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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–916 PDF 2009

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF EQUIPMENT 

SHORTAGES ON THE NATIONAL GUARD’S 

READINESS FOR HOMELAND SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, 

INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 24, 2007 

Serial No. 110–41 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 


Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California, 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, U.S. Virgin 

Islands 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

AL GREEN, Texas 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

BOBBY JINDAL, Louisiana 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID DAVIS, Tennessee 

JESSICA HERRA-FLANIGAN, Staff Director & General Counsel 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

VACANCY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex 

Officio) 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (Ex Officio) 

JEFF GREENE, Director & Counsel 

BRIAN TURBYFILL, Clerk 

MICHAEL RUSSELL, Senior Counsel 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Management, 

Investigations, and Oversight ............................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight ...................................................................................... 2 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security .. 4 

The Honorable Yvette D. Clarke, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of New York ................................................................................................ 28 

The Honorable Ed Perlmutter, a Representative in Congress From the State 

Colorado ................................................................................................................ 26 

WITNESSES

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard Bureau: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

Maj. Gen. C. Mark Bowen, The Adjutant General of Alabama: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

Maj. Gen. Robert P. French, Deptuty Adjutant General, Army, Joint Forces 

Headquarters, Pennsylvania National Guard: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Maj. Gen. Roger P. Lempke, The Adjutant General of Nebraska and 

President, Adjutants General Association of the United States: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

APPENDIXES

Appendix I: Letter submitted by Hon. Bennie G. Thompson ............................... 41 

Appendix II: Additional Questions and Responses 

Responses from Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum .......................................................... 43 

Responses from Maj. Gen. French ...................................................................... 45 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF EQUIPMENT 

SHORTAGES ON THE NATIONAL GUARD’S 

READINESS FOR HOMELAND SECURITY 

MISSIONS 

Thursday, May 24, 2007 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, 

AND OVERSIGHT

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Carney, Thompson, Clarke, Perlmutter, 

Christensen, and Rogers. 

Mr. CARNEY. [Presiding.] The subcommittee will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on examining the impact of equipment shortages on the National 

Guard’s readiness for homeland security missions. 

I welcome our four distinguished witnesses. 

My first witness is Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, the chief 

of the National Guard Bureau. In this capacity, he is the senior 

uniformed National Guard officer responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, programs and plans affecting 

more than half a million Army and Air National Guard personnel. 

Prior to his current assignment, General Blum served as chief of 

staff, United States Northern Command. General Blum has commanded at every level, including a special forces operational detachment, a light infantry battalion, an infantry brigade and a division support command. 

He received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Baltimore, 

a master’s degree from Morgan State University and is a graduate 

of the Army War College. 

Our second witness is Major General Roger P. Lempke. General 

Lempke is the adjutant general of the Nebraska National Guard. 

In this capacity, he commands the state military forces and also directs the Nebraska Emergency Management Agency, or NEMA. 

General Lempke is also president of the Adjutant General’s Association, which represents the senior leadership of the Army and Air 

National Guards of 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

2 

He is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, and 

logged over 1,600 flying hours while in the Air Force. He also graduated with honors from the Air Force Institute of Technology. 

Our third witnesses is Major General Mark Bowen, the adjutant 

general of Alabama. General Bowen first joined the Alabama 

Guard at age 16 as an enlisted man, and served more than 44 

years in the military before becoming adjutant general in 2003. 

During his career, he has served as commander of an engineering company, a transport battalion, a mechanized infantry battalion and ordnance group, as well as in a number of staff positions. 

General Bowen earned a pharmacy degree from Auburn University in 1965, and later attend the Command and General Staff College as well as the Air War College. 

Our fourth witness is Major General Robert P. French, the deputy adjutant general of the Army of Pennsylvania National Guard. 

He has served in each of the three major components of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard: the Pennsylvania National Guard 

joint headquarters, the 28th Infantry Division and the 213th Area 

Support Group. 

In 1997, he was mobilized in support of Operation Joint Guard, 

the U.N. peacekeeping effort in the Balkans. 

General French served as an enlisted man before attending Officer Candidate School. He was born in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, and is a graduate of Mansfield State College. In 2001, he 

earned a master’s degree in strategic studies. 

The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for an opening statement. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Chairman Carney. Thank you for calling this hearing on National Guard equipment needs. 

I want to thank our panel for being here, and taking time out 

of their busy schedules. 

And I particularly want to welcome General Bowen, the only guy 

on the panel who talks like me. So we are proud to have you here. 

The folks in Alabama are grateful for the outstanding service 

provided by the nearly 14,000 dedicated men and women of the 

Alabama National Guard. Members of the Alabama National 

Guard are serving with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

they have provided valuable service after Hurricane Katrina. 

Today’s hearing will address the state of the readiness of the National Guard and will focus on specific equipment needs. While the 

war in Iraq has diverted a good bit of the Guard’s equipment, it 

is important to remember that the dual role of the Guard envisions 

this mission. 

Under existing law, the National Guard is double-hatted for state 

and federal roles. The governors may call up the Guard for domestic emergences, including natural disasters. The Guard also may be 

called for federal service, such as mobilizing for war, under the 

command of the president as commander in chief. 

For these federal functions, the Department of Defense funds 90 

percent of the Guard’s budget. Guard divisions played key roles in 

major conflicts overseas, including World Wars I and II, Vietnam 

War, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. 

3 

In fact, the Alabama National Guard already has mobilized more 

than 13,000 soldiers and airmen in the global war on terror. 

In light of the Guard’s dual role, we look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses about a number of key issues, including how the adjutants general balance these two dual roles in times of emergencies, how the Guard is meeting its new mission to back up Border Patrol on the southwest border, how the role of the National 

Guard is evolving to confront the terrorist threat, and what additional equipment the National Guard will need to fulfill its mission. 

With increasing demands made on the National Guard, both 

overseas and here at home, it is essential that the dedicated men 

and women who serve in the Guard have the support and equipment they need to get the job done when called into action. 

And thank you, Mr. Carney. I yield back. 

Mr. CARNEY. I thank the gentleman from Alabama. He has 

shown great leadership on this issue, and it is a pleasure working 

with him. 

I will read my opening statement before turning this over. 

The Management, Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee is 

meeting today to examine the impact that National Guard equipment shortages are having on the readiness for homeland securityrelated missions. 

The recent tornadoes in Kansas have brought this issue to the 

front pages, but this has been an ongoing problem over the past 

several years. 

As a lieutenant commander of the Navy Reserves, I know all too 

well the importance of Reserve and Guard units. Aside from their 

brave service with active units in deployments all over the world, 

Guard units serve at the pleasure of their respective governors and 

stands ready to assist their fellow citizens in a time of crisis. 

In nearly every major large-scale events or natural disaster that 

has occurred stateside, Guard soldiers are a welcome sight for 

those in need. They are able to bring the incredible capabilities of 

our military to assist in the rescue of our citizens and the recovery 

of our communities. 

Unfortunately, National Guard readiness has been compromised 

by rotations abroad, most notably as part of the global war on terror. It is standard operating procedure for units to deploy with 

their equipment. 

In the past, equipment has returned with the Guard, but recently, their equipment has stayed in-theater to be used by replacement units. 

Our current military commitments around the world have proven 

to be quite a burden on these Guard assets. 

Current production and refurbishments schedules, not to mention budgets, are simply inadequate to effectively equip the Guard 

for its dual role. 

While equipment readiness was not 100 percent pre–9/11, it has 

plummeted in the years since. Today the Guard has roughly 50 

percent readiness. Unfortunately, we have already seen these numbers translate when it comes to domestic deployments. 

Our Guard members are ready and willing to respond to domestic events, but in some cases, are simply unable to do so. 

4 

During the Katrina response, such a large contingency on the 

Louisiana Guard and their equipment was deployed overseas that 

many states responded with a significant portion of their assets 

that would have otherwise been needed. Should there have been 

another disaster in one of those states during the Katrina response, 

the Guard response would have been significantly diminished. 

Closer to my home, recent snows and flooding in Pennsylvania 

led to Governor Rendell calling up the Guard. In fact, a member 

of my own staff deployed twice in the last few months with his 

unit. 

In many cases, he deployed in equipment nearly twice his age. 

These vehicles, no matter how well they are maintained and cared 

for, cannot last forever. 

Additionally, while the Guard effectively utilizes the Emergency 

Management Assistance Compact, or EMAC, to share equipment, 

in cases of natural disaster, an hour or 2, or the 24 hours that it 

takes to fly a helicopter from New Jersey or Ohio or New York to 

Pennsylvania may be the difference between life and death for 

someone waiting to be rescued from rising waters, encroaching fire 

or whatever the threat. 

I look forward to hearing from the distinguished witnesses who 

agreed to join us today. And I hope that Congress can work to find 

some solutions to these readiness issues. 

Now, I will turn to Mr. Thompson, chairman of the full committee, for his opening comments. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am happy to be here. I welcome our witnesses for the hearing 

today. 

The subject before us today, ensuring that the National Guard is 

equipped and ready for its homeland security mission, is not just 

of interest to certain geographical regions, political affiliations, religions or creeds. 

As Hurricane Katrina taught us, disaster happens often without 

much warning, and they do not discriminate in their destructive 

nature. Katrina taught us tough lessons that are not easy to admit. 

Even the best planning and preparedness may never be enough 

to safeguard every innocent human life. And the loss of life in any 

emergency is never acceptable. 

Our emergency managers and responders carry a heavy burden 

that all too often goes unrecognized. So do the men and women of 

the National Guard. 

Today the members of this subcommittee will hear testimony 

from some of our nation’s most trusted and admired public servants, the men and women of the National Guard, our first military 

responders. 

I would like to take a moment to commend General Blum and 

his staff for their commitment to our nation’s security, and in particular for working as a partner with this committee to better secure America. 

Today’s hearing is the second in a series that this committee will 

hold to examine the relationship between military organizations 

such as the National Guard and the homeland security missions 

they are increasingly being relied on to support. 

5 

We have already heard from previous testimony that the National Guard today finds itself at a very tough crossroads, pursuing 

two very important but very different missions, one overseas, one 

here at home. 

No matter what your political beliefs are about the wars in Iraq 

or Afghanistan, certain facts are undeniable. The conflicts abroad 

have left our citizen-soldiers at home without enough working 

equipment and stretched far too thin. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee 

to empower our first responders, regardless of the uniform they 

wear. Men and women in camouflage, FEMA windbreaker, civilian 

clothing and fire gear all have something in common: They all come 

from our communities, serve our communities, and they deserve 

our support. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CARNEY. I thank the gentleman, and for his leadership. 

We need to ask for unanimous consent for Mrs. Christensen to 

join us today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Thank you for your attendance, Mrs. Christensen. 

Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that under 

committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

Without objections, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

into the record. 

I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement for 

5 minutes, beginning with General Blum. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL STEVEN H. BLUM, 

CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU 

General BLUM. Good morning, Chairman Carney, Chairman 

Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, other distinguished members 

of the subcommittee. I am honored to appear before you today and 

address concerns—your rightful concerns, I might add—about the 

impact of equipment shortages of the National Guard and their 

readiness to perform homeland security and homeland defense missions at the call of the governors. 

Under the federal statute, the Army and Air National Guard are, 

first and foremost, reserve components of the Army and the Air 

Force. As the chief of the National Guard Bureau, my primary task 

is to channel federal resources to all of the states and territories 

so that their states and territorial National Guards can provide 

units that are trained and ready and equipped to perform military 

missions for our Army and Air Force. 

But in addition to that, in addition to being a federal reserve for 

the Department of Defense, your National Guard also performs 

missions under the command and control of our nation’s governors 

in times of emergency, right here in your ZIP Code, in your homeland and in your districts. 

So we are a dual-use force. And we rely on dual-use equipment. 

Since the hearing today inquires about the impact of equipment 

shortfalls on the National Guard missions, it is most appropriate 

that I am joined today by three genuine experts on this matter. 

They are adjutants general from three different states: from PennVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\110-HRGS\110-41\48916.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
6 

sylvania, Alabama and Nebraska. So we have a wide geographical 

difference. And we also have differences in perspective because of 

the fact that some are Air National Guard and some are Army National Guard. But they are the joint National Guard commander in 

their state that serves their governor. 

Nationwide, I can tell you that the National Guard prior to September 11th, 2001, had approximately 75 percent of the equipment 

that it was required to have against a validated requirement that 

was set by the Army and the Air Force to perform our federal combat missions abroad. 

At the beginning of this year, that number was down to as low 

as 40 percent. It today stands at 53 percent, if you are talking 

about homeland defense/homeland security-essential equipment. If 

you are talking about the full spectrum of equipment that we require, it is only 49 percent. So roughly half of what we need is in 

our hands here at home. 

The Department of Defense is taking strong, decisive action to 

address the equipment shortages of the National Guard. The budget request now before this Congress includes $22 billion for Army 

National Guard equipment over the next 5 years. 

If this money is provided, and if it gets to where it was intended 

to go, these funds would bring the Army National Guard only back 

to its pre-9/11 equipment levels. We are in a post-9/11 world, and 

I am not certain that those levels match today’s requirements. 

This increased level of equipping will improve the military combat readiness of our units in the Army National Guard and will 

make them better able to respond in domestic emergencies here in 

the homeland as more equipment becomes available over the years. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee this morning, and welcome your questions. Thank you, 

sir. 

[The statement of General Blum follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT FROM LIEUTENANT GENERAL STEVEN BLUM

Chairman Carney, ranking member Rogers and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about military 

support to civil authorities during disasters. While the Army and Air National 

Guard are engaged with our active duty counterparts in combat operations around 

the world, the National Guard also maintains capability to help state governors to 

respond to disasters and other threats to American people here at home. 

The Army and Air National Guard are reserve components of the United States 

Army and the United States Air Force. As such, our reason for existence is to provide units ready to be called to active duty to meet the Nation’s military needs. 

While the National Guard actively provides units to be mobilized for duty in combat operations overseas, we also recognize that the Nation’s governors rely on their 

National Guard forces here at home to provide needed capability to respond to natural disaster or other threats inside the homeland. At the National Guard Bureau, 

we have made a commitment to the governors that our goal will be to manage National Guard mobilizations and overseas deployments to the degree that we can so 

that no more than 50 percent of any particular state’s National Guard forces are 

absent from the state at any given time. The intent is to meet the Nation’s military 

requirements overseas and, at the same time, to have capability remaining in states 

here at home to help Governors meet domestic emergencies which might arise. In 

general, we have been successful in meeting this goal. In those few instances where 

it has been necessary to mobilize more than 50 percent of a state’s National Guard, 

we have worked closely with those governors to help them to identify and, if needed, 

to access National Guard capabilities in other states through interstate loans under 

the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. 

7 

The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which was quite effective in the response to Hurricane Katrina, is a proven means of redistributing 

equipment from state to state in order to address unfulfilled equipment requirements. As we work to improve our domestic equipping posture, the EMAC will play 

a major role in our domestic response capability. When a disaster overwhelms the 

capability resident in a state, that state may obtain equipment and forces from 

neighboring states in this way but that, of course, takes time. 

At the beginning of this year, the Army National Guard had on-hand approximately 40% of the equipment which it is required to have. When equipment is needed but not on-hand at a particular location, it is necessary to bring in equipment 

from farther away either from other units within a state, or from other states under 

EMAC. 

The Department of Defense is taking strong decisive action to address the equipment needs in the National Guard. The budget request now before Congress includes $22 billion for Army National Guard equipment over the next five years. If 

provided, these funds would bring the Army National Guard up to approximately 

76% of the equipment its stated requirement. This increased level of equipping will 

not only improve the military combat readiness of our units in the Army National 

Guard but will also decrease response times to domestic emergencies here in the 

homeland as more equipment is available in the states. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee today and welcome your questions. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, General. 

I now recognize General Lempke to summarize his statement for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROGER P. LEMPKE, 

ADJUTANT GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, PRESIDENT, 

ADJUTANTS GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

General LEMPKE. Good. Thank you very much, Chairman Carney, Chairman Thompson—good to talk to you again—and Ranking 

Member Rogers. Thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

Again, I am here today to really represent and to try to convey 

to you as best I can the overall feelings and attitudes of the 54 adjutants general from our states and territories. 

The loss of National Guard equipment due to fighting terrorism 

has caused two issues for us. 

First the equipment often most valued for disaster response has 

been that most often left behind overseas. We are talking 

Humvees, trucks, communications equipment, engineering equipment, helicopters, just to name a few items. 

And secondly, the equipment shortages have become more uniform and widespread throughout the nation. Whereas previously, 

before 9/11, there might have been pockets where there was sufficient equipment, pockets where there was deficient equipment, 

what I see now and sense is throughout the nation a general reduction in levels in every single state. 

I did a quick poll of the adjutants general prior to this hearing, 

asked them some key questions with regard to their ability to go 

to war and their ability to serve their state in times of disaster. 

When you talk about the go-to-war situation, as General Blum 

pointed out, with 50 percent of our equipment generally available 

to us, it is very difficult to train and guarantee readiness if we are 

indeed called back to the theater of operations. 

When it comes, though, to supporting our homeland security 

needs within each state, opinions somewhat differed. Most TAGs 

feel that they can have just as sufficient equipment to handle those 

disasters that we have experienced in the past. 

8 

So to characterize our equipment shortage, I would say that we 

are generally equipment shallow throughout the nation. And let me 

just talk about that for a moment. 

First, it is important to, again, understand how this is measured. 

Typically, the measurements that you hear about are those compared against our wartime task listing. We have a list of equipment that we need to go to war, and we are measured, at the national level, about how close we are to having all that equipment. 

That is the 50 percent number that you hear about. 

The next item that we look at, as a general, is how much equipment do we need to train? We don’t need everything we have to go 

to war for to train, but we need some of it. And though there is 

always—that struggle, is, ‘‘Do we have enough equipment without 

out states to conduct efficient and effective training?’’ 

And then the last factor we look at is, do we have sufficient 

equipment in the state to cover what we see as foreseeable disasters that can occur in our individual states. And there, we have to 

look at both quantities of equipment, but also geographic 

dispersment of that equipment for rapid response. 

I will point out that there are measurements for the number one 

wartime item. I am not aware of actual measurements out there 

for what our in-state needs are. And, perhaps, that is something 

that needs to be developed. 

Let me give you an example about Nebraska. I have a truck company out West in Chadron, Nebraska. Overall in the state, we are 

supposed to have 324 five-ton trucks throughout the state of Nebraska. Some of those go to that company out in Chadron. Of that 

number, I have 147 in the state. 

When you take a look at my wartime readiness, that is about 50 

percent. But when I take a look at having 147 five-ton trucks in 

Nebraska for emergency operations, I am dispersed throughout the 

state well enough where that is fine. So whereas my wartime readiness is down, at least in that item, I am sufficient. 

When I take a look at helicopters, where all our helicopters are 

UH–60s and deployed overseas, I have a couple of loaders and 

some CH–47s, we are on the ragged edge in Nebraska. 

So those are the kinds of things that we look at. 

I would like to conclude here by just making some recommendations. 

Fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft, UH–60s, CH–47s, the quantities have gradually diminished due to wartime losses and so 

forth. There are programs before Congress that will restore our rotary-wing aviation. That needs to continue and proceed at full vigor 

if we are going to support large disasters such as Katrina. 

Guard Empowerment Act: It is important that we place responsibilities in DOD to support our homeland security needs in that 

portion of DOD that needs to support homeland security. The 

Guard Empowerment Act, which is H.R. 718, would provide that 

mechanism to make our boys that much stronger within DOD to 

accomplish that. 

And finally, joint cargo aircraft. BRAC caused a loss of some key 

tactical airlift capability within the United States to the National 

Guard. The joint cargo aircraft will help restore that capability. 

9 

And it is vital to restoring that capability. And it is vital that that 

program stay on schedule. 

Recently, language that was inserted into H.R. 1518, which is 

the authorization bill from the House, would restrict that program 

until certain conditions are met from the Air Force. I would simply 

ask that that issue be looked at very closely, because the schedule 

for fielding that aircraft is vital. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this morning. 

[The statement of General Lempke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROGER P. LEMPKE

Representative Carney and members of the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight, I am Major General Roger P. Lempke, Adjutant General for Nebraska and President of the Adjutants General Association of the United States (AGAUS). Thank you for inviting me 

to testify in my capacity as President of the AGAUS representing the Adjutants 

General of the 50 states, three territories, and District of Columbia. As the nation 

enters hurricane season, tornado season, flooding season, and fire season the timing 

is perfect to review the capability of the National Guard to support civil authorities 

in responding to the full array of disasters that can bring significant harm to citizens and infrastructure. 

The title of this hearing, ‘‘Examining the Impact of Equipment Shortages on the 

National Guard’s Readiness for Homeland Security Missions,’’ appropriately summarizes a situation that concerns all Governors and Adjutants General. The National 

Guard has always been under equipped. Prior to 9/11 the equipment situation varied widely. Designated units received priority on certain equipment items while 

other units trained on substitute equipment and some units had little to no equipment. Overall, the equipment level for the National Guard stood in the seventy percent range of designated critical items, but in reality many units had barely enough 

equipment to train with. 

The loss of National Guard equipment to fighting terrorism overseas has caused 

two issues. First, the equipment most valued for disaster response has been that 

most often not returned from overseas—HUMVEES, trucks, communications equipment, engineering, and helicopters to name a few items. Secondly, equipment shortages have become uniform and widespread. No state can claim to be in good shape 

when assessing its equipment situation and each Adjutant General worries that 

other states may not be able to make up for shortfalls within their individual states 

if a large disaster, or series of disasters, occur. 

My quick poll of the Adjutants General prior to this hearing revealed most states 

hovering in the forty to fifty percent of equipment required to ‘‘go to war.’’ While 

most Adjutants General believe they have sufficient equipment to deal with single 

disasters common to their states, they fear insufficient quantities to deal with multiple disasters in their states or having to send equipment to support a regional disaster such as Katrina. I would characterize the national situation as being ‘‘equipment shallow’’ among the states. My testimony will expand on what I mean by 

‘‘equipment shallow.’’ 

First, it is important to understand how equipment readiness is reported. Units 

in each state have standard lists of equipment needed for their wartime mission. 

Readiness is reported against these lists. The commonly reported equipment fill in 

the National Guard of fifty percent or less measures the readiness of National 

Guard units to accomplish their wartime mission. To my knowledge no similar 

measurement has been developed to uniformly assess the capability of National 

Guard units to support homeland security needs. 

Adjutants General assess three factors with regard to equipment. The first is the 

capability of units to accomplish their wartime mission. A system exists for reporting the status of units for qualified personnel, training, and equipment to National 

Guard Bureau and ultimately the Army. The second factor is having sufficient 

equipment to train with. Typically, training can be effectively accomplished when 

less than fully equipped, but at some point the capability to effectively training diminishes due to equipment shortages. Finally, Adjutants General assess the quantity and location of equipment to provide disaster response and recovery in their 

states. It is this last factor that has no consistent set of guidelines and is often confused with wartime readiness. On one hand every Adjutant General responding to 

my query reported severe shortages in equipment on hand for their wartime missions; but on the other hand they generally reported sufficient equipment for reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\110-HRGS\110-41\48916.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
10 

sponding to typical disasters in their states, with some exceptions, such as helicopters in those states whose aviation units are deployed. 

Let me use a Nebraska example. The Army National Guard in Nebraska should 

have 324 five-ton trucks to equip all our transportation units for their wartime missions. Yet, I have only 147. For wartime mobilization Nebraska could field only half 

the units available because of this shortage (some of our trucks are old model substitutes which could not be sent overseas). But having 147 five-ton trucks positioned 

throughout the state has certainly been sufficient to respond to disasters in the 

state which have included a major tornado which destroyed a town about one third 

the size of Greensburg, Kansas; the largest wild fire in about ten years in western 

Nebraska; a major ice storm which knocked out power in central Nebraska and became the most costly natural disaster in Nebraska history. I could repeat this same 

story for most equipment on Nebraska equipment lists. If called upon to support 

EMAC requests as we did for Louisiana and Mississippi when Hurricane Katrina 

struck I would have to think longer and harder before recommending to my Governor that Nebraska send equipment out of the state. 

With an understanding that a system for assessing National Guard capability to 

support homeland disaster response is lacking let me provide a summary of the 

comments received from my fellow Adjutants General regarding equipment. • Rotary wing aircraft are at a premium because losses from war and accidents 

have depleted the CH–47 and UH–60 fleet. Additionally, for the first time a National Guard aviation brigade deployed to Iraq last year which depleted the 

number available for homeland security needs. The 36th Aviation Brigade will 

return this fall and time will be needed to restore its aircraft. In the mean time 

a second National Guard aviation brigade is preparing to deploy. 

• Engineering equipment was at a premium before the war and much of it that 

was shipped overseas has stayed there. Earth moving equipment is needed for 

most major disasters and priority in replacing this equipment is important to 

restoring our overall capability to meet homeland security needs. 

• Many Adjutants General pointed to communications, and specifically interoperability, as major concerns. Modern Army communication equipment is often 

left overseas. When coupled with rapid improvements in local and state communications systems the National Guard is falling behind in its ability to quickly 

attach to a local area communications grid set up to deal with a disaster. 

• Chemical detection and protection gear and equipment. This has been a 

chronic problem for the National Guard. Although many Chemical units exist 

they are usually chronically under equipped for their critical mission. 

Hopefully, I have adequately explained the problem. What we now seek are solutions. Congress has already acknowledged the severe equipment shortage facing the 

National Guard and taken action to direct several billon dollars to fix the problem. 

However, specifying funds and actually having them wind up where needed to fix 

the problem are two different things. Funding has been promised before only to be 

diverted once in the hands of the Department of Defense to other priorities. First 

and foremost legislation is needed that will direct the Department of Defense to embrace homeland security needs and establish mechanisms to ensure these needs are 

addressed along with its mission to fight the nation’s wars. 

The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 introduced as H.R. 718 by Representative Tom Davis (R–VA) and Gene Taylor (D–MS) contains provisions to specifically deal with National Guard equipping issues. Section 7 of this legislation calls 

for specific reporting by DoD that will ensure funds intended for equipping the National Guard actually result in equipment arriving at units. It will also provide Congress the information needed to assess whether sufficient National Guard equipment is available for homeland security needs. It also elevates the Chief, National 

Guard Bureau, to four-star rank and assigns the responsibility of chief advisor to 

the Secretary of Defense on National Guard matters, particularly those related to 

supporting civil authorities during domestic emergencies. Other sections of the legislation also seek to strengthen the National Guard’s ability to support homeland security needs. 

The information I have shows that Representatives Carney (D–PA), DeFazio (D– 

OR), Perlmutter (D–CO), and King (R–NY) on this subcommittee are co-sponsors of 

H.R. 718. I would recommend that all members of this subcommittee review this 

legislative initiative and become co-sponsors. The equipping problem will take a long 

time to resolve and legislation that will keep the Department of Defense focused on 

this issue is vital to success. 

The next recommendation is to fully fund critical helicopter procurement and 

modernization programs. The UH–60 Blackhawk and CH–47 are workhorses in Afghanistan and Iraq and essential capabilities for responding to disasters in-state 

and regionally. In total, the National Guard is short approximately 130 UH–60 

11 

Blackhawk and 30 CH–47 Chinook helicopters. The Army plan to restore its helicopter fleet to full strength must be given top funding priority. Along with this modernization programs that bring National Guard helicopters to the latest configurations are also important. Nebraska used borrowed UH–60’s to fight wildfires last 

fall. These helicopters had engine and transmission modifications that Nebraska’s 

deployed helicopters do not have. With these modifications the ‘‘loaners’’ were able 

to carry larger water loads with faster turnaround times. Finally, the procurement 

of the UH–72 light utility helicopter begins in fiscal year 08. This aircraft brings 

a unique combination of versatility and lost operating cost that will prove vital to 

enhancing the National Guard’s ability to respond to homeland security needs. 

My final recommendation concerns the Joint Cargo Aircraft, or JCA. The National 

Guard’s tactical airlift flight of C–130’s is smaller now, due to BRAC and other reasons, than when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. The JCA is slatted to fill the gap. 

The program will field an off-the-shelf aircraft for the Army and Air Force to meet 

short haul battlefield needs while also serving as a primary asset for moving National Guard assets quickly to disasters nationwide. The program cannot afford a 

delay. 

Recent language inserted into the House National Defense Authorization Bill for 

fiscal year 08 would restrict funds for the JCA program until certain reports and 

other actions are accomplished by DoD. The Adjutants General certainly appreciate 

the frustration Congress must feel in not being able to review studies and reports 

that address the situation with the nation’s airlift fleet. We would only ask that the 

JCA not become the pawn in dealing with this issue. 

If the JCA is not fielded as currently scheduled several negative impacts will result. First, the Army National Guard will not be able to replace the aging C–23 

Sherpa aircraft. Second, the Air National Guard will not be able to place the JCA 

at locations the BRAC legislation directed the removal of current mission aircraft 

and replacement with new mission aircraft. Third, the National Guard tactical airlift fleet available for disaster support will be diminished in numbers and breadth 

of national coverage. 

On behalf of the Adjutants General I ask the subcommittee to consult with colleagues involved with the authorizations process to seek way to obtain their information with jeopardizing the JCA schedule. 

It has been said that a rising tide raises all boats. So it is with National Guard 

equipment. Funding already identified for National Guard must result in the consistent flow of equipment to units of all kinds to all states throughout the nation. 

We need this equipment to be ready for the next fight to defeat terrorism for certain. Achieving reasonably high equipment levels for the war fight will also ensure 

sufficient equipment is available to support civil authorities responding to disasters. 

Thank you for your interest in this topic vital to the safety of Americans. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize General Bowen to summarize his statements for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL C. MARK BOWEN, ADJUTANT 

GENERAL OF ALABAMA 

General BOWEN. Thank you, Chairman Carney, Congressmen 

Rogers, Thompson, distinguished members of this committee. I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, particularly 

about military support to civilian authorities during a disaster. 

While the Army and Air Guard are engaged in combat operations 

around the world, we also respond to the governor’s call for disasters there in Alabama. 

I am proud to say that Alabama is number one in troops deployed to OIF. We have sent over 13,000 soldiers mobilized since 

9/11. 

My comments today apply only to the Alabama Guard. 

The Army National Guard has never been fully equipped, as 

General Lempke said. Pre-9/11, we generally hovered somewhere 

around the 60 percent range. Well, those states with combat units, 

you know, we do some cross-leveling, and we give them additional 

units and we move from one unit to another to get ready to deploy. 

12 

Because of the war in Iraq, we left a lot of equipment over there 

in the first two rotations. So our levels dipped below 50 percent. 

And we are still below 50 percent. 

The thing about the equipment, it does improve your impact, the 

speed you respond and how much flexibility you have got to respond. 

We do cross-leveling, I will show in this chart later. But also, as 

General Lempke was talking about, the readiness reports and the 

National Guard’s federal mission do not necessarily apply directly 

to the readings in each state in order to support homeland security. 

And he talked about, if I have my engineering units, my M.P. 

units, my aviation units, my transportation units deployed, then I 

am short personnel and equipment for a hurricane. 

We try our best. 

And General Blum at headquarters has been real good in making 

sure that all my M.P.s are not deployed at one time. But as I say, 

some of these units may be more critical for homeland security 

than an EOD unit, for example. 

When the equipment and the capabilities have been depleted in 

the Guard for whatever reason, then the state officials have fewer 

options to what we can do. And we certainly have a myriad of potential disasters. 

Well, as Congress, you all have appropriated a significant 

amount of money to deal with equipment shortfalls, but it is going 

to take a long time to catch up. The $22 billion that General Blum 

is talking about will only take us back to where we were. 

I would like to mention also that, Mr. Carney, you talked about 

the EMAC agreement. The EMAC agreement has been good. It is 

not broke. Let’s don’t fix it. 

It does take a little time to fly a UH–60 from Pennsylvania, but 

when we start seeing a hurricane coming, we start working our 

EMAC agreements with our adjacent state right quick like. So we 

will them on ground before they start. 

I also brought—and I gave you a handout here—an answer to 

those questions that you asked. 

Have I alerted my governor about specific equipment shortages? 

Yes, I have. I try to build three task forces. I have three task forces 

because sometimes I sent to Mississippi and one to Louisiana. 

Katrina, I had one in Mobile, one in Mississippi, and one in Louisiana. So I am talking about equipment to support. 

Just recently, just yesterday and the day before, I got 100 

Humvees for FORCECOM to help support this. Now, this is not 

equipment I can use for training, but I can use it to respond to national disasters. So I got those this week. 

Alabama has enough equipment right now to manage up to a Cat 

4 hurricane, so I am in pretty good shape there. On my chart, you 

will see where I am authorized 699 Humvees. I am required 344 

for my disaster. I have got 244 on hand but I got 100 that just 

came in this week from FORCECOM, and that is the first time we 

have ever done anything like that, so that is a big for that. 

Forklifts I am okay on. 

I was short a generator, but in Alabama, we try to use other 

than military generators. The governor has been real good about 

13 

that, and we don’t want to get the military the generators too 

much. 

The next question, ‘‘How is your state National Guard going to 

be able to respond to change?’’ Well, we haven’t change a whole lot. 

We are relatively the same as we were, but it is the first year of 

FORCECOM. 

This equipment alone does not satisfy my requirement for training equipments that General Lempke talked about. If I am going 

to war, it takes a lot of time at the mob station if I am not training 

on new equipment, Blue Force Tracker or something like that. We 

need training sets of the kind of equipment that we are going to 

operate on in Iraq, and that is what we really need. So we are 

short equipment. There is no doubt about that. 

For hurricanes, I am okay. As I said, my estimate on the general 

situation, I am good. We accomplished it by transferring it from 

one unit to the other and we are good there. 

I noticed one thing they sent in here, General Blum. You know, 

you gave us this joint incident site communications van, but you 

didn’t give us anything to pull it with. 

[Laughter.] 

I am going to have something. It will take about a Ford 350— 

General BLUM. Thank you for bringing that up at the hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

General BOWEN. I thought it would— 

General BLUM. You can be assured you are going to get something to pull it with pretty quickly. 

General BOWEN. All right. Thank you, sir. 

Any questions? 

[The statement of General Bowen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL C. MARK BOWEN

1. Have you alerted your Governor of specific equipment shortages that could 

hinder the ability of the AL ARNG to adequately respond to disasters? 

—We have and notified NGB of critical equipment shortages required to support 

three (3) TF elements. (JTF Alabama, JTF North, JTF South). Specific shortages contained in next slide. 

—Delivery of requested HMMWVs (100) to support critical shortage. 50 each delivered 22 May 07, remaining 50 ea scheduled next week. 

—Alabama has enough equipment to manage up to a CAT 4 hurricane without 

outside assistance. 

2. How has your state National Guard’s ability to respond to disasters in the state 

changed over the last year or so? 

—Stayed relatively the same. We had to forecast equipment loan last year just 

as this year. This is the first year FORSCOM has actually loaned us needed 

equipment. 

—This equipment loan does not satisfy the shortage of equipment for training 

units and mobilization of units. 

—Equipment returns from mobilization and in many cases lateral transferred 

to other units that are mobilizing. 

—We lateral transfer HMMWVs, weapons systems, communications systems, 

constantly to maintain units at appropriate equipment levels to conduct DSCA 

support, Training, and Mobilization of units. We are short equipment. 

3. From your best estimate how would you characterize the general equipment situation in your state? 

—As stated, AL ARNG can handle equipping up to three (3) DSCA TFs. 

—This equipment level was accomplished by lateral transfer to TF units from 

other units and loan of critical equipment from FORSCOM during the hurricane 

season. 

14 

—We are able to support DSCA requirements by loan and cross level; however 

we are short in training equipment and mobilization equipment. 

4. Describe any specific equipping issues beyond shortages that you believe the subcommittee should know about. 

—We were fielded the Joint Incident Site Communications Center (JISC) without a vehicle to pull it. Commercial trailer requiring at least a 350 series heavy 

duty truck with bumper hitch. Not conducive to military vehicles. 

ATTACHMENT: 

Task Force Equipment Required to Support Hurricane Operations 

Nomenclature Authorized Req/ O/H TAG Short 

HMMWV 699 344/244 *100 

Loader, 2.5 Cy 7 7/6 1 

Fork Lift 15 15/5 **10 

60 KW Gen 24 8/5 ***3 

5K Gal Tanker 60 20/17 3 

(Req) Required task force equipment to fully equip TF elements for hurricane support. 

* Loaned to AL ARNG by FORSCOM 

** 3 ea scheduled for new delivery by FORSCOM 

*** 2 ea scheduled for new delivery by FORSCOM 

Supplemental Information: 

Major General Creighton Mark Bowen 

AG–AL 

1720 Congressmen Dickinson Drive 

Montgomery, AL 36109 

(334) 271–7200 

Mr. CARNEY. No. Thank you for your statement, General Bowen. 

I now recognize General French to summarize his statement in 

5 minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF FRENCH, DEPUTY ADJUTANT GENERAL, 

ARMY, JOINT FORCES HEADQUARTERS, PENNSYLVANIA 

NATIONAL GUARD 

General FRENCH. Chairman Thompson, Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. 

At home, the Guard functions as a modern militia, as we already 

have talked about, under the support of the governor for the domestic emergencies. And the National Guard is rightly called 

America’s home team. 

I can tell you that our governor, Governor Rendell, takes great 

pride in his role as commander in chief. 

In recent years, our Guard has experienced an unprecedented operations tempo like everyone else, performing federal missions 

around the globe. 

Since 9/11, more than 16,000 of our Army and Air Guard members have deployed in active federal status to support the global 

war on terror. 

I mention these deployments because of their impacts on homeland security responsibilities. Pennsylvania is fortunate to have 

15 

one of the largest National Guard forces in the United States, and 

we have been able to respond effectively to domestic emergences, 

even as we have large numbers that are deployed around the 

world. 

For example, in September of 2005 when we had a brigade overseas in Iraq, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, we deployed another 

brigade to assist with Hurricane Katrina down in Louisiana. The 

response was accomplished through EMAC. 

Even though our Guard has responded effectively in the past to 

various domestic emergencies, I must tell you that our senior leadership has concerns about equipment readiness to respond to an 

emergency of extended duration or widespread impact. 

For example, in June of 2006, as the chairman mentioned, we 

had a flood in northeastern Pennsylvania. There were over 1,000 

water rescues made by the Pennsylvania Guard. 

Our worry is, what would happen if that were a wider-spread 

emergency throughout the commonwealth and beyond our borders? 

EMAC is a tool to use, but, as has been mentioned earlier, the timing becomes an issue as to the availability of equipment. 

The bottom line is that equipment shortages in the Guard result 

in a slower response time than if we were fully equipped. 

In terms of equipment, Pennsylvania is again fortunate in that 

the Guard was the only reserve component that was selected for 

the new Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. This means that our 56th 

Stryker Brigade is getting the latest equipment. But even with that 

new equipment, our Guard still faces a significant equipment 

shortage in categories of equipment vital to homeland security. 

For equipment identified for use in performing these tasks, we 

currently have 44.5 percent of our requirement. What we really 

need is 100 of the equipment authorized. 

Also of concern is the age and the condition of the equipment. As 

an example, our deuce and a halves and five-ton trucks are 35 to 

40 years old—well-maintained, but they are old. 

Let me make one point clear, though. When we send our soldiers 

and our airmen to deploy in combat, they are always prepared, 

with the best equipment and the best training. 

They are the best Guard airmen and soldiers that we have ever 

had in the Pennsylvania Guard. However, it would be far better for 

our units if they had the same equipment at home, not just to enhance the training but also to increase readiness for emergency 

preparedness—the same equipment at home as they would have 

when they would deploy. 

We don’t just need to respond effectively in domestic emergencies. We need, also, to have facilities from which to mount that 

response. The ability to respond effectively is always one that is 

joint. And it often involves nongovernment and nonmilitary agencies as well. 

Governor Rendell, with outstanding support from our congressional delegation, has advanced the plan so that Willow Grove 

Naval Air Station will become a model in joint interagency basing. 

This will provide a regional strategic response capability in the 

Northeast region. 

16 

We don’t know what kind of emergencies or what kind of contingencies may arise in the future. We do know that the current lack 

of equipment degrades our ability in certain catastrophic scenarios. 

As we have in the past, the Guard stands ready to perform both 

its warfighting and homeland security missions. We need the same 

commitment to equipping our units for homeland security that we 

have to sending our units to war. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of General French follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT P. FRENCH

Chairman Thompson, Chairman Carney, ranking member Rogers and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to 

you today about the impacts of equipment shortages on the National Guard’s readiness to respond to homeland security missions. I am appearing on behalf of Pennsylvania’s Adjutant General, Major General Jessica L. Wright, who regrets that she 

was unable to be here today. General Wright asked me to convey her thanks to you 

and the subcommittee for undertaking this inquiry into this important subject. General Blum has given you a national perspective on these issues, and I will focus on 

the impacts on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Army and 

Air National Guard. 

The National Guard is the only military force shared by the states and the federal 

government. The soldiers and airmen of Pennsylvania Army and Air National 

Guard perform vital missions abroad as members of reserve components of the 

Army and the Air Force. At home, the Guard functions as the modern militia responding to the Governor in times of domestic emergencies. Except when performing 

active federal service under the direction of the President, the Guard remains a 

state military force under the command and control of the Governor. The National 

Guard is rightly called America’s home team, and I can tell you that our Governor, 

Ed Rendell, takes great pride in his role as commander-in-chief of the Pennsylvania 

National Guard when it is not in active federal service. 

In recent years, the Pennsylvania National Guard has experienced an unprecedented operations tempo performing active federal service in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia Kosovo, and elsewhere around the globe. Since September 11, 2001, we estimate 

that more than 16,000 of the over 19,000 men and women who serve in the Pennsylvania National Guard have been deployed in an active federal status in support of 

the Global War on Terrorism. The duration and location of these deployments have 

varied, but we have had major combat units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan for 

tours of up to 12 months on the ground plus six months training in mobilized status. In September 2005, we had more than 6,000 Pennsylvania National Guard soldiers and airmen on active duty under Titles 10 and 32, United States Code. Today, 

the number of mobilized and deployed soldiers and airmen is smaller, with about 

650 in an active federal service status. These numbers are expected to grow in the 

future. I mention these deployments because of their potential impacts on homeland 

security responsibilities. 

Pennsylvania is fortunate to have one of the largest National Guard forces in the 

United States, and we have been able to respond effectively to domestic emergencies 

even as large numbers of our personnel and their equipment have been deployed 

overseas. For example, in September 2005, at a time when over 2,000 soldiers from 

our 2nd Brigade Combat Team were deployed to Al-Anbar province in Iraq, we were 

about to deploy nearly 2,500 soldiers and airmen to Louisiana in response to the 

Hurricane Katrina disaster. I believe Pennsylvania deployed the largest Guard force 

to the Gulf Coast of any state except for those in the direct path of the storm’s devastation. This response was accomplished under the auspices of the Emergency 

Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which has proven an effective tool for 

the states to work together to respond to domestic emergencies, with coordination 

from the National Guard Bureau. 

Even though I believe the Pennsylvania National Guard has responded effectively 

in the past to various homeland security and domestic emergency contingencies, I 

must tell you that the senior leadership of the Pennsylvania National Guard has 

concerns about our equipment readiness to respond to an emergency or homeland 

security contingency of extended duration or widespread impact. For example, in 

June 2006, the Pennsylvania National Guard responded magnificently to the flooding in Northeast Pennsylvania. Our Army National Guard helicopters participated 

in nearly 1,000 water rescues, and who can forget the photographs of people being 

17 

lifted up from the roofs of their homes or from vehicles stranded in the on-rushing 

waters of the floods. Our worry is what would happen if an even more widespread 

emergency arose at a time when the Army National Guard’s helicopters were deployed overseas. 

The same aircrews that rescued Pennsylvanians from the floods were earlier deployed to Afghanistan. Aircraft that these aircrews flew in Afghanistan were left in 

country and replaced with other airframes. What if our Governor and our Commonwealth lacked the military assets to respond? Even though the Emergency Management Assistance Compact means that assets from our neighboring states could be 

made available, it’s unlikely they could be on scene as quickly. Interstate movement 

of personnel and equipment in response to an EMAC scenario will rarely, if ever, 

result in as prompt a response as use of in-state assets. The bottom line is that 

equipment shortages in the Guard result in slower response time than if the Guard 

were fully equipped. These concerns are shared by many states. 

In terms of equipment, Pennsylvania again is fortunate in that the Pennsylvania 

Army National Guard was the only state National Guard force—and indeed the only 

reserve component force in America—selected for fielding of the new Stryker Brigade Combat Team. This means that, as part of its transformation, our 56th Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team is getting the latest equipment. Even so, our Army National 

Guard faces significant equipment shortages in categories of equipment that might 

be vital in response to homeland security and domestic emergency scenarios. 

Pennsylvania has only about 50% of its authorized numbers of truck tractors and 

flatbed trailers. We have only about 45% of our authorized number of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Our soldiers have only 32% of night vision equipment and 69% of 

small arms and crew-served weapons on hand. We have only 48% of the authorized 

number of fuel tankers for our force. 

For equipment identified for use in performing homeland security and disaster relief, the Pennsylvania Army National Guard is currently equipped at 44.5% of its 

requirement for aviation, chemical, engineer, logistical, maintenance, transportation, 

medical, signal and security equipment. Of the equipment identified by line item 

number for homeland security/emergency response needs, 48.8% are considered critical dual use equipment items. Our goal is to fill 100% of the 342 critical dual use 

items as ?key enablers.? 

Also of concern is the age and condition of our equipment. It is a common occurrence for the driver of a National Guard truck or the pilot of a National Guard aircraft to be younger—sometimes significantly younger—than the equipment he or 

she is operating. Nearly all our 2.5-ton (deuce and a half) and five-ton trucks are 

35 to 40 years old. Our heavier trucks average 20 to 25 years of age. 

Let me make one point clear, when our soldiers and airmen deploy to combat, 

they are provided the best-available up-to-date equipment. Superbly trained and 

equipped, our deployed Guard soldiers and airmen are ready for battle. However, 

it would be far better if our units had that same equipment at home, not just to 

enhance training, but also to increase readiness for the homeland security and 

emergency preparedness missions. 

We don’t just need equipment to respond effectively in domestic emergencies; we 

need the facilities from which to mount our response. The ability to respond effectively to homeland security and emergency scenarios is almost always one that requires a joint response involving both military and non-military government organizations. Governor Ed Rendell, with outstanding support from our Congressional delegation, has advanced a plan so that Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve 

Base can function as a joint interagency base and homeland security hub after the 

Navy leaves the installation. While Navy and Marine units will leave Willow Grove 

as a result of BRAC, Pennsylvania Air and Army National Guard units, along with 

the Army Reserve, plan to operate there well into the future. Flight operations are 

an absolutely essential element of any disaster relief effort facilitating rapid response and recovery in emergency situations. The joint interagency base approach 

will provide for an installation in a key strategic location with DoD-level security 

for units and agencies that can respond to a wide variety of scenarios. This represents an innovative approach to provide homeland security response capabilities, 

and we believe Willow Grove will become a model homeland security installation. 

Permit me also to mention an Air Guard equipment issue of importance. The 

193rd Special Operations Wing is converting to eight new EC–130J aircraft replacing older EC–130Es. The DoD had planned to outfit six of the new aircraft with special mission equipment to conduct the unit’s one-of-a-kind ‘‘Commando Solo’’ mission—airborne broadcast of multimedia programs in support of information operations. The 193rd is the only organization in the DoD that conducts this important 

tasking. Its C–130s could play a major role in disaster response scenarios. To date, 

only three of the required six aircraft have been modified to perform the mission, 

18 

and we have learned that DoD does not plan to fund Commando Solo equipment 

for the final three aircraft. 

General Blum has told you about Department of Defense action to address the 

equipment needs in the National Guard, and this is certainly a positive development. As long as the Guard is competing with the active forces for available funds 

and equipment, and as long as homeland security and emergency preparedness are 

viewed as secondary concerns, the Guard will have difficulties in obtaining the numbers, quality and types of equipment we need to best respond to emergencies. We 

don’t know what kind of contingencies or emergencies may develop in the future. 

We do know that the current lack of equipment on hand could degrade our ability 

to respond in certain catastrophic scenarios. We also do know that the National Response Plan and state emergency response scenarios give the National Guard an important role to play in addressing various emergency support functions. 

As we have in the past, the Pennsylvania National Guard stands ready to perform 

both its war-fighting and homeland security missions. We need the same commitment to equipping our units for homeland security and emergency response missions 

that we have when we send our units on war-fighting missions overseas. 

Thank you again for looking into this very significant issue. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, General. 

The chair would also like to recognize the letter of support that 

the committee received from the National Guard Association of the 

United States in support of this hearing today. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter it in the record. 

Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. 

And I will remind each member that he or she will now have 5 

minutes to question the panel. 

I will go out of order and recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Rogers from Alabama, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. I thank the chairman for that. 

I want to start with General Lempke. You made reference to the 

Guard Empowerment Act. Tell me more about it and why you find 

it critical. 

General LEMPKE. A major issue that it addresses is a voice for 

homeland security within DOD. And within that, it does a number 

of things. Number one, it would elevate the chief of the National 

Guard Bureau to a four-star level and be the primary adviser to 

the secretary of defense on homeland security matters. 

And when you take a look at the Air Force charter and the Army 

charter, neither of those have homeland responsibilities in those 

charters, but yet the National Guard reports to both, and we do. 

There needs to be a voice, a joint voice within DOD, to represent 

these concerns, so when you start talking dual-use equipment and 

other special-use equipment, that voice gets heard at the DOD 

level. 

It also offers provisions in there for reporting equipment needs, 

for reporting the status of the states through DOD to Congress. So 

it has a number of features in it that go directly to the readiness 

of the National Guard in the individual states to perform their 

state mission. 

That is why that legislation is so critical right now. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

General Bowen, you made reference to cross-leveling. What is 

that? 

General BOWEN. That is whenever I have a—and I deal with people and with equipment. Let’s say a unit is only filled to 50 percent 

of the Humvees. When they go to war, I have got to pull 50 from 

19 

some other units to put them in that unit so when they go to war, 

they have got everything they are supposed to have. 

And that is what we have been doing now for about 4 years, is 

moving equipment from one unit to another unit for deployment. 

And then I do the same thing for hurricanes. These three task 

forces I have got, I have to shuffle equipment around so they have 

everything they are supposed to have. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

And General French, you made reference to being at 44 percent 

of your authorized equipment. And this, I guess, is not only you, 

but for any member of the panel, were any of you at 100 percent 

of your equipment needs prior to 9/11? 

General FRENCH. Sir, in our case, prior to 9/11, we were about 

at 68 percent of our authorized equipment. So we have never been 

at 100 percent for my knowledge ever. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is there any other— 

Yes, sir? 

General LEMPKE. We had some priority units prior to 9/11 that 

were very close to 100 percent, because they were a high-priority 

unit. But otherwise, no. 

Mr. ROGERS. General Bowen, you talked about, you are roughly 

at 66 percent now. How long would it take you to get to 100 percent if the funding level that we are talking about for next year 

continued? 

General BOWEN. Well, Congressman, that is a little bit above my 

level, because I am not sure what the production capacity of our 

industry is. Because, you know, we have been producing up-armored Humvees. That is one of the items I am short, and I don’t 

have any of them. 

But, you know, we really haven’t been—and it is a knock on the 

country—we haven’t been on a war-fight mentality, manufacturingwise or anything else. 

So this is echelons above me. But you have got to get the manufacturing lines going again before you can produce all these things, 

even if you had the money to pay for it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, again, I guess I am trying to get a feel from 

any of you how long you think it would take. 

General Blum? 

General BLUM. I am rather confident that provided the additional resources that would be required, you could accomplish this 

in the next 5 years. And you could do it sooner if enough resources 

were applied. 

So it is a matter of money against time. This equipment is readily available. The industrial base can produce it. If the resources 

are there, this country can produce the type of equipment that we 

are talking about in pretty short order. 

So I would say you could do it as quickly as 2 to 3 years if 

enough money were put there. And you could take it as long as you 

want to take, if—it depends on how much resources are applied to 

the problem. 

Mr. ROGERS. And General Bowen, you might be familiar with the 

article that was in the Tuscaloosa News April 23rd. It talked about 

Guard equipment in Alabama. 

20 

And the gist of the article, as I understand it, was that you were 

training on different equipment than your troops were having to 

use in-theater. Could you expand on that problem in your state? 

General BOWEN. Yes, sir. Whenever we deploy, the Army gives 

us the latest equipment that is out there. An example would be, 

I mentioned Blue Force Tracker, for example, which is a system 

where you go, you can monitor where you are, where your buddies 

are, combat reports and all of that, but we really don’t have many 

of those in Alabama. 

If it is a Jeep—any kind of new equipment, whether it is a radio 

gear or what, if you don’t have it at home to train with, then it 

takes additional time when you get to the mob station to train on 

that—it is called NET training, new equipment training. And that 

is where we are. 

If we had it at home, just training sets, it would shorten the mob 

time at the mob station. 

General BLUM. It would also improve our ability to respond domestically. What General Bowen is talking about is a system that 

allows us to know where every vehicle and where critical nodes of 

logistics are and where our personnel are. 

Consider having that level of knowledge, that level of knowing 

and seeing where your assets are, in transit, and which ones are 

there in a disaster response. It really makes the response more effective, more timely. 

It keeps us from sending things that are not necessary to places 

where they are already being addressed. And it lets us clearly 

know where we are not able to get the water and food and shelter 

materials and the medical materials to the people in need because 

we think they are there, but we don’t have a way to positively 

know they are there. 

This Blue Force Tracking is very much what a cutting-edge industry uses today, such as FedEx and UPS, to know where their 

in-transit critical items are. We need the same thing when we respond here in the homeland. 

Mr. ROGERS. Right. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNEY. I thank the gentleman from Alabama. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

General French, you know, I am a Pennsylvania guy, too, and I 

was impacted by the floods last June, pretty heavily, up in Susquehanna County where I am from. 

And actually they occurred on my anniversary, and my wife still 

hasn’t forgiven me for having her and the kids drive through 

floods. So, anyway, I am very interested in your responses here. 

Was your ability to respond to those floods, and, in fact, the 

snowstorms, impacted by equipment shortages that we have heard 

about? 

General FRENCH. Sir, because of the fact that it was a regional 

type of emergency, rather than a state-wide emergency, we were 

able to marshal the resources we needed to put 1,000 people out 

on the street in very short order. 

And the responses that were made, equipment-wise, in Pennsylvania, we have got our three brigade combat teams that are disVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\110-HRGS\110-41\48916.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
21 

persed throughout the commonwealth. And so that, of course, allows us to have equipment on-station to meet those regional needs. 

It is the broader scope that concerns us. 

Mr. CARNEY. Understood. Thank you. 

You did a fine job up there, by the way. I have to commend you. 

They were on the ground quickly. 

My little village actually was surrounded. We couldn’t leave, once 

I got in. 

General Lempke, in your prepared statement, you state that, 

‘‘Specifying funds and actually having them wind up where needed 

to fix the problem are two different things.’’ 

You go on to say that the promised funding had been diverted 

by the Department of Defense. Can you elaborate on that point and 

provide us with some examples on what has happened and how it 

has impacted your readiness? 

General LEMPKE. The most recent example I can provide it what 

is going on right now with military construction. Currently, everybody realizes that there is an overrun condition encountered with 

BRAC. And so, we are seeing important projects that we had identified, the adjutant generals had identified, for the states—and 

these projects are important because the geographic factor was 

mentioned before—those projects being delayed and deferred because of this funding going elsewhere to support BRAC. That is one 

example. 

In the past, when we have had equipment identified that was 

supposed to come down to the Guard, other priorities would be set 

up and it would go elsewhere. 

Now, admittedly, more recently, some of that has been directly 

overseas to the war. No arguments about those conditions. 

But as the situation changes and everybody realizes that the 

Guard must rebuild, we must assure that that equipment does flow 

through and reach the National Guard. 

The Guard Empowerment Act, again, has provisions for reporting those kinds of numbers, so that you, Congress, can see that 

your intentions are met—when you allocate money for the Guard, 

it actually shows up in equipment for the Guard. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

General French, another question: In your prepared testimony, 

you state that, ‘‘As long as homeland security and emergency preparedness are viewed as secondary concerns, the Guard will have 

difficulty in obtaining the numbers, quality and types of equipment 

we need to best respond to emergencies.’’ 

Could you elaborate on this, please? Where and by who is homeland security and emergency preparedness viewed as secondary 

concern? 

General FRENCH. What I meant by that is that all of our equipping is based upon our warfight, on our TO&E units. And so, thereby, we develop the needs based off our our go-to-war mission. 

We have always said that when we are ready to go to war, we 

are also ready to take care of our communities. And so, because our 

soldiers are well trained, the equipment that we need to do the 

wartime mission in many ways lends itself to homeland security. 

So, as has been mentioned a bit earlier, what happens today because of the war effort is equipment is going to the right place. We 

22 

want to make sure our soldiers and airmen have the best equipment, so that when they go into battle, they are ready, fully 

trained and fully equipped. 

What that does is, by shifting the resources, it leaves us with either substitute items at home or no equipment at home. 

Mr. CARNEY. Was there somebody in Homeland Security that you 

know about that says this is a secondary concern? 

General FRENCH. No, sir, there is not. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay, thank you. 

General LEMPKE. Congressman, could I chime in on that one? 

Mr. CARNEY. Absolutely. 

General LEMPKE. I am not going to put words in his mouth, but 

the issue here goes back to mission. When we take a look at our 

requirements on the DOD side and what our needs are in the state, 

again, it is the federal mission that is looked at by the Army and 

the Air Force, as it should be and as they were chartered to do. 

It is up to us, then, to try to match that up with what our real 

needs are. One initiative in that area has been the critical 10 that 

General Blum and the National Guard Bureau have generated, trying to get 10 critical capabilities into each state. 

That is a National Guard initiative. That has not been a DOD 

initiative. 

So we need more attention at the DOD level on these state 

needs, if you will. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, General. 

General Blum, quickly, can you put the current situation in a 

historical perspective? How do you compare the shortages we have 

heard about today with, say, 40 years ago? 

General BLUM. Well, for the last 40 years, the National Guard 

has been underequipped, and it is underequipped today. The difference is, the National Guard is no longer a strategic reserve that 

will be used only in the late innings of World War III. 

What we are talking about is an operational force that is used 

every single day. Today, while we are talking at this hearing, 20 

governors have their National Guard called out. 

Eleven thousand citizen-soldiers from all over our country are 

doing the kind of things you saw in your district when the floods 

occurred. Some of them are fighting fires, some are fighting floods, 

some are dealing with other natural disasters, guarding critical infrastructure around this country at the command and control of 

their governors. 

Last Saturday, when we had the Joint Chiefs of Staff exercise 

and the National Guard exercise in Indiana, testing our response 

to a nuclear detonation, if, God forbid, that were ever to occur, we 

had 25 governors—one-half of our state governors had their Guard 

called out. It had no relation to their exercise, a real world response in their states. 

For them to feel comfortable to respond, they have to have more 

than one-half of the equipment that is required to be in those 

units. 

Now, who sets the requirement? The requirement is set by the 

Army and the Air Force and the Department of Defense. 

So it is their requirement. It is not the National Guard’s requirement. And we are only equipping that force to meet one-half of that 

23 

requirement. In a post-9/11 world, we have to seriously evaluate 

whether that is enough. 

You were talking about a flood. We can handle a flood, even a 

regional flood, if it comes at us one at a time, if we have one disaster at a time. 

Take what you are describing and have it come coincidental with 

a hurricane or two and perhaps an earthquake or a tornado and 

also fires in the Midwest and mudslides in the western coast that 

occur all the time, and then suppose either a domestic or a foreign 

terrorist should attack our nation, something to the scope of what 

we were practicing for last week. 

If those things happen, either near or simultaneously, we would 

be overwhelmed and 50 percent would be far less than what would 

be required. We would need 100 percent of what we were supposed 

to have and probably then some. And that would probably perhaps 

fall short. 

But in a post-9/11 world, I think we need to seriously reevaluate 

whether the way we resource, the strategy, the way we supply and 

equip the National Guard to do what we expect it to do today, 

which is different than what we expected it to do 40 years ago— 

we now are doing far more things than we were ever expected to 

do. 

If I could call up chart 5 on your flat screens, I will show you 

exactly what we are doing right now. We are doing every single 

mission that we could possibly be doing, and we are doing it simultaneously. 

And yet we are trying to do this with only 50 percent of the 

equipment back here in the United States to ensure that everybody 

overseas that is working on the right side of that chart you are 

looking at, that are federalized and overseas and working for the 

Department of Defense and the combatant commanders, have every 

single thing that they need to do their mission. 

We need to make sure that the troops that are back here have 

everything they need to do, that if they get called, no notice, today, 

to respond, they are able to respond. 

I will tell you that if Omaha, Nebraska, needs to be evacuated, 

General Lempke will change his earlier testimony that 150-some 

trucks are enough. He is going to want all 300 that he is authorized, because, if he only tries to do an evacuation with 150 trucks, 

it is going to take him at least twice as long, which means some 

people are not going to get evacuated, which means lives are going 

to be lost. 

And those lives are going to be American lives. 

This nation can afford to equip, this Congress can authorize and 

appropriate enough money to make sure that we have the tools we 

need to do the job we have been asked to do and the American people expect us to perform. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, General. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, the 

chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the service of our witnesses to our country. 

General Blum, for the record, a lot of us have gone on record in 

support of your position being a full general position, and that four 

24 

star is absolutely important. It speaks volumes for your position 

but it also signifies the fact that that mission has changed substantially from what it used to be, and so, therefore, there should be 

additional recognition because of it. 

The other thing, I think, what I am hearing, both from the witnesses and the little sidebars going on, is we recognize the good job 

that is being done in spite of the difficulty. 

But I think what we need to do is get as much on the record, 

to say that if our men and women in the Guard had more equipment available to them for domestic response, that response time 

could be shortened and potentially lives could be saved. 

So I will give another opportunity, General, for you to go on the 

record and reflect on that. 

General BLUM. Sir, that is absolutely fact. If we had more equipment, we could respond more effectively, more quickly, and hence, 

more lives could be saved. That is an absolute fact. 

And every time that we?if we have a predictable event, we can 

take measures to mitigate that and to buy time, so to speak, by 

repositioning equipment. But many of the things that go bad in our 

country are unannounced. 

Tornadoes give you very little warning. Earthquakes give you 

even less warning. Flash floods, no warning. Winter storms often 

take tracks and cripple and paralyze areas of our nation with very 

little or no warning. 

It doesn’t allow you—a hurricane is the easiest natural disaster 

to deal with because we usually get at least some predictability of 

some track the hurricane is going to take. And we have a few days 

to get ready and that time is precious. 

When you have a few minutes or hours to get ready and respond, 

you must have the equipment you need in your hand. You cannot 

go looking for it and you can’t—again, as you said, 24 hours is a 

quick response time, but not if you are standing in water that is 

coming up over your head. That is a long time to tread water. 

So we have got to have the essential tools we need, and we are 

trying to be reasonable with this as much as we possibly can. We 

are conceding we do not need all of the tanks and armored personnel carriers and lethal systems—artillery and mortars and 

those type of weapons systems. 

We need enough to train with to be ready when we are called for 

our federal mission, but we must have the equipment we need to 

be able to respond to the American people here at home, and that 

is generally engineer equipment, metal equipment, communications 

equipment, general purpose aviation like helicopters and transport 

aircraft, trucks. 

Let me just talk about the trucks for a minute. We have talked 

about trucks and we have talked about 40-year-old trucks, and we 

have kind of glossed over something very important. Those 40-yearold trucks are here in the United States because they are not good 

enough to go to war. They are here in the United States in the 

hands of the National Guard because they are not good enough to 

give or sell to our allies. 

But someone thinks they are good enough to be used to save 

American lives in an emergency. Nobody on this committee is 

riding around in a 40-year-old vehicle. There is a reason for it. It 

25 

doesn’t make economic sense. They are too unreliable. They are too 

expensive to maintain and repair. And every minute we waste 

training on how to maintain a 40-year-old truck, we could be using 

that time and energy to learn how to maintain modern equipment 

that we are going to have to operate in time of crisis overseas and 

should have in our hands right here at home now, today. 

And I don’t think there is any disagreement on this committee 

with that position. 

I guess the other response to your comment, General, is that 

have you prepared a minimum readiness equipment list that you 

need to get back up to in order to feel comfortable with having the 

ability to respond to any disaster here at home? 

General BLUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have. 

It is 342 clearly identified items of equipment that are absolutely 

essential to be in the hands of soldiers and airmen in the Army 

and Air National Guard when they are called upon to respond here 

at home. 

And it falls into 10 major categories, called the essential 10. And 

if I could have chart six come up on the flat screen, you would see 

what those big categories are. 

And you can see that those are the essential things for maintenance, aviation, engineer, medical, communications, transportation, 

security and logistics and power generation. It is exactly those 

things that the Department of Homeland Security and the governors expect the Department of Defense to provide: defense support to civil authorities, military support to civil authorities when 

our local and state and federal civilian responders are overwhelmed. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Last question, General. To what extent have you 

put a percent readiness on these items as to where we are? Or can 

you get back to us— 

General BLUM. Can I show chart one to the chairman, please? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Please tell them we hadn’t rehearsed this in 

terms of the charts and all of that. 

[Laughter.] 

You just come prepared. 

General BLUM. Well, no, actually, I happen to be, fortunately, 

prepared because there are other people that are concerned about 

this as well. And I have come from another place, this morning, 

that is very concerned about this. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Good. 

General BLUM. This happens to be, in, basically, Louisiana, because we are very concerned that Louisiana has what it will need, 

as well as Mississippi and the other hurricane states. 

There are about 20 states that we have these charts on right 

now, that tell—so that, if they were hit with a hurricane, you 

know, down the left hand side, you can see on the chart, there are 

the 11 essential functions that we just talked about. 

And then across the top of the chart, we are tracking if it is a 

Cat 1 hurricane, a Category 2 hurricane, all the way up to a Category 5 killer hurricane—what would be able to be provided and 

who would have to provide it? 

And you can see that we show that, in a Category 1 hurricane, 

Louisiana National Guard has what it needs to do the job. But as 

26 

soon as it reaches a Category 3, it doesn’t, and they have to rely 

on Emergency Management Assistance Compact assistance from 

the National Guard. 

And then you can track onto the right side of the chart and see 

exactly who the states are that already have agreed they were 

going to send what specific capabilities, whether it is aviation engineers, trucks, or whatever is needed, to Louisiana. 

What I am illustrating is, we are doing the very best job we possibly can to do the finest job we can with the 53 percent of the 

equipment we have. 

If we had more equipment, a lot less of this would have to go on. 

And states could be much more self-sufficient. 

And let me say another thing. We are the strategic reserve of 

this nation, even today. 

And for our adversaries overseas to see a strategic reserve, the 

only strategic reserve that this nation has, with an all-volunteer 

force, so there is no draft, the only place we are going to get 

trained and equipped soldiers is going to be out of the National 

Guard, in the combat formations. And to have them equipped at 50 

percent sends a signal that could be miscalculated by our adversaries overseas. 

And what it would cost to respond if they miscalculate would be 

far greater in 3 months—what we would have to spend for that 

miscalculation would pay to prevent the miscalculation and provide 

the increased response here at home. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CARNEY. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. And thank 

you for your leadership on this committee, sir. It is inspirational, 

frankly. 

I now recognize my good friend from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, General Blum, and I appreciate your comments. I have 

taken some time to read through the Commission on the National 

Guard and Reserves. And then, looking at your charts today, coupled with the fact that, you know, we have reduced our general 

forces, both active and reserve—and I am especially struck by that 

first chart you had us look at, your chart number five, with all of 

the different functions and responsibilities of the National Guard, 

just here. 

And remember, we are the Homeland Security Committee, and 

that is really where my bias is, my concern is. And my belief in 

terms of the mission of the National Guard was to protect our 

country here and to respond to disaster, natural and manmade. 

And we have been talking about equipment, quite frankly, but 

my concern goes to the men and women who are serving us. And 

all of you gentlemen, obviously, and everybody in the National 

Guard, they are going to fulfill their mission to the best of their 

ability, come hell or high water, no question about that. 

But my concern is—and this was something you said, General 

French. You were concerned, I think your language was about 

the—it was a question Mr. Carney asked you, and you said, well, 

27 

we handled—‘‘It was a regional matter. But the broader scope, that 

concerns us.’’ 

A category 5 hurricane, hundreds of thousands of acres of 

wildfires in Colorado, you know, some kind of a tornado, you know, 

a major system going through Nebraska. 

I am concerned that we are just stretched to the breaking point, 

equipment and manpower. I mean, can you react to that? 

General FRENCH. Well, sir, simply put—and General Blum had 

stated it a little bit earlier in a different way—the fact is that when 

you have just 50 percent of your equipment and you have a very 

well-trained force, you still can only respond with 50 percent of 

your capability. 

And so, in a regional circumstance that we spoke about earlier, 

that we had about 1,000 water rescues by magnificently trained 

Guardsmen, Army and Air, but if that were a broader scope and 

you needed more vehicles, more helicopters in order to provide that 

same capability for the citizens of the commonwealth or the nation, 

we just simply reach a point of no return, we can’t do that. 

And so, that is the criticality in terms, in my view, of the 50 percent of the fill of equipment. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Let me take it a step further, if I could—and 

General Blum, you may want to chime in here. 

I am looking at the different responsibilities. And you say, really, 

since 9/11, the responsibilities of the Guard have changed pretty 

dramatically from a strategic reserve when you had maybe 150,000 

more people and you were just the very last backstop, to, now, an 

operational, almost a standing unit. 

And you are taking care of law enforcement, local and state crisis 

management, consequence management—which I guess is probably 

the aftereffects, counternarcoterrorism, national security special 

events, airport security, critical infrastructure protection, border 

security—which we haven’t even talked about, physical or cyber attack on the homeland. 

How, with all of those responsibilities—and, again, this comes to 

the tension of this dual hat, this dual purpose that you serve, protecting here at home and helping in the event of natural and national disasters, and yet having to be in the theater in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Horn of Africa, in Bosnia, in Kosovo and who 

knows where else—how can you do all that? 

General BLUM. The good news is, Congressman, we can do it 

magnificently well. And we could even do it better if we had all the 

tools we needed to do it. We have the people. If I show you chart 

three, you can take a look at your state and you can see that—that 

is the pie chart. There you go?you can see that Colorado has most 

of its National Guard back in Colorado, Army and Air. 

Now, let me show you— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. But they are going out for their third time in 

the fall. 

General BLUM. Absolutely. But they are magnificently committed 

people that are willing to do this. What they resent is when they 

come home, that they don’t have the equipment that they are used 

to seeing in-theater and that they are underresourced worse than 

they were when they left. And it has an effect on morale, it has 

an effect on training, it will ultimately have an effect on our retenVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\110-HRGS\110-41\48916.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
28 

tion ability, in other words, the ability to keep our trained and experienced people. And is also has a, no kidding, effect on our ability 

to respond. 

Now, I have talked to you about many, many novel ways and 

very creative ways that we are mitigating the effects of that. And 

we will continue to work to do that. 

And we are working with our active duty counterparts and at 

DOD to improve the situation. 

But the easiest thing to fix is what is broken in the Guard right 

now, and that is the equipment level. The easiest thing to fix is 

buying equipment. We know what the equipment is, we know 

where it is made, right here in this country, we know what it is, 

and we know how much we need, and we know how much it costs. 

So it is really, now, the job of the Congress, really, to decide 

whether they want to appropriate and authorize that equipment or 

accept this level of risk. 

The level of risk you are accepting is slide nine. This is what the 

nation looks like. It is a big red country. Slide nine, please, the 

red—that is it. That is the nation. 

And if you want more detail of that, we will go to slide 10, and 

then you can look and find your own state, and find out exactly 

where it stands and what exactly is the situation of equipment in 

your state. 

And there is nobody on there that is to an acceptable level. The 

highest state on there is 63 percent. And the lowest is 33 percent. 

And within those percents are some of these trucks that I am 

talking about that are so old and so unreliable and so unmodern 

that we won’t take them to war or sell them or give them to our 

friends. But we leave them in the Guard and say, ‘‘They are good 

enough.’’ And I say they are not good enough. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have, like, 900 more questions. But I will save 

those, if you will let us do another round. 

Mr. CARNEY. We will certainly do another round. I thank the 

gentleman from Colorado. 

Chair now recognizes Ms. Clarke from New York for 5 minutes 

or so. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

And I want to thank Lieutenant General Blum, Major General 

Lempke, Major General Bowen and Major General French for coming before us today. 

I want to thank you for your service to our nation and let you 

know that we are deeply appreciative of your commitment to our 

community. 

For some time, this committee has been investigating problems 

facing the National Guard as it adapts to its new types of missions, 

its scope of service, if you will, or for lack of a better term, that 

continues to evolve with the complexities of our society providing 

for the national defense. 

Through underfunding and overuse, the National Guard has 

found itself in a position where a series of disasters in the wrong 

places at the wrong time could have and could force some very difficult decisions. 

29 

Our National Guard is composed of many outstanding women 

and men who stand ready to jump into action at a moment’s notice. 

However, even the fine soldiers cannot fully protect our country unless we provide them with the equipment they need to perform 

their jobs. 

I would like to ask a question here. I think one of the images 

that rests in the hearts and minds of most Americans are the 

image from the Katrina relief effort of the Guard helicopters rescuing our citizens. 

Do you believe that we could repeat that performance today? 

General BLUM. I think we could repeat that performance today. 

And we could do it at an improved level. 

We have, because of the magnificent support of this Congress, received $1.5 billion since Katrina that was sent specifically to the 

National Guard to improve its equipment situation post-Katrina. 

We testified before the Congress and described exactly what it 

would take, in terms of equipment, specialized pieces of equipment, 

communications equipment, transportation equipment, aviation 

and so forth, what we needed to have an improved response, should 

we ever have to repeat our last, magnificent response to Katrina. 

We have purchased that equipment, fielded that equipment, and 

I am confident that we would be able to respond faster and better 

this year than we did even 2 years ago, with no notice, in Katrina. 

What does concern me—and General Lempke alluded to it—if we 

do not replace the aging transport aircraft in the Air National 

Guard with this joint cargo aircraft, in the future, then 5 years 

from now, I may not be able to give you the same answer I just 

gave you just now. 

So, this year, we are much better off than we were 2 years ago 

because we have planned with all of the states. 

That chart that I showed you earlier was built by Louisiana, 

with the people of Louisiana, to include FEMA, to include the Department of Homeland Security, to include Northern Command, to 

include the National Guard Bureau and the state of Louisiana; and 

all of those states that are shown in the right hand column, coming 

in to help Louisiana, know they are coming, know what they are 

supposed to bring and know what conditions will cause them to 

come. 

So we are far better off than we were last time. Last time, for 

two days, we operated with no communication. We were blind, deaf 

and dumb. And we were doing the best we could, playing pinata, 

trying to hit the target. Because we didn’t know what we needed 

to send and exactly where to send it. 

With these new deployable communications satellite systems 

that we have been able to purchase, that are useful for the Army 

and Air Force, overseas, for the war fight, but they are equally useful back here at home—this is that dual-use equipment we are 

talking about—we will now be able, and I already have 

prepositioned that equipment so that, when and if we were to lose 

the electrical grid or the communications grid, in any state from 

Maine to Texas, to include the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, during the hurricane season, we will not operate without the ability 

to communicate. 

30 

Now, we are not going to be able to restore cell service to everybody in that commonwealth or state or territory. But we will be 

able to have the critical first responders, police, firefighters, emergency services people, National Guard and military, that are coming to the aid—Coast Guard and FEMA—we can all communicate 

in a way that we could not do 2 years ago. 

So that is a good-news story. And that is because the Congress 

saw the need; provided us the authority and the resources; and 

then guaranteed, and watched it closely, that that money that was 

intended to get to the National Guard equipment accounts got 

there. 

And then we bought exactly what we said we needed and came 

and reported to this Congress, and proved to them that we bought 

exactly what we said in exactly the amounts that we asked for. 

And it was greatly helpful. 

Ms. CLARKE. General Blum, I just want to follow up with some- thing you just stated, actually. It is about the $22 billion over the 

next 5 years for equipment. The Army National Guard could meet 

76 percent of the required equipment. 

Is this the fastest that you think you could reasonably hit that 

threshold or with more funding sooner, would you be able to acquire equipment faster? 

General BLUM. More funding sooner would allow us to acquire 

more equipment faster. It is a fact. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CARNEY. I thank you, Mrs. Clarke. 

A couple of procedural things. First, I remind everyone in the 

room to put their cell phones or PDAs on vibrate please, or turn 

them off. 

Secondly, I ask unanimous consent that the charts that were 

given out be admitted to the record. No objections, so ordered. 

Okay, we will start a second round of questions. 

General Blum, in recent testimony before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, you said some very positive things about the 

capabilities of Stryker brigades and their applicability to the varied 

states to the National Guard missions. You said that you would 

love to have a Stryker brigade in Katrina. 

Could you elaborate on that statement and explain for the committee why Stryker brigades would be so useful in disaster response and in homeland security missions? 

General BLUM. Well, the Stryker is more than strictly the vehicle. It is the whole system of systems that goes with it, and they 

allow you to see the situation far better, to share that situational 

awareness amongst your whole formation so that everybody in that 

Stryker brigade has a much clearer picture of what they are facing. 

The communications capability in that brigade is much enhanced 

to the conventional brigade. The ability to move, the mobility and 

operate and decentralize self-contained groups is—it is just a much 

better capability not only in the warfight, as we are seeing, because 

the Strykers are a very survivable vehicle. 

In this very unconventional warfare that we are fighting right 

now in Iraq and Afghanistan, Strykers are very, very highly rated. 

31 

The abilities of those brigades are highly rated. In combat, they, 

right now, have a very competitive edge. 

That same competitive edge as a dual use force, for instance, 

your Stryker brigade in Pennsylvania would be highly useful because all of those Strykers swim and float. So in a flood condition, 

the Stryker is a very, very fine vehicle. 

If you were in a situation where you had a terrorist or a hostile 

event going on, say you had terrorists operating in Pennsylvania, 

the Stryker brigade probably would be called upon again for that 

because of the protection that that vehicle provides its crew members and the fact that it has rubber tires and can ride down the 

streets of Pennsylvania without having to rebuild the streets after 

they have moved through, as heavy armor vehicles tend to tear up 

the streets; Strykers do not. 

So the Stryker is a magnificent vehicle. I would welcome Stryker 

in the National Guard. If the Army wanted to make that a requirement for the National Guard to stand up more Stryker brigades, 

we would welcome that and see that as a very positive step in the 

right direction. 

However, just putting Stryker equipment in the National Guard 

without having it an established requirement, an established 

unit—and that requirement rightfully gets established by the Department of the Army—the National Guard should not establish 

that requirement. 

I am just saying that the capability of the Stryker in a dual-use 

capacity, a Stryker-type unit is magnificently suited for overseas 

use and it is superbly suited for homeland defense and homeland 

support operations as well. 

And if we were to get more in our inventory than one brigade 

in Pennsylvania, I think most of the states adjutants general would 

welcome that addition. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, General. 

General Lempke, you mentioned the JCA aircraft in your remarks. How will acquisition of this aircraft enhance the Guard’s 

readiness and its ability to deliver assets to domestic events? 

General LEMPKE. When the BRAC actions were implemented, a 

number of effects occurred to Air National Guard bases, and we 

ended up losing a certain amount of our tactical airlift out of the 

National Guard. 

Along with that, though, came promises that new missions would 

be found for some of those locations. 

So, on the one hand, we have lost some airlift capability—and I 

have been told that about 30 percent of the airlift capability that 

we used for Katrina is no longer available to the National Guard. 

The JCA helps fill that gap. It puts it and disperses that 

throughout the nation to provide that quick movement, especially 

of personnel and light equipment, battlefield-type, quickly to an 

emergency situation. 

And when we have talked this morning about regional issues, 

moving things from one state to another state via EMAC, that is 

where the JCA fits in. 

So as I am sitting in Nebraska, knowing what my limitations 

are, but also knowing that I can reach out to Iowa, Minnesota, as 

32 

far as Pennsylvania, you need something like JCA to assure that 

you can get those needs to your state quickly. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, General. 

Well, we may do a round three, but right now I will turn it back 

over to my friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for more of his 900 questions. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I went through the National Guard commission report, 

going back, again—and this is for any of you gentlemen—one of the 

concerns they raised was retention of your personnel after serving 

in Iraq or back or whatever, that it was kind of—again, the mission 

of the National Guard having evolved and changed over the last 10 

years, really, that there was—and they used the long-term viability 

for both recruiting and retention remains highly problematic. 

And they talked about some of your best people are the ones that 

have served, come back, they are highly trained, very adept, but 

the retention levels of those folks just seems to be dropping. 

Have any of you experienced that? 

General Blum? 

General BLUM. Well, let me take it on a national scene, and then 

I will let the adjutant generals talk about it on a more local level. 

On a national scene, overall, our retention is superb, and I think 

it is for two reasons. Congress has appropriated the bonuses and 

the resources that we need to recruit and retain the highest-quality 

young men and women that this nation can offer. 

The quality of the National Guard citizen-soldier and airmen are 

second to none. They can compete with the active forces and any 

of the other reserve component forces in a very favorable manner. 

In fact, we are number one in quality of what we are bringing in. 

We are also second to none in our ability to recruit and grow our 

force. The National Guard is literally postured to grow and, in my 

judgment, should grow because we need to overman the force so 

that we can meet all of the missions that you described earlier, 

Congressman. 

The Congress have been very good and, lately, the Department 

of Defense has just initiated—January the 11th, the secretary of 

defense has announced a new policy that makes me extremely confident that we can sustain this all-volunteer force at the same levels that we are enjoying right now. 

We grew 14,000 net gain last year in the Army National Guard. 

Last year was our best recruiting year in the history of the volunteer force which now is about 36 years old. 

The reason I am confident we can retain these skilled, experienced soldiers is that Secretary Gates has a new, reasonable policy 

where we call the Guard up for 1 year so that employers and family members of citizen-soldiers know they are going to be away 

from home for 1 year and they are coming back 1 year later, and 

that they will then do the training and equipping and all the 

things that are necessary in a shorter period of time. 

And resources will have to be moved to the National Guard to 

equip and train and man that force in the year before they go. And 

then they know with certainty when they are going to go, and they 

know with certainty when they are going to come home. 

I think that this certainty makes the employer, the family and 

the citizen-soldier comfortable with being able to manage their caVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\110-HRGS\110-41\48916.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
33 

reer, manage their lives and still serve their state and nation in 

a way that will preserve and be able for us to sustain the all-volunteer force indefinitely, even at the rate we are being used today. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Just as a follow-up to that—and, you know, 

purely anecdotal from my friends from Minnesota, Congressman 

Walz and Congressman Peterson, said that one of their units—been 

there a year, was extended as part of the surge. They are there an 

additional, you know, 4 months, 5 months. They don’t know how 

long they are going to be there. 

General BLUM. You are exactly right. And that is the 1st Brigade 

of the 34th Infantry Division from Minnesota, primarily—other 

states are in there as well, but mostly from Minnesota. 

And they were deployed before Secretary Gates established the 

new policy. They were already in-theater. And they had to be extended. And, frankly, the fact that they were extended was a testimony to how good they were. Because they did not want a seam— 

because they were so proficient, they didn’t want a seam at that 

critical time, and they unfortunately were extended. 

That unit will be receiving special attention when it gets home. 

Because it will be the longest serving combat unit in Iraq of all the 

units. Active, Guard, Reserve, Marine Corps, Army, you name it, 

this unit will have spent more time in combat than any other unit 

in the United States Army. 

And when it gets back, the United States Army has committed 

resources and capabilities, working hand in hand with the state of 

Minnesota and the other states that are involved in that deployment, to make sure that these soldiers come back, get reintegrated 

and re-brought back into their jobs and their families in a way unprecedented before. 

And we are going to put every single thing we can to make sure 

that they get compensated—and I am not talking about compensated in terms of cash, I am talking about, we show— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Compensated for their time away. 

General BLUM. Exactly. So that we do what we can to ensure 

that they keep their jobs, they get fully reintegrated into their civilian jobs again. And those who cannot, we find one for them. 

And those that need special training or they need special circumstances with their families or their employers, the United 

States Army has made an unprecedented commitment to helping 

the National Guard with that. 

That is a giant step in the right direction, in the recognition that 

it is one Army, one team in this case, and we are addressing it that 

way. 

But you are right to be concerned. We are all unsure as to what 

the long-term effects will be to that brigade. 

I am very optimistic. I think that after they come back and are 

reassimilated and we do what we are supposed to do for them and 

their families and their employers, probably a year later they are 

going to be in a pretty normal state again. 

And I feel pretty optimistic that we are going to retain most of 

the experience in there, because they have invested so much and 

they are so proud of what they have done, rightfully proud because 

they are making a very big difference over there. 

34 

They are an outstanding unit. They are an incredibly proficient 

and good unit. They are really the symbol for the citizen-soldier in 

Iraq. 

So when they come back, I think it is going to be very hard for 

them to walk away from this life-altering experience and this investment of time and energy and sweat and blood of their comrades, and I think they are going to stay with the team. 

But we have to do everything we can to make it easy for them. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNEY. Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are for the adjunct generals. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Adjutant. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. 

In your experiences, when you have sent equipment to other 

states through EMAC, how quickly can you recover the equipment 

once the situation has subsided? 

General BOWEN. I guess I have probably sent more troops under 

EMAC than anybody else. During Katrina-Rita, I had a thousand 

task force in Mobile. And then I sent 2,000 to Mississippi, and we 

took everything from Mobile to the Gulfport-Biloxi area. Then I had 

two battalions over in Slidell. And then I sent another task force 

to Louisiana. 

When I send them as a task force—and I send them—and how 

we do that is pretty unique. We send a task force that consists of 

search-and-rescue, a security force, an engineering—because we 

have to cut our way in there. And that is one reason that Alabama 

was into the Gulf Coast before Mississippi was, they couldn’t get 

through the highways. 

So we literally—we are equipped with chainsaws, so I take that, 

plus I take a communications unit—Air and Army. The Air gives 

me the long range and the Army gives me the short range, so I can 

communicate between Humvees. 

And when I get a truck for this communication trailer he gave 

me, I will be able to talk to all the local law enforcement agencies, 

also. 

But I take that, and I also take a medical unit. 

So I take a complete task force that is self-sustained for about 

10 days. And that way I don’t have to have fuel, anything. I am 

good for 10 days. 

However long I stay—and what I do in Mississippi is I resupplied 

for 10 days. We stayed 30 days. But when I come out at 30 days, 

I bring everything with me. 

So when you get me, you get all of me. But I take care of myself. 

So I don’t leave anything back there. 

Ms. CLARKE. Imagine a situation where disaster hits somewhere 

and you need a great deal of equipment to support the response. 

While the equipment is used in response to that disaster, there is 

another catastrophe, this time in your own state. 

How well prepared is the National Guard to handle this? Would 

the equipment be there to support the second mission? 

General BOWEN. Yes, ma’am. 

My governor was real concerned about that. He was concerned 

when I sent the first one to Mississippi. He was really concerned 

35 

when I sent one to Louisiana, because, you know, we had a little 

one forming off of Panama or Cuba at the time, and he wanted to 

know, ‘‘Do you have enough to take care of Alabama?’’ 

I said, ‘‘Yes, sir, I have enough to take care.’’ At the same time, 

I had 1,800 deployed to OIF. 

And I told him, I said, ‘‘I have enough, but I also have the 

EMAC,’’ because Kentucky and Tennessee and Georgia were not affected and they were prepared to move in to assist me if I needed 

any help, even though my soldiers were in other states. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much. 

And then, my final question is to General Blum: As you know, 

the secretary of defense issued a memo on May 10th, which directs 

that a few recommendations made by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve be implemented at the Defense Department. 

In the memo, the secretary refers to a working group he commissioned to assess how the National Guard might be arranged differently to meet the national security requirements of the United 

States better. 

What was the Guard’s involvement in the preparation of this 

memorandum and the working group? 

General BLUM. We are deeply involved in that. Secretary Gates, 

as secretary of defense, is very serious and committed to restructuring whatever needs to be restructured to make sure that the 

Guard is a full partner in the Department of Defense. I think he 

is very seriously committed to this and he has the National Guard, 

and our equities are involved in all of those negotiations, decisions 

and recommendations. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CARNEY. I thank the gentlelady from New York. 

We will begin a third round of questions. 

First, General Blum, I am thrilled to hear that Minnesota is 

going to receive the help. It is certainly well-deserved. I hope other 

states will get the same kind of help, that it is not just Minnesota. 

General BLUM. Actually, Chairman, what we are doing is using 

Minnesota as our straw man or our prototype for how we do a better job of doing this with other units as they come back. So I think 

your wishes will be fulfilled. I think Minnesota is setting the gold 

standard for how we should be treating our returning citizen-soldiers and how we reintegrate them. 

There is a significant commitment by the Department of Defense 

and the Department of the Army in particular to assist the National Guard, working hand in hand with us, and actually putting 

significant resources against this, meaning money and people to 

make this happen. And they understand that we need to do this 

not only for Minnesota, we need to do it for the other states as 

well. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. Any of you gentleman care to respond? 

General French? Your head was shaking. You were nodding in 

agreement, I hope. 

General FRENCH. I am nodding in agreement. You know, both at 

the state and the federal level, we have received great support from 

our elected officials because there is a general understanding, I beVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Jul 06, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\110-HRGS\110-41\48916.TXT HSEC PsN: DIANE
36 

lieve, that the great sacrifice that is being made is being made by 

not only the soldiers and their families, but by the employers for 

the National Guard. 

And it is because of when they return and the effort that is being 

made to recognize that service that I think our soldiers are, in fact, 

extending their enlistments. 

Mr. CARNEY. General Bowen? 

General Lempke? 

General BOWEN. Well, what I am seeing, my 1st Engineer Battalion went over there. Average age was 48.5 years. They deployed. 

At this time, it was still 12 months boots on the ground. 

I lost a good many of my older soldiers that were in the 50 to 

55 range that had already deployed once or twice somewhere else, 

in Desert Storm probably. So when I got back, I lost them, but they 

had 30 years. 

I noticed the other day when I looked at that unit, the average 

age now is about 30 years of age, so that is good and bad. It is good 

I had the soldiers with experience, but also it created upward mobilities. The young soldiers want to get promoted, so when I lose 

some of these older soldiers, then I have got young ones ready to 

take their place, and they are good, sharp, smart soldiers. 

So, yes, we went through a little bit of a downer there, but, 

again, it was older soldiers that could easily retire. I was not necessarily losing those because of the war. It just was the right time 

in their life and career. 

Probably if I were to do any one thing, I might look at a reenlistment bonus for somebody that has got 20 years in, because some 

of that expertise I would like to keep. That is one thing that makes 

the Guard really strong—an operations sergeant, for example, that 

has been an operations sergeant for 20 years, or an aircraft mechanic. 

I think our rate will compare with anybody and one reason is the 

same guy has been working on the same airplane for 20 or 30 

years, and I would like to retain those people because they have 

got special skills. 

So if I— 

Mr. CARNEY. It is certainly not the same airplane. 

General BOWEN. Probably so. I am afraid so. My KC–135 are 

1960 models, the refuelers. So probably the same airplane. But I 

would like to tell you that I was in Romania this week and sat in 

the cockpit of a MiG–21 that was also built in 1960, so it is everywhere. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

General Lempke? 

General LEMPKE. I guess there is a caution here, I believe, as we 

take a look at the motivations and the health of our force. And 

General Bowen alludes to it a little bit. 

And that is, those that are approaching the vested 20-year point 

in retirement, when you take a look at our officer corps in the 

Guard, by and large, they are prior enlisted. So they have a certain 

amount of enlisted time before they become an officer. 

So, many times, you are talking, a National Guard officer that 

has 20 years of service that may be a senior captain or a major and 

37 

has had one deployment. Now they are at risk of another deployment. 

And they are also at that time in their professional career where 

they may have to make some decisions with regard to strengthening their civilian career or dividing that time up, as they have 

in the past. 

I have seen soldiers, now, officers and senior enlisted, that, instead of staying in the Guard and playing it out as far as you can 

go, deciding to hang it up when they have reached that point of retirement. And we are losing, in that happening, a very valuable, 

talented resource. 

I think that is an area that needs to be looked at more strongly, 

with incentives, to hang onto those seasoned officers and enlisted 

that are needed to then, later on, move into senior leadership positions. 

Mr. CARNEY. I certainly agree. And that kind of segues into my 

next question. There was an informal poll done by Workforce Management Magazine, on its Web site. 

And it asked a question—and you may be aware of this: ‘‘If you 

as an employer knew that a military Reservist or a National Guard 

member could be called up and taken away from their job for an 

indeterminate amount of time, would you still hire a citizen-soldier?’’ the poll asked. 

Of the 409 respondents on this April 4th poll, 52 percent answered no; 32 percent answered yes; 17 percent answered, ‘‘I don’t 

know.’’ 

Are you aware of these numbers, gentlemen? 

General BLUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am. And they are of great 

concern to me. And that is why we need to strengthen the employer 

support to the Guard and Reserve program. It is a DOD program 

that is under-resourced for the need today. 

What we are talking about threatens the ability or the viability 

of the all-volunteer force. And what I am most concerned about 

that poll is that probably 52 percent of those answers were brutally 

honest. And there are probably others in there that were not. 

So the magnitude of the problem, in this case, is probably greater 

than half of those that responded. And that is of grave concern because soldiers will now be reluctant to disclose they are in the 

Guard or the Reserve before they seek employment. And then those 

that come back from a deployment may find it harder for re-employment. 

And I think that the Congress of this nation needs to do whatever it can to set conditions that are favorable for Guardsmen and 

Reservists to be advantaged in the civilian workplace, and certainly 

not disadvantaged. 

And if they are disadvantaged, we ought to take some pretty significant measures, such as we have with the USERRA act and 

other things, and put some teeth into that. But we also need to 

make sure that the Department of Defense employer support for 

the Guard and Reserve apparatus is as strong as it possibly can 

be, because they really are our ombudsmen, our representatives, 

our ambassadors with the nation’s employers. 

I know the adjutants general deal with this on a local level every 

day and they may be able to give you some more perspective. 

38 

Mr. CARNEY. I understand. And it seems to me that this is truly 

a malignancy for the Guard and Reserve, that you can’t detect it, 

because, to be quite honest, if an employer said that, they come 

under USERRA guidelines and they are going to be in trouble. But 

if it is truly there, I don’t know how we fight this, certainly. 

General BLUM. We may want to look at how do you incentivize 

an employer to hire a citizen-soldier. 

Mr. CARNEY. In my own experience, I was a professor at Penn 

State while serving in the Reserves, and Penn State, to their credit, was very, forgiving of my time when I had to be deployed overseas, many times. 

Yes, it is something that really causes me to lose some sleep. 

We have just gotten a call for a 15-minute vote. We do have a 

few more minutes, Mr. Perlmutter, if you have any further questions. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Just on that same line, and then we will end. 

The same polls and all the graphs are in the commission’s report, 

but they questioned spouses. They were asking young people 

whether they are interested. 

And, General Blum, you know, it is great that you had the, you 

know, the outstanding recruiting year. But, you know, you have got 

employers who are beginning to have questions about sort of this 

new mission, if you will, of the National Guard, from something 

that is the final backstop to, really, front line: front line on the borders, front line in the war on drugs, front line in the war on terror. 

And spouses, you know, the effect on families, you know, saying, 

‘‘Wait a second, Dad, is this what you really signed up?’’ Or, ‘‘Mom, 

is‘‘—you know, ‘‘you are going to be gone for a year to Iraq or to 

Afghanistan?’’ 

And you know, it is a much bigger question, obviously. There has 

been the decision to transform the military to the one military. But 

I fear—and again, any of you gentleman can react—but I fear two 

things. 

One, it is a drastically changed mission for the Guard, a much 

broader mission—I mean, just that one graph, with all of the responsibilities that you have given to your men and women. 

But, you know, my fear is that the protection of the country and 

the response really is secondary, which is the word you used, General French. 

How do we change that? 

General BLUM. Well, it depends on who ‘‘we’’ are. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. ‘‘We’’ would start with this Homeland Security 

Committee, I think. 

General BLUM. I think it is clearly in your authority to change 

it. I think it needs to be job number one. I think we are the military first responders in this nation. We are the first to fight, yet 

we are not resourced as the first to fight. We are still resourced as 

we were set up 40 years ago. 

It is time to change the strategies and the policies and the laws 

and the resourcing stream for how the National Guard is resourced 

to do what the National Guard clearly has been asked to do by its 

nation’s governors and its nation. 

39 

And I don’t think this is going to change and go back to 40 years 

ago. I think what we see today is what we are going to see tomorrow. And we will see even more of it tomorrow, frankly, because 

of one magnificent thing. We are extremely good at it, and we do 

it much cheaper than anybody else. 

We maintain a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week, 365-day, superb, worldclass capability, for about 27 cents on the American taxpayer’s dollar, when we are not being used. 

And when we are being used, it is not a free lunch. And it does 

come at a price with employers— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —spouses—I mean, it is a changed approach— 

General BLUM. But I would maintain, it would be a big mistake, 

in my view, not to employ the Guard. Any time that we have young 

men and women in harm’s way around the world, you should in 

fact send the National Guard as part of that force, because when 

you call out the Guard, you do, in fact, call out America. 

And if you send an all-active force, you don’t necessarily have 

every community and every town and members of this Congress as 

interested and as aware and your constituents as interested and 

aware and supportive of their successful outcome as if you didn’t 

use the Guard. 

So I would say it would be a fatal mistake not to use the Guard. 

And I think that this dual-use force is the best bargain for the defense of this nation, both here at home and abroad, that we could 

possibly provide the American citizens. 

The only thing we need to do now is to make sure they have the 

tools in their hands to do the job, so that we don’t have magnificent 

people with magnificent training and commitment with empty 

hands, they have what they need to do the job—not half of what 

they need, all of what they need. 

That, to me, is what needs to be fixed. 

And then we very carefully have to watch and make sure we can 

keep the force healthy. Because it is a three-legged stool, as you 

say, it is the employer, it is the citizen-soldier, it is their family. 

And we have to watch all three legs of that stool. And that is why 

I cautioned the strengthening of the employer support in the Guard 

and Reserve apparatus, because that survey worries me. 

That survey worries me more than al-Qa’ida worries me, if you 

want to know the truth, because al-Qa’ida is going to force patriotic 

citizens into service. But employers that don’t support our citizensoldiers may drive them out of service or keep them from joining 

a magnificent organization like the Guard. 

So I am more concerned about what you talked about, Mr. Chairman, in that survey than I am in some terrorist thinking that they 

are going to take this country down and that we are not going to 

defend this nation. 

Americans will defend America. But they have to be able to do 

it in such a way that they can maintain a job and a family or they 

may not choose to be part of that organization or remain part of 

that organization. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you. 

General FRENCH. Is there time for one more comment on that? 

Mr. CARNEY. There is, briefly, please, yes. 

40 

General FRENCH. Okay, our soldiers want a voice. They want to 

think that they are being represented and that the fact that they 

are militia is being understood. The Guard Empowerment Act is a 

part of that. The Reserve Forces Policy Board, which has not been 

used for the last 2 years, is a part of that. 

One of the greatest frustrations that I hear back from our soldiers and the families and employers is that ‘‘We are just being 

called up without the real unique features that need to be accounted for when those calls are made.’’ It goes to predictability. It 

goes to many other factors. 

So to the extent that we can become more integrated and have 

a larger, a stronger voice within the planning apparatus for both 

our national mission and our state mission is the direction that we 

need to go. 

They are motivated. They just want to feel like their concerns 

and their situations are being understood and accounted for. 

Mr. CARNEY. Well, I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions. It is likely 

members will have further questions of you, and I would ask a response in writing quickly. You know, don’t let it drag out. 

And, on a personal note, I want to thank each one of you for your 

service to this nation and for your advocacy of your respective organizations. Thank you, gentlemen. 

This committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41) 

Appendix I: For the Record 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT


48916-1.eps
42 


48916-2.eps
(43) 

Appendix II: Additional Questions and Responses 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

RESPONSES FROM STEVEN BLUM


48916-5.eps
44 


48916-6.eps
45 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

RESPONSES FROM ROBERT P. FRENCH


48916-3.eps
46 

Æ 


48916-4.eps