crucial that are key 

to our success, and ultimately to the success of homeland security for our nation. 

Specifically: 

1. The Mission Belongs to the National Guard 

The National Guard is uniquely positioned to support Homeland Security for 

three reasons. 

a. First, we are The Nation’s homeland force. This is why our founders established the Militia. Our units are located in over 3000 communities across the 

United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 

the Territories of Guam and The US Virgin Islands. 

b. More importantly, we have been the homeland security force since 1636 

with the formation of the first unit in Massachusetts. The National Guard supports civil authorities in a myriad of missions, from community and national security to natural disasters and civil disturbances. We have also supported civil 

authorities in missions ranging from the war on drugs to participating in programs to encourage the youth of our nation to embrace the values, education, 

and social skills that define the fabric of our nation. 

c. Finally, the National Guard is an integral element within each state government, fully integrated into state emergency response systems, even serving 

in many cases as the governor’s executive agent for emergency management, 

and in all cases as the governor’s trained, equipped, and deployable force to 

meet immediate emergency situations. 

2. Increase the Capability of the National Guard, without transferring existing capabilities to other components of the Armed Services. 

Homeland Security is not the single mission of the National Guard but one that 

should be codified in law and resourced in conjunction with identified requirements. 

Current National Guard force structure is designated by the active services to support their war fighting requirements, and that resource should be maintained as the 

most cost-effective method to meet the needs of the active services. 

Adding force structure to the National Guard makes strong fiscal and operational 

sense for two reasons. First, adding Homeland Security capabilities to the National 

Guard, as opposed to other components, increases both the federal and the state response capabilities. This, because the full spectrum of assets are available to both 

the Governor and for Federal Mobilization. Migrating current combat and combat 

support capabilities away from the National Guard to other components would reduce the available support to the active component, until the same capabilities could 

be generated elsewhere. Secondly, current capabilities of the National Guard provide the capacity currently required by each governor in exercising military support 

to the civil authorities within their state. Any capabilities that are migrated out of 

the National Guard become unavailable to the governor, except under federal mobilization. 

3. The need for Local Control 

Homeland Security is a function that requires national authorization and coordination, however, planning and execution is best accomplished at the state and local 

level. In all cases, military support activities under homeland security will be subsequent to, and in concert with, local first responders such as; police, sheriff, firefighters, medical personnel, and emergency management offices. This support role 

necessitates close coordination and planning well in advance of any deployment in 

response to any specific incident. This planning is best accomplished between the 

primary first responders and the National Guard, who are the military first responders. In virtually every state, this planning and coordination is routinely accomplished between the first responders and the National Guard as part of the current 

incident response system. 

23

4. The Need for Limited Dedicated, Scaleable Force Structure. 

The appropriate response for supporting Homeland Security, is to balance the current capabilities in the National Guard with the increased needs for this most recent mission. To meet these requirements in the most cost efficient manner, the National Guard needs to establish a core of dedicated units and capabilities for Homeland Security. It is not necessary to have 100% of the requirements in dedicated 

structure. The likelihood is slight that all National Guard units within a state 

would be federally mobilized in support of the Army and Air Force, concurrent with 

requirements for Homeland Security. 

But, it is possible that relying solely on federally deployable units to plan, coordinate, exercise, and conduct homeland security missions could result in the need for 

two critical missions being simultaneously required. For example, currently, the majority of the military police units in California have been federally mobilized to support Army and Air Force federal missions, yet many of the missions currently underway in California could best be accomplished with these types of units. It is certainly reasonable to anticipate that assets that are in demand for Homeland Security could also be in demand for federal activation in times of crisis, so some redundant capabilities may be necessary. To facilitate economy of scale, career management, training efficiencies, and to protect current federal mobilization requirements, 

establishing a limited dedicated force for homeland security, sized to meet the 

unique requirements of each state, should be authorized. 

5. The Need for Connectivity 

There has been demonstrated a reoccurring need for a national method of connecting responsible agencies across local and state as well as agency boundaries. 

After action reviews of recent events show that this need significantly impacts the 

efficiency of homeland security missions. The National Guard is in the process of 

fielding a nationwide network called GUARDNET that, if extended to all National 

Guard facilities, could provide low cost access to first responders nationally. Extending GUARDNET to all National Guard facilities and first responders could resolve 

the issue of the lack of an integrated warning/information/coordination system, such 

as that identified in Homeland Defense: State of the Union, May 2001 (Col Randall 

J Larson & Dr. Ruth A. David) 

6. The need for coordinated training 

One need look no farther than the recent events of 9–11 to recognize the need 

for a standardized and coordinated training effort that ties together all of the various elements that respond to homeland security and Military Support to Civil Authorities. The greater the event, the more critical coordinated training in advance 

of the incident becomes. When a military organization responds in direct support 

of a single agency, on-site coordination and training can be effective. When an event 

reaches the proportions of the events of September 11, the criticality of immediate 

response can quickly overcome the availability of training time. 

Deploying first responders, be they civil authorities or soldiers as first military responders, with inadequate or ad hoc training diminishes the effectiveness of the response and increases the potential for error. The National Guard has developed and 

is deploying a Distributed Training Technology Program that provides two way 

audio-visual and data capabilities. 

Today in the United States, approximately 74% of the 30,000 fire departments are 

staffed primarily by volunteer fire fighters. The 785,000 volunteer fire fighters 

would benefit tremendously by having state-of-the-art training available through 

their local National Guard armory, and the Guard’s Distributed Training Technology Program can provide that capability. 

Another example of the complexity and breadth of the training requirement is the 

law enforcement community in California. California has 525 different local law enforcement agencies. These include 58 county sheriffs and 5 county marshals, 349 police departments, 10 police departments of the University of California, 23 State 

College police departments, 19 police departments at the public school level, and 31 

community college police departments; plus the California Highway Patrol and various transit police departments as well as federal agencies that could respond to 

major events within the state. 

Accelerating and extending the fielding of the Distributed Training Technology 

Program (DTTP) would serve three purposes. 

First, the military readiness of the National Guard to respond to both Homeland 

Security and National Defense missions would be greatly enhanced. 

Second, the DTTP classrooms would provide first responders access to state of 

the art training, provided locally, on a schedule that meets the requirements of the 

local volunteer. This training can include incident response training, initial and refresher training, and coordinating activities across functional and departmental 

lines. 

24

Finally, the capability of two way voice & data communications (Video-Tele Conferencing) at the local level provides the capability for continued governmental operations during crisis situations by enabling each armory to serve as a local incident 

command center or alternate government office. 

7. The need for a state specific plan 

The need for a plan that is specific to each state’s requirements cannot be overstated. No two states will have the same homeland security needs. To begin with, 

the potential mission requirements will vary from state to state. While some states, 

such as California, may have requirements to plan for supporting seaport activities, 

others will not. Some states coordinate with federal agencies to address international borders. Additionally, each state has their own unique mix of first responders and existing National Guard capabilities. Most critically, the governor of each 

respective state is individual who bears the responsibility for planning and conducting emergency operations. Whether these incidents are natural disasters or acts 

of terrorism, the governor is responsible for the public safety of the citizens of each 

state. 

The final program adopted by this Congress must provide to the governor the 

means to develop (within reason of course) a capability and resource mix that balances needs of the state with existing capabilities and allocates new resources to 

those requirements that mitigate the greatest risk. Additionally, states need to be 

able to use commercial off-the-shelf technologies to meet specialized requirements, 

whenever this method is proven to be most effective. 

It is anticipated that the majority of requirements in state specific plans will center on six major functions to strengthen capabilities within the state. These are: 

a. Command, Control, and Liaison Capabilities to plan, practice, and perform 

the integration of military assets and civilian first responders to best meet the 

needs of the state. 

b. Fill critical transportation requirements for both ground transportation and 

aviation shortfalls. We recognize from recent operations that timeliness is critical in responding to homeland security requirements, and in most states the 

available transportation assets are woefully inadequate to support projected 

needs. 

• The aviation posture of the National Guard on 9/11 was that over 54% of our 

fleet of aircraft was obsolete and targeted for retirement with no replacements 

in the pipeline. The current proposal is to retire the current Viet Nam era airframes and to re-allocate the remaining airframes, (dating to 1977) across the 

entire force. The net impact will be a reduction from the current 1100 Utility 

& Cargo airframes (CH47, UH1, UH60 only) to an end state of 799, an overall 

reduction of nearly 28% The relative impacts on representative states is as follows:

• In California, we are short 440 HUMMV vehicles (nationally the shortfall to 

meet current requirements is in excess of 6000 vehicles), we are short 185 line 

haul tractors, and our cargo truck fleet includes over 1100 trucks that date to 

19531973. While this represents the current situation in California, I suspect 

a similar situation exists throughout the National Guard. 

• Furthermore, these trucks are specifically designed for off-road applications, 

which limits their speed, their cargo hauling capabilities, and their fuel efficiency. Anyone stuck behind a National Guard Convoy on a two-lane road 

understandsthe limitations of applying tactical vehicles to over-the-road applications. 

c. Chemical-Biological Reconnaissance and Decontamination. Some states, 

such as California have been assigned Civil Support teams, but the majority of 

states are still short this capability, and in large states additional teams may 


10754a1.eps
25

well be required. In the three months following 9/11, the 9th Civil Support 

Team, stationed in California, has already responded to eight different deployments, including deploying across state lines for a national event. 

d. Medical Response Capabilities. Virtually all medical capabilities, in excess 

of basic first aid medics, have been removed from the Army National Guard. 

This has severely reduced the Governor’s homeland security medical response 

capability. The US Air Force Surgeon General and the Air National Guard have 

developed a low cost solution that will provide an excellent medical response for 

both natural disasters and homeland security events. 

e. Law Enforcement Capabilities. The value of additional law enforcement resources for homeland security assets cannot be overstated. Most of the current 

deployments both in California and nationally could be best accomplished with 

trained, equipped law enforcement units, but most of our law enforcement 

trained units have already been deployed to federal missions, in many cases 

outside the state. 

f. Engineer Capabilities. As with medical capabilities, much of the engineering capabilities in excess of battlefield engineering have been migrated outside 

the National Guard. In California, we have lost our vertical construction capabilities, our earthmoving and infrastructure repair capabilities, and most critically, our bridging assets. While it would appear that there is little call for 

emergency bridging in homeland security, every year while we still had the capability, our bridge unit was deployed to rescue people stranded by floods or 

bridge failures, and to capture and recover structures and items that were creating safety and navigation hazards. Additionally many states may need to develop Explosive Ordinance Disposal or Urban Search and Rescue capabilities. 

8. The need for dedicated resources. 

It is critical that in developing America’s response to preparing for homeland security we stand ready to provide the resources required by the individual plans of 

each state. This will not be inexpensive, but it is critical to the success of homeland 

preparedness. 

Based on the critical shortfall in aviation, one should anticipate that many states 

require additional aviation to accomplish homeland security requirements. The current cost of an 8 helicopter Blackhawk company, critical for rapid transportation of 

personnel and supplies, search and rescue, medivac operations, command and control, and other transportation support can easily exceed 100 million dollars each. 

The cost of equipping a nuclear, chemical, biological decontamination unit is between 7 and 8 million dollars, depending on the equipment mix. 

The cost of establishing regional training capabilities to facilitate integration of 

civil and military operations is estimated 55 million dollars. 

9. Homeland Security: a mission continuum not a conversion 

From my experience, the most effective way to meet evolving needs is to adapt 

the proven system currently in place rather than develop a new bureaucracy. By 

tradition and by law, during normal peacetime operations the National Guard provides first, and usually all, Military Support to Civil Authorities. Processes and procedures are already in place and utilized for the National Guard to respond to the 

needs of civil authorities, whatever those needs are and however large they are. 

The system was tragically exercised by the terrorist attacks of 9–11, and the system worked. Even under the most dire conditions, faced with circumstances no one 

could envision beforehand, emergency response managers adapted the processes of 

the current system to bring into place all the required capabilities of the National 

Guard. 

The New York National Guard initially responded to the exigent needs of the situation, then adapted its response to meet the needs identified by civil authority, 

which it is still doing today. The response of the New York National Guard, assisted 

by the National Guards of New Jersey, Connecticut, the National Guard Bureau, 

and, if only in a small way, the California National Guard, was in keeping with the 

best traditions of the National Guard. The heroic response of all the emergency responders is an affirmation of the proficiency of the emergency response system. 

10. The need for early and frequent dedicated coordination 

An adage we use in the military is that we fight as we train. More correctly in 

this context is that those actions and activities that have been pre-coordinated and 

rehearsed in peace, become routine and fluid during crisis periods. It is absolutely 

critical to recognize that unlike most military operations, 100% of homeland security 

operations will be in response to unfriendly acts accomplished in friendly environments. 

The effectiveness of the integration of military support into a local situation will 

be dependent on the extent of pre-coordination and cooperation that exists at the 

outset. It is for this reason that we in California feel so strongly that in establishing 

26

the structure necessary for homeland security, it not be an ad-hoc organization, but 

rather one that is dedicated to the coordination, liaison, planning and execution of 

Homeland Security as a primary mission focus. 

Additionally, the design of the structure must be flexible enough to accommodate 

the unique needs of each state. It is unlikely that few other states will face the same 

breadth of coordination with law enforcement personnel that we have in California. 

Conversely, it is likely that more rural states will have a greater need for coordination with volunteer firefighting agencies, and all states will face ongoing challenges 

to balance legal and environmental concerns, coordination challenges, and training 

shortfalls. Only through ongoing liaison and coordination with local, state, and federal government, first responders, and the general public, can these concerns be best 

satisfied. 

Summary 

In summary, the National Guard is the logical source of first military responders 

for homeland security. That need can best be met through limited increases to the 

National Guard force structure capability, dedicated to this mission. The National 

Command Authority must establish overall policy, and maintain oversight of the development and training of these new responsibilities. However, each state must develop its own plan, based on federal policy, that best meets the unique needs of each 

state Success will be achieved through proper organization, equipping, and training 

those National Guard units to meet critical shortfalls (in accordance with the Governors State Plans) and ensuring connectivity and coordination between the civilian 

and military first responders. 

Homeland Security requirements are an extension of the current Military Support 

to Civil Authority mission continuum that has been a hallmark of National Guard 

operations for over 350 years. With proper authorization and resources, your National Guard will accomplish this mission requirement with distinction and with no 

degradation to the support we have committed to the Army and Air Force. 

It has been my distinct pleasure to be here today, I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on this critically important aspect and mission of the National Guard. 

I welcome any questions you may have.

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you, General Monroe. 

I will begin the questions. 

The first question is for General Libutti. Attorney General 

Ashcroft and Canadian Cabinet members recently entered into 

agreements to tighten security along the U.S.-Canadian border. 

Under these agreements, it is my understanding that 600 United 

States National Guard troops will augment overworked Customs 

and Immigration agents at the border, and also help speed up commerce. I believe the mission is supposed to last 6 to 12 months. 

I am informed that the Defense Department decided last Friday 

that the National Guard will be federalized—that is, mobilized 

under Title 10 of the U.S. Code—rather than remain under the 

control of the relevant State Governors; that is, mobilized under 

Title 32 of the U.S. Code. However, I am also told that the Justice 

Department believes that this is an issue still ‘‘under discussion.’’

My question is this: has this administration decided yet whether 

the National Guardsmen, given this border security mission, will 

be federalized? 

General LIBUTTI. Yes, ma’am. In response to, I think, what I discern as the two primary questions—one is what is the status in 

terms of whether they are federalized or not, and then how indeed 

do we see them in support of other lead Federal agencies—the answer is, number one, they will be federalized, and the decision 

taken to do that under Title 10 is correct, yes, ma’am. 

The second piece is that these forces, and I would add parenthetically the identification of individuals who will support that 

effort, is underway and we hope that we will have boots on the 

ground, so to speak, within the next 2 weeks. 

27

But that effort will indeed appear in what we believe is the 

smartest, wisest way to do business; that is, those forces will be 

working—that is, take their duty or task—from the lead Federal 

agency for whom they will work, whether it is Border Patrol, Customs, or INS, which legally in terms of legal authority permits us 

to exercise our law enforcement capabilities and responsibilities in 

support of security at the border. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

I would like to hand you a letter which is signed by Chairman 

Leahy, Senator Murray, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Cantwell on 

this subject, if I might. 

General LIBUTTI. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Let me go to the next question. In a September 20, 2001, report GAO noted confusion between the National 

Guard’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams and the 

FBI as far as who would have the lead role in providing guidance 

to first responders. 

In that report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 

reach a written agreement with the Director of the FBI that clarifies the roles of the National Guard teams in relation to the FBI. 

DOD, it is my understanding, concurred with that recommendation. 

Has such an agreement been reached, and if not, why not? 

General LIBUTTI. Ma’am, I don’t know whether an agreement has 

been reached. I have no personal knowledge of that and I will do 

my homework and follow up and provide a response. What I can 

tell you is that under the circumstances for employment and support by our CSTs, the FBI does have lead in that and we support 

the FBI, were our teams called upon to support that event, whatever that event or situation might be. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

General LIBUTTI. That is, ma’am, what we would call the standard procedure in terms of employment of those forces. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. The FBI would be the first responder? 

General LIBUTTI. First responders would be those first on the 

scene. The FBI would have authority as they moved on to the scene 

and we would take our lead from the FBI. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

General Davis, in 1999 Congress authorized the creation of 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, each consisting 

of 22 National Guardsmen. These teams were created with the purpose of responding to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. The authorizing legislation required that none of the teams be 

used to respond to an emergency unless the Secretary of Defense 

certifies that the team has the requisite skills, training, and equipment to be proficient in all mission requirements. 

Although the first ten teams were originally scheduled to be fully 

operational by January of 2000, none of them were certified until 

July 2001. Congress has now authorized a total of 32 teams. 

My question is how many of the 32 teams Congress has authorized have been certified by the Department of Defense? 

General DAVIS. Well, we still have just those original ten teams 

that have been certified. It is done in three phases, ma’am, 10 in 

28

the first phase, 17 in the second phase, and 5 which were recently 

announced in the third phase. 

Those teams that are in the phase two portion of it have completed—about 60 percent of them have completed their training 

and the remaining few are in training now, with 3 or 4 to complete 

their training in January. We hope that if things go as well as they 

have up to this point with the successful training and the equipment flow, we hope to have those teams certified sometime in the 

late winter, anticipating that some will be certified not long after. 

Those that have completed their training are doing a little followon training, following what we call an external evaluation which is 

done just to standardize it and make sure they meet all the quality 

performance standards at Ford Leonard Wood, and that is a consolidated program, so we do it across the Nation, the same standards. As we complete that program, a few weeks after that their 

paperwork will be submitted, and I think some of the paperwork 

is flowing through now, ma’am, on those teams. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Now, when did you say they would all 

be certified? 

General DAVIS. The final 32 teams—the last 5 which were just 

recently announced in October, we are working now to staff those 

teams and to get equipment for them. We would hope that we 

could do that in about 15 to 16 months, ma’am. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Allow me one parochial question. When 

will the 95th Civil Support Team, headquartered in the San Francisco Bay area, be certified? 

General DAVIS. Paul? 

General MONROE. We think by the end of January. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Of next year? 

General DAVIS. Yes. That is the final team. That will be the second team in California, ma’am, as you are aware. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kyl? 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

General LIBUTTI. Ma’am, may I add to a point that you raised 

with me just for clarification in terms of an incident site or a situation that would require employment of the CSTs? 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Yes. 

General LIBUTTI. Oftentimes, it simply wouldn’t be first responders and FBI. There would most likely be Department of Energy 

folks, as well, on scene. So, again, just to clarify the situation, we 

would normally be in support of either the Department of Energy 

or the FBI. It would depend on the situation and the timing in 

terms of how this incident was unfolding. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thanks, General. That is helpful. Thank 

you. 

Senator? 

Senator KYL. Along that same line, General Libutti, let me just 

give you this hypothetical. Tomorrow morning, a bioattack is discovered in the nature of some kind of dispensing of smallpox in the 

New York City area and there is a mass exodus of people, or attempted mass exodus of people out of that area. It is highly contagious, of course, and you would want to do some kind of a quarantine. 

29

Would the National Guard be ordered to preclude New Yorkers 

from leaving the area and spreading the disease around the country? 

General LIBUTTI. Sir, if I can respond by addressing it in the following way, what we would hope would happen both at the national level and State and local would be an effort that would be 

one in concert with the other. We would hope that we would get 

initial assessment from first responders and a second assessment 

and request for support from the mayor or the Governor, and at 

that point, and I am talking minutes, not hours, an appropriate response or a call made to either Governor Ridge—and I am playing 

out your hypothetical if you will permit me—or to the President assessing the situation, identifying what the immediate need appears 

to be, and a decision therefore made in concert with the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies on how we might respond immediately—that is, with Federal response forces—if, 

again, requested and if we assess it as appropriate. 

So I mean the point is that certainly in an emergency all hands, 

all Federal agencies, including the Guard, reserve, active forces, if 

you will, would be prepared to support. Again, I am playing 

through this hypothetical with you. 

Senator KYL. Sure, and the question is intended as purely hypothetical and with all the normal caveats that we don’t have all of 

the facts, and so on. 

General LIBUTTI. Yes, sir. 

Senator KYL. But it is a helpful answer. I am going to extrapolate a little bit. I gather the answer is, yes, that could be and, in 

fact, might well be part of the response quickly to such an event 

if the proper call were made. 

General LIBUTTI. Now, you have pushed the right button for me 

and I am thinking as a former operator. The concerns I would have 

would be, of course, with the health issue, the contamination issue, 

the isolation of the area, protection of key facilities, et cetera, et 

cetera. 

Certainly, the police, fire department and health agencies within 

New York City would be on-scene and doing their very best, and 

then it is a matter of what other Federal or local or State assets 

could you bring to bear very quickly. 

Senator KYL. I guess there are two things that I wanted to get 

out of this, and purely hypothetical. The first is that it is quite possible that the homeland defense office would order, through the appropriate channels, in an appropriate way, nearly immediately 

upon request the Guard to help resolve that kind of a situation. 

General LIBUTTI. Certainly a viable option, absolutely, sir. 

Senator KYL. By the way, I am not advocating anything here. I 

am trying to illustrate a point here, and this is the second point 

that within the Office of Homeland Defense there is, as you say, 

an exploration of operational solutions for the future, which I 

would presume include a lot of at least tentative notions as to what 

you would do tomorrow if it happened. 

General LIBUTTI. That specific point supports your point, as well 

as our sense that it is critical that we very carefully review the unified command plan that is underway now and we hope to close fairVerDate Feb 1 2002 14:38 Dec 12, 2002 Jkt 082426 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\HEARINGS\82426.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
30

ly soon, the Secretary does, because part of that will examine the 

wisdom and efficacy of standing up a CINC for homeland security. 

I won’t go down that road in terms of options you are, I am sure, 

aware of, but that is key critical to decisions relative to, in my 

view, the future role of the Guard, the reserve, and those active 

forces that might be called upon to support the CINC for homeland 

security and then the national or regional situation that may 

present itself. So I am agreeing with you, sir. 

Senator KYL. Right, and with due regard for, as you describe in 

your statement, a proper balance between the needs of warfighters 

abroad and the need to defend the Nation at home. 

I think, General Alexander, you made the same point at the beginning of your testimony and I am sure all of you would agree 

with that. 

So that is the point that I wanted to make here, and I think 

what we are most interested in here on the committee is—and our 

role as the Judiciary Committee relates to terrorism and any legal 

things that would have to be done here. Obviously, the Armed 

Services Committee has a larger role in terms of the unified command issues and the like. 

We want to make sure that there is a process in place for anticipating what might happen and having the most appropriate forces 

prepared and ready to go so that there is no hesitancy at the time 

of a tragedy about what the options are and who has the authority 

to do what and the like. 

General LIBUTTI. I think it is altogether fitting and proper, as my 

colleagues here on the panel have indicated, that we take a hard 

and proper review of the role of the Guard and reserve, for that 

matter, in the future, in the 21st century, relative to homeland security. It is absolutely critical we do that. 

Back to the point we have all made, the balance piece is also key 

critical, as well as understanding the apportionment of forces in 

this one pot called Department of Defense assets. If there were to 

be a change, and it is smart after an appropriate review, we need 

to be very careful how we deal with that so that we don’t eviscerate 

or destroy the current standard, which is fight the fight at home 

and fight the fight abroad. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. That is very helpful. 

General DAVIS. If I might, please, the Department of Defense in 

their reserve affairs office has just kicked off a study which will 

look at that. Is that the right mix? Do we have the right people 

in the National Guard and the reserve and in the active component? That study has kicked off and it will be completed sometime 

in the late spring, I believe. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. I suppose an argument can be made, 

well, just leave things the way they are and the right things are 

going to happen, depending upon the situation, and it protects the 

primary mission of the Guard. I am not sure that is the case. 

I mean, I think we are into a very unusual time. Who would 

have thought that the events of the anthrax incidents, looking at 

cropdusters, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the fear that 

something else is going to happen—we have never been in that 

arena before and the longer I am around, the more I think the kind 

31

of primary military response is really the protection of the homeland. 

I don’t know another entity to do it and I have been somewhat 

puzzled by Defense not wanting to take a position here because I 

think we need to very aggressively define it. If you need more 

money, say so, but really get these teams certified—I mean, it has 

been slow going—and move ahead. 

Of all the witnesses today in terms of what I would like to see 

accomplished, General Monroe was the most forthcoming with 

opinion, and I think maybe General Alexander. My understanding 

is that the Guard Association is in favor of moving in this direction. 

Is that correct? 

General ALEXANDER. The associations are in favor of homeland 

security being a primary mission for the National Guard. They advocate resourcing the structures that exist now to the extent that 

they can perform effectively the homeland security mission, while 

in dual status it can accomplish missions abroad. 

When the Guard was born, our military was not an expeditionary 

force. The sole intention was to protect the homeland. But this has 

evolved, as you mentioned, since 1903 to date, so we have an obligation to not only protect at home, but to protect abroad. Some 

would say the first responders are those that are on the ground in 

Afghanistan protecting the homeland. 

So there has to be a conscious mix of modifying our force to the 

extent that we can satisfy the homeland while satisfying our obligations abroad because there is no separate and distinct—we are 

no longer isolated anymore. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. That is correct. 

General Monroe, do you want to comment on that? 

General MONROE. Yes. I think it is important that we develop a 

force within each State that is a Governor’s asset that they can respond to these things with because the military on the ground at 

the World Trade Center was the New York National Guard, and 

the New Jersey National Guard supported them. But that is what 

is going to happen. 

If there is an event that occurs in a particular State, the firefighters and the police officers are going to respond to it, and then 

the National Guard. And if it is more than the National Guard can 

handle, then there has to be Federal support. But if there was a 

force that could rapidly react to that, it could minimize the damage 

that was done during the incident. 

General LIBUTTI. Ma’am, if I might add, just hitchhiking on a 

point you made about the DOD position, as I tried to articulate the 

concept or approach that we are looking at now—and I would add 

I have been on the job about five-and-a-half weeks now, and am 

proud and pleased to be where I am. 

As I discuss this in great detail with Secretary White and other 

leadership in the Department, our concept, as I tried to again express, is when we think of homeland security, we think of the elements of that being homeland defense, unique capabilities and actions performed and led by the Department of Defense, and then 

the rest under the block called support for civil authority. That is 

the way we are trying to define now, currently, how we support our 

32

Governors, how we support our National situation in terms of terrorism, and how we intend to do it in the future. 

I applaud the initiative to pull the veneer back and look very 

carefully at the role of the Guard. Again, my point is that we 

should be very circumspect; we should not be premature in making 

judgments to change things until we see the results of reviews that 

are already underway and should be closed by the spring in terms 

of what DOD is doing to look holistically at the role of the Guard 

and reserve, what we are doing inside DOD, and that is to stand 

up what we hope will be an under secretary of defense, coupled 

with what Governor Ridge is doing, and that is organizing his team 

and also developing a national strategy for homeland security. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Well, wait one second. So this wouldn’t 

necessarily be under Governor Ridge. It would be under an assistant secretary. Is that correct? 

General LIBUTTI. I work, again, for Secretary White. He is the 

Executive Agent for Homeland Security for the Department of Defense and I am his special assistant. My charter is to work the dayto-day issues that come to the Defense Department relative to 

homeland security and to stand up, without new structure, but 

stand up an organization that combines current assets that work 

with homeland security but not under one leadership or one organization within DOD. So what we have started is something within 

the last 4 to 5 weeks to create an Office of Homeland Security 

within DOD. 

General MONROE. Madam Chair, one other point, too. As you 

have pointed out, I have been around a long time and the Guard 

used to be involved in a similar way that we are talking about now. 

We had these air defense sites, where most of the people that 

manned these sites were full-time. They were along both coasts and 

they were operated by the National Guard as air defense for the 

United States against Soviet bombers. Well, when they developed 

intercontinental ballistic missiles, then those sites went away. 

We also have something called the counter-drug program that we 

have been working for the last 10 years, and we are doing similar 

missions to this new mission that has come up along the border 

and we are doing it in Title 32, working for the same agencies that 

have requested this support. I can’t think of a State that didn’t advocate that this be done under Title 32 because it is just, as we see 

it, a continuation of what we are already doing. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. I am a little puzzled that they used Title 

10 myself. 

I would like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the committee. Mr. Chairman, if you have some comments, we would be 

delighted to hear them. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I do, Senator, and I thank you for doing this 

and I apologize for popping in and out. I am trying to juggle two 

other committees. 

General Davis, it is good to see you again. I know you were well 

received in Vermont. I talked with General Rainville earlier about 

this hearing, and she sends her best. 

33

General Alexander, it is always good to see you. 

I think Senator Feinstein deserves an enormous amount of credit 

for doing this at a far busier time of the Senate session than I 

think either she or I ever thought it would be. So I applaud her 

for doing it. 

I was glad to see Senator Bond come here. He and I co-chair the 

85-member Senate Guard Caucus, something that we both think of 

with pride. 

In Vermont, it is easy to talk about those kinds of things. We led 

the Nation in the per capita number of our reserves and Guard 

who were called up in the fight against terrorism. Within hours of 

the terrible events of the 11th, we had the Green Mountain Boys, 

our Air Guard, flying F–16s over New York City, the F–16 Fighting 

Falcons. I must admit they make it from Burlington, Vermont, to 

New York City a lot quicker than I have ever been able to go, and 

they don’t lose your luggage along the way. So I applaud that. 

But you know how difficult that is when you are trying to coordinate, and be able to do it almost immediately, to coordinate the 

turnaround, just as you can imagine, General Monroe, the logistics 

of somebody saying, okay, we are going from this to suddenly being 

down there. 

General Libutti, you know in the Department of the Air Force 

when you are trying to mesh all those things, it looks great on 

paper, but you want to make sure it works when you actually do 

it. 

So I think that they deserve a great deal of credit, obviously not 

only the Vermont Guard, but throughout the country, because they 

are the premier homeland defense force, and they have been proving it. 

I have some concerns, and I understand Senator Feinstein has 

already put in the record a letter on this, but my concern about the 

administration considering establishing a central military homeland security command. I worry about how it might impact on the 

Federal-State balance, especially as the Guard is concerned. 

Would Guard forces, for example, be called up continually under 

Federal active-duty status? Do they become indistinguishable from 

their active counterparts? Do the 50 Governors of our States and 

the adjutants general have control over the forces that serve within 

their States? If we go on the border, for example, do we suddenly 

have Guard units from California in the Burlington, Vermont, airport or along our borders? Are Vermont Guard people along the 

border in the State of Washington and Canada, or Michigan, and 

so on? 

Do you bring them under Title 10, placing them on Federal active duty under an out-of-state command? That is what kind of 

worries me, especially when we talk about along the northern border, 4,000 miles of it. 

I worry about the Governors and the adjutants general losing 

control of their own forces. On the other hand, under Title 32, as 

I understand it, Guard troops are federalized for pay and allowances, but the Governors and the State adjutants general maintain 

command and control. That is why the Washington State delegation and those of us from Vermont sent a letter to Governor Ridge 

on this basis. 

34

Every single Governor is making homeland security and emergency response a priority. I mean, there is not a Governor in the 

country that is not looking at everything from bioterrorism to every 

other kind. Here in the Congress, we have been wrestling with 

this. Some of us, I must admit, have probably focused a little bit 

more in recent days on the question of anthrax, but we all have an 

interest in this. 

I just don’t want to take the Guard, which has performed so well 

in all the States—I know it has in California and every other 

State—I don’t want to start reinventing the wheel here and take 

what is a well-working organization and turn it into something 

else. 

So those are just some ruminations of mine. Again, I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that the Senator from California is holding this hearing. 

I must say, Madam Chair, that you couldn’t have four better people to be here to discuss it with you. Any questions I have I will 

submit for the record, but I just wanted to come over and make 

those comments. I know you have put our letter in the record, and 

I thank you for doing this at a very busy time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her work in organizing this important hearing. 

As the co-chair of the 85-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus, I am intensely interested in the emerging role that is being taken by the National Guard 

in homeland defense. In Vermont we take particular pride in our National Guard—

the fabled Green Mountain Boys. In fact, Vermont leads the nation in the per capita 

number of reserves called up to fight in the war on terrorism. If you have visited 

Ground Zero, you have probably run across citizen-soldiers from the Green Mountain Boys protecting the site or have seen the contrails overhead of the Vermont 

Air National Guard F–16 Fighting Falcons that have flown continuous air patrols 

over New York City since September 11. They have handled these difficult and unprecedented assignments with grace and, while doing so, they and their families and 

their employers have made sacrifices for which the nation is grateful. 

I welcome all of our witnesses to the Senate. Senator Bond, I appreciate your taking the time to be with us to introduce this subject. I value our partnership in working on National Guard Caucus issues, and I look forward to facing next session’s 

challenges together. General Davis, I have enjoyed working with you over this past 

year, and I want to congratulate you on your approaching retirement. General 

Libutti, I appreciate your giving us a broader Army perspective on the emerging role 

of the Guard in Homeland Defense. I am especially glad we have an Adjutant General of the United States, General Paul D. Monroe of California, and the executive 

director of the National Guard Association of the United States, retired Major General Richard Alexander. Your insights will be critical to our deliberations. As always, I also value highly the counsel I receive from General Martha Rainville of 

Vermont. 

On all fronts, the National Guard is performing incredibly well with the assignments given Guard units in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. They are proving 

every day that they are the nation’s premier homeland defense force. Guard Interceptors from New Jersey, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts, in addition to Vermont, have flown continuous air patrols over New York City 

and Washington since September 11. Thousands of troops from the Guard are 

standing watch at our airports and, soon, at our immigration posts. What makes 

these contributions all the more impressive is that all of it has been done under 

longstanding authorities with little question about chains of command and local control. 

While I am glad that we are convening today, I have to admit that I am concerned 

that—despite these real accomplishments since September 11—the Administration 

is actively considering establishing a central, military homeland security command. 

35

Such a command has serious implications since it could have a negative impact on 

the Guard and the balance of powers between the federal and state government. 

Basically, this approach does with the military domestically what the GoldwaterNichols legislation did for structuring how we fight wars abroad. The GoldwaterNichols law created a Unified Command Plan that invested responsibility for operational control in wartime with various regional commands. That legislation in the 

mid-1980s left homeland defense operations within the borders of the United States 

untouched because it raised too many objections about involving the military excessively in civilian affairs. 

While we have seen the fruits of this landmark legislation in our ongoing fight 

against terrorism abroad, I wonder if we have really thought through the implications of extending the command plan to the United States. We need to ask what 

it would gain us and what it would cost us to impose such a change on the National 

Guard. Would Guard forces be called up continually under federal active duty status, becoming indistinguishable from the their active counterparts? How would the 

nation’s Governors and Adjutants General have control over the forces serving in 

their states? 

Several of the concerns about creating a central homeland security command that 

uses the Guard mirror some of the issues raised by the recent discussions about 

bringing forces to supplement the INS along the porous 4000-mile Northern Border. 

There is question about whether to bring these force on under Title 10 status, which 

places Guard forces on federal active duty under an out-of-state command, and 

could conceivably result in bringing federal troops from distant locations to serve in 

place of state National Guard members. This action completely removes the Governor and the Adjutant General from any command and control over their own 

troops. Under Title 32 status, which is federalized for pay and allowances but with 

command and control maintained by the governors and states adjutant general, this 

would not be the case. 

My own view on that question is that forces should be brought up under Title 32 

duty because they have more flexibility to do the job. Additionally homeland security performed by state National Guard troops under the control of their own Governor and their own Adjutant General is much more acceptable to the citizens of 

each state. These are friends and neighbors of the citizen soldiers and they have 

come to expect and depend on Guard troops to perform these types of missions within their borders. These are missions the Guard was created for and trains for on 

a continuing basis. Under Title 32—state-controlled troops ensure Governors and 

Adjutants General remain in command and control of their own troops. Senator 

Feinstein, I would like to ask that a letter that the Vermont and Washington State 

Senate delegations sent to Governor Ridge on this subject be included in the record. 

It seems to me that we may not need to make radical changes in the structure 

of the military and the Guard to carry out the homeland defense mission. All of our 

nation’s governors are making homeland security and emergency response a priority. If there are skills in dealing with contingencies that they lack, then they can 

train to respond more effectively. Meanwhile, the National Guard has shown that 

its units can perform superbly when called upon. I question whether we are trying 

to find a solution for a problem that does not exist. Let’s not reinvent the wheel 

here. 

For the benefit of this committee, the Senate, the House and the Administration, 

I hope our witnesses will frankly address these issues in their testimony. I look forward to their testimony. Thank you again, Senator Feinstein.

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate it very much that you would take the time to be 

here. 

I would like to add to the record the statement of Bernard 

Rostker, from the RAND Corporation, on this subject. Unfortunately, he was ill and couldn’t be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rostker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNARD ROSTKER, SENIOR RESEARCHER, RAND 

WASHINGTON OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Madam Chairman and members of the committee it is my pleasure and honor to 

be here today to discuss the important topic of the National Guard and homeland 

security. While my remarks are based upon observations made during my tenure 

as a senior official of the Department of Defense, and as a senior researcher at 

36

RAND, they are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or RAND. 

During 1994, I was a member of a team at RAND that carried out a congressionally mandated study concerning the ability of the National Guard ‘‘to fulfill both its 

State and Federal missions.’’ The study was mandated under Public law 103–160, 

107 Stat. 1655, November 30, 1993. As part of that study we visited a number of 

states that had recently employed their National Guard in support of ‘‘consequence 

management’’ activities resulting from domestic emergencies and disasters, as well 

as civic action activities ranging from work with at risk youths to drug interdiction. 

During our field work we met with State Adjutants General and emergency coordinators. We interviewed until commanders and ordinary Guardsmen. We met with 

officials of the Army, the Air Force, and the National Guard Bureau and visited 

their readiness centers in Arlington, Virginia and at Andrews Air Force Base. In 

one State we even met with the Governor. RAND published the results of this study 

as a report, MR–557–OSD, Assessing the State and Federal Missions of the National 

Guard. 

I came away from this project with a deeper understanding and appreciation of 

the value of the National Guard, and for the dedication of the men and women who 

serve their State and Nation. The National Guard is an asset in both war and 

peace. 

Several years later I found myself serving as the Under Secretary of the Army. 

In that capacity I assisted the Secretary of the Army with his responsibilities as the 

Defense Department’s executive agent for military support to civil authorities. My 

field visits in 1994 served me well, giving me a much better appreciation for the 

use of the National Guard and the Federal Reserves in support of operations other 

than war in the United States. 

As I noted the National Guard is a valuable asset in both war and peace. Today’s 

missions for homeland security, while supporting our world wide effort to combat 

terrorism are more like traditional State missions under Title 32, than they are like 

combat missions under Title 10. Based upon my experience here are a number of 

points that I can recommend to you and the Committee as you consider the role of 

the National Guard and the need for any new legislation. 

• The best solutions are local. My best advice is solve the problem at the lowest 

possible level. Federal authorities must remember that the National Guard is 

not the regular Army or Air Force. Guardsmen have chosen to be part-time soldiers and airmen, respect their decision. 

• The National Guard is federalism at work, make the most of it. Don’t cut the 

Governors or their State Adjutants General out of the action, use them. The National Guard is a unique asset, particularly when it remains in State status 

under Title 32. As agents of their State they are not subject to the provisions 

of the federal posse comitatus statute, and can be granted police powers by their 

Governors. 

• The mission should be given to the State Adjutant General. He or she is in the 

best position to determine how to use effectively and efficiently the manpower 

of his or her State National Guard. In my field visits I was impressed by how 

well the State Adjutants General moved Guardsmen in and out of active service 

to facilitate the mission and meet the other responsibilities of their part time 

soldiers and airmen. 

• The commanders of the National Guard are experts in working with State and 

local government and organizations. They know the people and can relate to 

local conditions better than a federal force. 

• The National Guard organizations of the states have learned to work together 

in mutual aid compacts. This could be strengthened with national compacts, 

rather than just regional compacts. However, the system of compacts makes the 

whole greater than the sum of its parts. 

• Coordination and standardization can and should be accomplished through the 

National Guard Bureau and it’s readiness centers. 

• Individual Guardsmen called to State active duty should have the full protection of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act. However, the best way to protect a 

Guardsman is to give the State Adjutant General the flexibility to employ his 

personnel as he sees fit. He is in the best position to protect his troops. Relying 

on statute will, in the long run only antagonize employers. Flexibility is the answer. The State Adjutants General are the key. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I am ready to answer 

any questions you may have.

37

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Also, we will include the letter to Tom 

Ridge from Senators Leahy, Murray, Jeffords, and Cantwell on the 

Title 10 versus Title 32 issue. 

[The letter referred to follows:] 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. General Libutti, I would like to give you, 

if I might, a summary and a draft of a bill. You know, it is sort 

of an interesting thing. On the homeland security issue, we began 

a year-and-a-half ago in this subcommittee, Senator Kyl and I, urging that we move on homeland security, after we had the commission reports from everybody, and we couldn’t get the administration to move. 

And then, boom, the administration moved, I think, sort of in a 

partial way because I believe very strongly the Director of Homeland Security should have both statutory and budgetary authority. 

We have got 40 departments. The GAO says 25 percent of the $13 

billion we spend on terrorism isn’t as well spent as it might be. We 

ought to take a look at that. 

I believe whoever is Director of Homeland Security has to be able 

to move the chessmen on the board, not just give television interviews, but have real statutory authority. So I am going to introduce 

a bill. I would love to have the Defense Department’s input. I 

would love to have your imprimatur on it. I don’t know whether 

that is possible or not, but I would like to give you a copy of the 

statement and the drafted bill, and ask you if you would get back 

to Senator Kyl, to myself, to Senator Leahy if you care to, or Senator Hatch, who is very interested in this. It would be very good 

if we could all put something together prior to the time it is introduced. 

Would you do that? 

General LIBUTTI. Yes, ma’am. I would be honored. Thank you. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

General Davis, I know you are under strictures not to be able to 

say anything, but if you have any personal views that you would 

care to offer, I would like to give you that opportunity. 

General DAVIS. Just between us. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Just between us. 

[Laughter.] 

General DAVIS. No, ma’am. Thank you very much. 

[Laughter.] 

General DAVIS. One thing I would like to add, though, is we are 

doing a lot of training in the National Guard, and we do it through 

some systems that we have put together over the past 8 years of 

communication and classrooms, that kind of thing, distance training programs. We are using some of that to train and work with 

our first responders. 

It also has the capability as a back-up communications network, 

and that is kind of part of what we see as our role in homeland 

security is to look for opportunities to use capabilities that are currently in existence. These programs, we think, are very, very key 

to be continued and perpetuated and funded. 

So thank you for the opportunity to represent those 450,000 folks 

on our birthday, and we look forward to working with you in like 

manner with respect to your bill. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

38

I am happy, General Monroe, General Alexander and General 

Davis, to make copies available to you. It has not been introduced. 

It is a draft. We would like input, but I think there really is an 

issue that we need to resolve, particularly since the Defense Department has decided to move on Title 10. That creates an issue, 

I think, that we need to be cognizant of as well. 

General LIBUTTI. The bottom line, too, ma’am, if I may, on that 

was really in great measure based on a review of the mission in 

terms of is that a Federal mission. And I am happy for any forum 

or opportunity I have to lay out greater detail in terms of the rationale in support of that decision to you or other distinguished 

members of your subcommittee. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. Are you saying, General, because it is a 

border issue that is going to involve more than one State and it involves people outside of the State—which makes some sense, incidentally—that you felt it was necessary? 

General LIBUTTI. Yes, ma’am. I think at the heart of the debate 

will always be two things: one, the funding piece, and who is in 

control of the assets—funding and who is in control of the assets. 

It is not a matter of whether the Guard ought to be employed and 

whether the Guard forces or reserves are appropriate. I think everybody at the table would agree that is the right answer, given 

the circumstances. 

The issue, again, is what statute do you apply, given the criteria 

and support of what is appropriate and what is legal in terms of 

legal authority, to execute a mission under those conditions, not to 

get wrapped around the legal aspect of that. Again, I would be very 

happy and honored to come and discuss that in greater detail. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. That is excellent. Thank you. 

The record will be kept open until Thursday, December 20, until 

five o’clock. 

We will give General Alexander the last word. 

General ALEXANDER. I would like to applaud the effort at controlling our southern border and the Southwest, and the merging of 

Title 10 and Title 32, where the States in Title 32 status are complementing the security of those borders. It is a very large border, 

it is a very porous border, but for years that kind of combination 

has made a significant contribution to the control of that border. 

Chairperson FEINSTEIN. I agree with you, General. Thank you 

very much. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[A submission for the record follows.]

39

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

December 12, 2001

The Hon. Tom Ridge 

Director, Office of Homeland Security 

The White House 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Tom, 

Recently, the Justice Department announced its request that troops from the National Guard supplement agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service 

along the porous 4000-mile northern border. We understand that the Department 

of Defense is considering calling up these troops on a federal, Title 10 status. As 

representatives of two border states, we would like the administration to reconsider 

the idea and call up the forces under Title 32 instead. 

Title 32 would allow more flexibility to accomplish this critical mission. Unlike 

forces called up under Title 10, Title 32 forces are not subject to posse comitatus 

restrictions. They can assist local and federal law enforcement organizations with 

its full range of activities, including arrests. Also in contract to Title 10, Title 32 

forces can continue to train for other missions. As the National Guard remains the 

nation’s primary military reserve, this status allows our nation’s adjutants general 

the ability to cycle forces through training and remain ready for other contingencies. 

Title 32 also ensures that members of the Guard called up stay generally within 

their home state. Our nation’s governors will remain in control, while Guard forces 

serving in their home state can bring unparalleled familiarity with the problems 

and challenges facing their communities. That understanding raises the comfort 

level of the country’s citizens who might otherwise be concerned to hear that active 

duty troops from far away are serving in their community. 

There are certainly occasions where members of the National Guard should be 

called up under a Title 10 status. But in this case, it seems apparent that Title 32 

is the more sensible approach. We would appreciate your considering this question 

and responding as soon as possible with your views. We are impressed with your 

contributions in the months immediately after the awful events of September 11, 

and we look forward to continuing our work together. 

Sincerely, 

PATRICK LEAHY

United States Senator

PATTY MURRAY

United States Senator

JAMES JEFFORDS

United States Senator

MARIA CANTWELL

United States Senator

Æ