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

35–927 PDF 2007

ASSURING THE NATIONAL GUARD IS

AS READY AT HOME AS IT IS ABROAD

(110–45)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 18, 2007

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

(II)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS Page

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Hoell, Doug, Chairman of the National Emergency Management Association, 

Emergency Management Assistance Compact Committee, and Management 

Director of North Carolina Division of Emergency Management .................... 28

Paulison, R. David, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Department of Homeland Security ..................................................................... 28

Sidwell, Major General King, Adjutant General, Missouri National Guard ...... 10

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 48

Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida ................................................................................ 49

Walz, Hon. Timothy J., of Minnesota ..................................................................... 55

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hoell, Doug ............................................................................................................... 56

Paulison, R. David ................................................................................................... 64

Sidwell, Major General King .................................................................................. 77

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, Representative from the District of Columbia:

National Governors Association, letter to President George W. Bush ............ 3

Adjunts General Association of the United States, Roger P. Lempke, Major 

General, President, AGAUS, letter to Rep. Norton ....................................... 52

vi


35927.001
vii


35927.002
(1)

ASSURING THE NATIONAL GUARD IS AS 

READY AT HOME AS IT IS ABROAD 

Friday, May 18, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] Presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing. 

This hearing responds to serious issues that have been raised by 

Governors of several States and by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves and, increasingly, by others throughout 

the Nation about the Nation’s ability to respond to disasters and 

emergencies at home as well as the ability of States to defend 

themselves in case of terrorist attacks or, for that matter, during 

civil disorders. 

Today we will take testimony that asks directly whether the National Guard is as ready at home as it is abroad. There have been 

a number of reports that National Guard units and equipment that 

would normally be used to respond to disasters at home have been 

sent overseas, to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, creating 

hardship at home. Equally troubling are reports that some National Guard units are being told to leave their equipment overseas 

for other military units, depriving Guard units headed home of 

needed equipment that possibly—of equipment, excuse me—that 

possibly is needed stateside. 

Today we will have witnesses elaborate on these issues and hopefully identify areas where all involved can take action to resolve 

these concerns. This hearing is timely and necessary as the hurricane season begins. The National Guard is a mainstay for more 

than 3,000 communities throughout the United States for disasters 

and emergencies, including those declared by the President as well 

as less serious events that do not receive a Federal declaration. 

Guard units play a lead role in home States and support neighboring States through various mechanisms, including the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. 

For example, today we will hear from Doug Hoell, Director of the 

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. Frequently 

over the years as hurricanes approached the Florida Keys, the 

North Carolina Air National Guard almost routinely sent a special 

plane to Florida to evacuate hospital patients in case of the threatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35927 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
2

ening storm. Federal, State and local emergency managers always 

work closely with the National Guard on a day-to-day basis; 18 

State emergency management agencies, for example, are either in 

the State military department or report to the State adjutant general who is, of course, the commander of the State National Guard. 

The indispensable role of the National Guard in hurricanes, 

floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, and other disasters that we see 

every year is as important at home as the role that the Guard is 

now performing in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

After 4 years at war, in which the Guard has participated in unprecedented numbers, it is time to inquire whether the National 

Guard is available and prepared to do the necessary job at home 

as well. 

I am going to put into the record a letter signed by all of the 

Governors of the States, a letter written to the President in February 2006. 

In this letter, the Governors indicate that the National Guard 

members have provided nearly 50 percent of combat forces in Iraq, 

and, as well, the bulk of the U.S. personnel in the Balkans and the 

Sinai Peninsula. 

I want to quote from the letter I am going to put in the record. ′′fulfilling the mission of the National Guard at home and abroad 

requires both manpower and equipment. Unfortunately, when our 

National Guard men and women return from being deployed in foreign theaters, much of their equipment remains behind. Attention 

must be paid to reequipping National Guard units with the resources they need to carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties while also continuing to fine-tune their wartime 

mission competencies.′′ I am going to put that letter in the record. 

[The information follows:]

3


35927.003
4


35927.004
5


35927.005
6

Ms. NORTON. And I want to indicate that Congress is considering 

moves to curtail the power of the President over the Guards and 

decry the Defense Department to analyze how prepared the country is for domestic emergencies. 

Recently we have had a dispute between the administration and 

the Governor of Kansas, who—which you may recall was the most 

recent disaster in Greensburg, Kansas, where effectively an entire 

town was wiped out, and the Governor complained about the lack 

of National Guard that she regarded as understaffed and underequipped. 

Governor Chris Gregoire of the State of Washington has said 

that when his State experienced wildfires, key segments of the 

Washington State National Guard was deployed in Iraq. He says 

that the equipment shortages have sometimes left the State struggling even to adequately train those who were left at home. 

The letter came because when the Governors had their meetings, 

they found that many of them had the same complaints. The Congress has got to pay attention to these complaints. The Governors 

are now doing a great deal more of sharing among themselves than 

they have traditionally done. And the fact is that the administration has asked Congress for $22 billion more for the Army National 

Guard over the next 5 years. However, the GAO has said that it 

is concerned—and here I am quoting from the GAO—that this 

equipment may be deployed to meet overseas demands. 

Those demands have to be met, but we have got to somehow 

make sure we replenish the supplies at home, considering that 

what we know will happen every year, what we are sure will happen every year, are a fair number of natural disasters because of 

the landmass and the climate of our country. 

The GAO in 2005 found that almost every State’s National 

Guard had a fraction—had only a fraction of the equipment it was 

supposed to have. The GAO said, and I am quoting here, ′′The high 

use of the National Guard for Federal overseas missions has reduced equipment available for State-Led domestic needs.′′

Recently there was testimony in the Senate by the top commander of the National Guard, Lieutenant General Steven Blum. 

He testified that the continuous use of National Guard forces overseas has—and here I am quoting him—′′resulted in a decline of 

readiness for units here at home.′′

A large part of the problem has to do with equipment, not only 

personnel that is shipped abroad. Among the States worst off are 

Arizona, which has just 34 percent of its allotted equipment; New 

Jersey and Idaho have just 42 percent of allotted equipment; and 

Louisiana, where you might expect more equipment now to be on 

hand, remains at less than 50 percent of its allotted equipment. 

The problem stems also from the fact that the Pentagon does not, 

as a regular matter, measure the equipment readiness of nondeployed Guard forces for their domestic missions. There you can 

see a great big hole. What you don’t know will certainly hurt you. 

So now there is increasingly a push for information, how to collect 

this information so that we at least have some record nationally of 

what is needed, the way we of course have of our Armed Forces 

that are used abroad. 

7

The dependence of States, increasingly on neighboring States, 

also has been found to leave much to be desired. An example recently, again from the State of Washington, found that during that 

fire, many neighboring States have had severe equipment shortages as well, so much so that they were unable to borrow equipment from those neighboring States. This is an issue that deserves 

our most serious attention. And I am pleased to call upon our 

Ranking Member Mr. Graves for his remarks. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate very 

much and I appreciate the witnesses all being here today. And 

thank you for jumbling around the order, Administrator Paulison, 

I appreciate that. 

We are here today to talk about the National Guard’s role in disasters, and in particular I want to thank Major General King 

Sidwell, the Adjutant General of Missouri’s National Guard. Major 

General Sidwell began his military career more than 33 years ago 

and has served as Adjutant General of the Missouri National 

Guard since January 27, 2005. As the Adjutant General, he ensures the Missouri National Guard is trained, equipped and 

resourced to deal with its dual State and Federal mission. 

He is also responsible to the Governor for the State Emergency 

Management Agency. The Missouri National Guard has done a 

great job in responding to disasters. And this has been the most 

active disaster year for Missouri in the last decade. The National 

Guard has responded six times in the last 13 months, and they are 

doing a tremendous job, in my opinion. 

With the recent floods in my district, I have seen firsthand the 

important role of the National Guard during disasters. Just over a 

week ago, I was sandbagging on the Missouri River, along with National Guard troops, to keep floodwaters from coming into downtown St. Joseph. Just a decade ago in the big flood, I was sandbagging with National Guard troops up and down the river and some 

of the tributaries. 

National Guard forces across the Nation have a dual mission, the 

warfighting mission and role as emergency State responders. When 

local resources are overwhelmed during a natural disaster, that is 

when the National Guard obviously is out there. The Federal Government needs to make sure that they have the resources for both 

of these missions. This needs to be a priority. If they don’t have 

what they need, let’s make sure they can get it. 

I want you to know that I am here to help and we want to make 

sure that you do have everything you need. In most disasters, the 

resources of the State are adequate. However, in large disasters 

like Hurricane Katrina or a New Madrid earthquake, which is 

what we are always talking about in Missouri, the State resources 

will be overwhelmed. In these situations, the critical issue becomes, 

how does the Governor get the resources he or she needs at the 

right place at the right time in the State? 

There are two ways to get the needed resources. First a Governor 

turns to other Governors to request resources like National Guard 

troops and equipment, due to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact or EMAC. Second, the Governor can request Federal 

resources, like the Department of Defense resources, through the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

8

During Hurricane Katrina, the first process worked incredibly 

well. The second didn’t. Approximately 50,000 National Guard 

forces were put in the command of Governor Barbour and Governor 

Blanco through EMAC. Under the second process, significant Active Duty forces did not arrive until after the Superdome and the 

Convention Center were evacuated. It took too long and it was not 

clear who was exactly in charge. 

Our Committee’s reform legislation enacted last year improved 

both of these systems. First we authorized additional funding for 

EMAC to implement the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina 

to make a good system even better. Additionally, we changed the 

Federal process in two ways. We required FEMA and DOD to work 

out, ahead of time, the jobs DOD would be requested to carry out 

during a disaster. We also required the DOD to assign permanent 

Defense coordinating officers to each FEMA region so that National 

Guard forces and FEMA personnel in each region would know who 

to request resources from during a disaster. 

Again, I am here to help to make sure the National Guard forces 

have what they need, and, when forces are overwhelmed, they have 

a fast and effective way to get what they need when they need it, 

whether it is through other States or through the Federal Government. 

Again, I thank the witnesses for being here. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Graves. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Carney, do you have an opening statement, 

any remarks you would like to make? 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. The readiness 

level of the National Guard is an extremely important topic, obviously, with far-reaching implications. The National Guard plays a 

vital role on protection of property and lives right here at home. 

The brave and selfless men and women who make up the Guard 

units are ready at a moment’s notice to help their fellow Americans 

in times of natural disaster and indeed man-made disaster. We 

should do more to commend them for their efforts, certainly. 

It has been well documented that the National Guard is taking 

on a great responsibility in the fight against terrorism, whether in 

Afghanistan or Iraq, and there is cause to be concerned about this 

deployment, particularly with respect to Guard missions here at 

home. Frankly, I am concerned that the National Guard is being 

stretched too thin, and I am worried this is having a negative impact on the ability of the Guard to protect American lives here at 

home. 

Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses you have assembled here today about the Guard’s readiness, 

particularly during times of natural disaster, and I am eager to 

learn about their views and suggestions about what we need to do 

to adequately address this problem. I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Carney. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Mica, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, I am pleased to have him here this morning. Any remarks, 

sir? 

9

Mr. MICA. Thank you and good morning. I am glad to see you 

are addressing a very important issue before our Subcommittee. 

And I am pleased to see that you have these witnesses before us 

that can help us as we look at some of the issues. 

And I heard our Ranking Member’s opening comments. I heard 

the Chairwoman’s opening comments, and agree with some of the 

statements that have been made. And I think all of us also agree 

that the National Guard has done an incredible job, not only the 

men and women of the National Guard, but their families who 

have sacrificed to put up with the disruption in their lives and having their sons and daughters and wives and husbands serve us in 

a time of need. 

I was in Congress during the 1990s when we started dismantling 

the military after the fall of the Soviet Union. And our numbers 

have dwindled and we have become more reliant on our National 

Guard as an important force in taking active military action wherever needed. And, unfortunately, it has been needed. 

I would say, yes, that our National Guard is stretched both in 

manpower and also equipment. Yes, that we have had incredible 

demands put on the personnel and on our resources in the National 

Guard. I think that it is incumbent on Congress the and House of 

Representatives—our Founding Fathers have all appropriations 

measures start in the House—that we provide the resources. 

You know, I have been home in the last few weeks and I heard—

I met a lot of families, some that have National Guard members 

serving in Iraq and around the globe. And I heard from some of the 

Active military families too. And they said, we don’t mind sending 

our folks over here, we don’t mind these extended missions, but 

don’t leave our men and women without the equipment to do the 

job. They will do the job but don’t undermine their efforts. 

And I think it is disgraceful that here we are, after the Senate 

voted 93-0 for General Petraeus to take on the mission—he came 

here down the hall just a few weeks ago, met with with us, said 

he didn’t even have half the surge personnel that he needed to get 

a difficult situation under control—that we have not passed a supplemental. The supplemental was loaded down. There was a request for $90 billion, of which there is over $1 billion for the Guard 

that is still pending; still pending as we are sitting here this morning in this hearing. 

So the Congress has the responsibility to give the resources. 

They will do the job, and their families are willing to make that 

commitment. 

For the Guard, I am just checking, they need about $29 billion 

to do the war mission, and they need about $4 billion for domestic 

improvements. I checked with the National Guard in Florida, my 

home State. They need about $340 million in additional equipment 

to better meet the warfighting and training requirements, according to General Burnette who heads our Guard. However, he made 

it clear to me in checking on our readiness that the Florida National Guard is fully prepared to respond to domestic emergencies. 

Of course, Florida, my district, was hit with three hurricanes, and 

they were ready and they are ready, according to him. 

And FEMA has also done a good job. They have had some problems, but I think with the FEMA Reform Act and the leadership 

10

that we have, we can do a good job there. I do want to say, however, in closing here, that the utilization of the Emergency Management Assistance Contract—and that actually came out of my area, 

the southeast region evolved, I was told, out of Hurricane Andrew. 

We can’t all have all the resources to deal with every huge disaster, 

but cooperatively between FEMA, the National Guard, State and 

others being ready and bringing those resources together, we can 

do a great job. 

And then there are some States that are better prepared than 

others, as we saw in Katrina. Florida was ready. Florida ended up 

helping Mississippi. Louisiana was not ready. Louisiana still has 

problems getting its act together. 

We had Governor Blanco contrast the leadership, contrast the 

States’ readiness. Again I think we can do the job. I want to hear 

where we are with the resources and any recommendations to even 

better improve on the lessons we have learned. Because it is important that we be ready but also that we give the Guard the resources they need to do the job we have assigned to them. 

Thank you. Yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Kuhl, do you have any remarks? 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to 

address this body and present some opening remarks. But I am one 

of those people who has heard it all before, and I am not about to 

continue this process. I am anxious to hear the major general’s testimony so that we can help to accommodate the Guard in what 

they need. So I would yield back my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Kuhl. 

We are taking one witness out of order. So I am pleased to ask 

Major General King Sidwell, the Adjutant General of the Missouri 

National Guard— that means the head man in charge, everybody—

if he would begin his remarks at this point. 

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL KING SIDWELL, ADJUTANT 

GENERAL, MISSOURI NATIONAL GUARD 

General SIDWELL. Madam Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member 

Graves, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the Missouri 

National Guard’s ability to provide military support to civil authorities during disasters. 

Eight hundred forty-two members of the Missouri Air and Army 

National Guard are deployed in various theaters in support of combat and peace enforcement missions. More than 10,000 soldiers and 

airmen remain at home to assist and support civil authorities when 

called. In the previous 13 months, Missouri soldiers and airmen 

have been called upon six times for State emergency duty, to expand the capabilities of State, local, and Federal agencies to respond to damages or life-threatening events resulting from severe 

storms or heinous criminal activity. In each case, we have successfully managed our ability to match organized, disciplined, military 

manpower with available military equipment or leased equipment 

to provide essential support to our citizens. 

Reflecting back to Hurricane Katrina and Rita, the disaster in 

the gulf coast in 2005, Missouri National Guard units quickly mobiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35927 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
11

lized and responded to the needs of the Governors of Louisiana and 

Mississippi, deploying more than 2,200 trained and equipped soldiers and airmen within 72 hours after receiving the call. When 

Missouri’s Governor Matt Blunt declares an emergency, he brings 

the full resources and authority of all State resources to bear on 

a State emergency. The priority of effort of each agency is directed 

towards saving lives and protecting State and local governments’ 

ability to deliver essential services. And then to mitigate property 

damages. 

In the event that capability required does not reside within either State agencies or the Missouri National Guard, support—

Guard or otherwise—can be requested through the Emergency 

Management Assistance Compact EMAC system, as recognized by 

House Joint Resolution 193 of the 104th Congress of the United 

States. 

If the appropriate resources are not accessible through EMAC, 

the correct protocol is to request support through the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. 

In my written statement I speak a little more to the processes 

of EMAC and coordinating use of Federal assets. I can speak to 

each later in this session, if you require. Through EMAC, I fully 

expect my fellow adjutants general, upon the authority of the Governors of the 54 States, territories, and District of Columbia, will 

support Missouri in times of need. Missouri, like other States, prepares and regularly reviews response plans to meet challenges presented by a potential spectrum of emergencies ranging from the 

most likely to less likely, but perhaps the most catastrophic. 

Missouri’s most catastrophic natural disaster scenario occurs 

with the event of a major earthquake along the New Madrid/Wabash fault zone which passes through southeast Missouri. We recognize projected devastation of a 6.5 magnitude or higher quake, 

as measured on the Richter scale, will immediately overwhelm our 

ability to effectively respond with State needs only to the citizens 

in the impacted area, which could include St. Louis City and St. 

Louis County. 

The Missouri National Guard, in concert with State agencies, 

regularly assesses our resources resident within a State. Our planning process identifies the types and quantities of National Guard 

capabilities required to ensure an adequate response. 

I have great confidence in the Chief of the National Guard Bureau’s commitment to fairly allocate the requirements of current 

and future natural operations among the States so that each State 

will retain adequate capability to respond to disasters at home. 

At the height of Missouri’s involvement in deployments of supporting missions overseas, we retain more than 59 percent of our 

personnel. We currently have 53 percent of the total Army National 

Guard equipment authorized within the kinds of units assigned to 

our State. 

In my written statement I speak to certain dual-use items that 

we intensively manage to be prepared for the warfight and to support needs at home. The National Guard Bureau has worked closely with Missouri to honor its commitment to manage overseas deployments in a way so as not to unfairly or critically degrade our 

ability to support the citizens in times of need. 

12

In Missouri, the National Guard remains ready, reliable, and always there. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you 

today and to answer any questions you may have with respect to 

the interface of the National Guard and our civil authorities. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Our Ranking Member is from Missouri, so I am 

going to defer to him first to ask the first questions. And I thank 

you for that very important testimony, Major General Sidwell. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much. I know that the past year—and I am keenly familiar with 

how many disasters we have had and how many times you all have 

sent out the Missouri National Guard—but I am curious about 

your readiness and your current personnel—your current personnel 

levels and your readiness to respond to a disaster, how you feel 

about that. And basically, you know, what is happening in terms 

of—I know Missouri has got—just like every other State, we have 

got a lot of people deployed, we have got a lot of equipment deployed. But if you could talk about any disaster you have responded to, has there been a time when you feel that you weren’t 

adequately ready for it? Are you concerned about that in the future? 

General SIDWELL. Missouri is roughly 103 percent of its authorized strength by way of personnel. And although we talked to the 

percentage of equipment, which is 53 percent, you have to understand the metric from which that is derived. The 53 percent is from 

the table of organization and equipment for a warfight. So it 

doesn’t necessarily directly correlate to the types of equipment you 

need for a State emergency duty. 

As far as I know, there has not been a nationwide analysis, or 

at least I have not seen one, of those specific items of equipment 

that would be necessary for the national planning scenarios that 

are identified in the National Response Plan. For those emergencies that we have faced in Missouri, the requirements have 

been well within our equipment capabilities. 

Another thing that you need to understand in the metric of 

measuring equipment is that prior to September 11 of 2001 the 

equipment readiness was reported in what they call equipment 

readiness code A and pacing items. And in any individual unit, 

there might be four pacing items. So if you reported 75 percent, 

you had three of those four. 

Today the equipment readiness levels are calculated differently 

because it is all the equipment across the spectrum of equipment 

that you are authorized. So there are some of those line-items of 

equipment that are not necessary for State emergency duty but are 

necessary for training or for preparation for the wartime mission 

of the National Guard. An example of that for Missouri would be 

that our five readiness shortages in equipment, the SINCGARS 

radio is number one, and we are at 54 percent fill. I am advised 

that we are to receive the balance of fill in October of this year. 

The multirole bridge company equipment is 28 percent of fill which 

means we have only one bridge set because there are only four. 

And, quite honestly, those were left in theater, but it is not something that is going to significantly enhance my ability to respond 

on a stateside mission. 

13

Humvees, the up-armored cargo Humvees were at 30 percent of 

fill. But that is not an item. You don’t need up-armor in the State 

of Missouri for a disaster. That is something you need in theater 

and it is something you need for training readiness to deploy to 

theater. 

With regard to the family of tactical vehicles, I have 24 percent, 

but that is 127 in number. The constraint may be the transportation infrastructure as opposed to the number of trucks when responding. 

I am also short on my palletized load system trucks, I am at 38 

percent, but that is 54, so I have almost 180 truck transportation 

for my Guard units to respond to a State emergency. 

So there are two things to look at here. One is warfight and the 

other is the domestic mission. My concern with equipment more addresses the availability for training for the Army forces generation 

policy that predicts the use of National Guard forces in a warfight. 

Mr. GRAVES. And I have one quick question, too. You know, given 

the relationship Missouri has with Kansas—and I know we work 

together on a lot of different things, but when the Kansas Governor 

was concerned about the shortness of their equipment over in Kansas, did they call you all to fill in that gap or to help them out over 

there? 

General SIDWELL. We did not receive a call from Kansas. In response to some news media issues, I received calls from 

NORTHCOM, the Pentagon, the National Guard Bureau, some of 

which asked, can you help Kansas? We did initiate two telephone 

calls to their operations and training section to see if there was 

anything they required by way of equipment or personnel from 

Missouri. In response to those telephone, calls they indicated there 

was nothing at that time that they needed in response from Missouri. 

We do maintain a close working relationship. In fact, Missouri 

and Kansas share the 35th Infantry Division, the division is located in Kansas. The commander actually happens to be a Missourian, the deputy commanders are Kansas and Illinois. So all of us 

work very closely together in training and response. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I didn’t 

realize we shared a division with Kansas. But thank you very 

much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. But your answer, Major 

General Sidwell, may indicate that EMAC isn’t working today, the 

emergency compact, the way we might have expected, if only because according to the 50 Governors, they all understand that they 

are in the same boat, that everybody is lacking equipment. And I 

wonder if you think there may be some reluctance to call upon 

neighboring States who are in the same boat as other States are? 

General SIDWELL. My experience is to the contrary. What normally happens on—and in fact did happen during the last flood—

is when we have some sort of natural disaster which makes the 

news media, I immediately get a call from some of my counterparts 

or adjutants generals in other States, particularly neighboring 

States, to ask if they can provide any assistance to Missouri. 

The EMAC system I think worked well with the response to Louisiana. When I mentioned that Missouri Guard soldiers were down 

14

there in 72 hours, that was—they were on station in 72 hours; 48 

of that was transportation. We actually flew vaccinations so that 

we could vaccinate the soldiers en route and they were fully selfcontained for 10 days. So all they had to do was receive assignments and nobody had to—all they had to do was task them. 

In the EMAC system it involves not just the National Guard but 

other State services and nongovernmental services. An example of 

that would be during Louisiana, I received calls from acquaintances who were nongovernmental or governmental who said they 

wanted to help. And I would explain to them that—for example, a 

municipality might call and say, I want to send my SWAT team 

down there, or a trucking owner said, I want to provide trucks to 

Louisiana. And I explained to them that the way to do that is that 

we take their offer of assistance, we log it as available resources 

through our State Emergency Management agency, which then 

communicates to the State Emergency Management Agency of Louisiana or identified State, and they identify what resources they 

need and give it back to us so that we can send them down there. 

It creates a good working relationship, and my experience with 

EMAC is that it has worked very well. But I have only donated by 

EMAC. I have not had to request out-of-State for EMAC. We have 

been able to handle the emergencies in Missouri within our own capabilities without looking outside. 

Ms. NORTON. And we are very proud and pleased of the role you 

played in Louisiana, and apparently every Guard was willing to do 

all that was necessary in Louisiana. So it is clear that the Guards 

will do what soldiers always do: go where they are needed. 

Your Governor, General Sidwell, signed this letter that I mentioned in my opening remarks, and the letter requests that the Department of Defense reconsider any proposed force reductions in 

the Guard and work with Governors to reequip our returning units. 

This was signed by all 50 Governors. 

I am wondering how your level of personnel and—I am interested 

in two questions. One has to do with recruitment and retention of 

personnel, and the other has to do with the equipment of a kind 

we have been discussing here. How does your current level of personnel and equipment compare to levels, let us say, in 2003 or 

2000? 

General SIDWELL. We are about 1,000 more personnel than we 

were at the time I took over, a little over 2 years ago, as the Adjutant General. 

Ms. NORTON. You have not had any problems with recruiting 

personnel? 

General SIDWELL. We are number two in the Nation in recruiting, and I think number six in end strength against our authorized. 

And as far as equipment is concerned, as I indicated to you before, 

I do have concerns about the types of equipment that I have available for training for the warfight. It is more than an ARFORGEN 

issue, that is Army Forces Generation policy. And in that, the projection is that each State would retain 50 percent of its assigned 

personnel for State duty missions, 25 percent would be in the ready 

phase. That is the last stage of training before deployment. And 25 

percent would be in the available stage, which is those who would 

be called upon for deployment. And that has some flex either way. 

15

So the assurance from the Guard Bureau has been that we will 

retain in each State 50 percent of our authorized or, rather, are assigned to have available for State missions. And thus far our experience is that that has hovered around the 50 percent range. I 

think that there may have been a State or two that dipped into the 

47 percent or 48 percent during times of deployment. 

The question, I think probably, when you talk about an incident 

of national significance, such as Katrina was, you can’t—and the 

National Guard put roughly 50,000 boots on the ground to assist 

in that response? You cannot equip each of the 54 States and territories with 50,000 people for the worst-case scenario. You have to 

have, in the parlance of the Army, agility to maneuver and the 

ability to mass at a critical point in time. 

Some general once said that if you defend everywhere, you defend nowhere. So the ability to mass the response through a system 

like EMAC is very important. 

One of the things that probably would be of great assistance to 

the National Guard, Federal Emergency Management, and State 

and local official is if we had more training exercises which integrated the planning and evaluation of our plans together. So probably if some funding could be allocated to that purpose such as the 

spills of national significance exercise or the ′′Ardent Sentry′′

Guard exercises, where you get together the principal players, 

State, local, Federal, to interact in their planning as to how to accomplish the task, that would be of assistance to us. 

Ms. NORTON. That is funding that is not available to you now? 

General SIDWELL. An example would be the spills of a national 

exercise which is scheduled for June in St. Louis, Missouri. The 

scale of the regional planning has—it has been scaled back considerably because of funding constraints. And oft times you had a little trouble marrying up the funds in one area and another on an 

exercise. And, quite honestly, one of the institutional problems that 

exists is people tend to stovepipe their planning, and FEMA tends 

to plan FEMA exercises, and NORTHCOM tends to plan 

NORTHCOM exercises and the Guard tends to plan Guard exercises. And there needs to be an effective integration of all of those. 

Ms. NORTON. —needs money. That sounds to me as though it 

needs—the players to get together and do it. 

General SIDWELL. There are money constraints on that, the 

availability of money for exercises. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, we would be most interested in that, because 

particularly since with all of our needs abroad, we are not just talking about natural disasters at home. We are talking about preparing for terrorist disasters that could come anyplace in the 

United States. We need to make sure that the National Guard is 

prepared not only in the District of Columbia, for goodness sakes, 

but wherever such an attack could occur. 

General SIDWELL. Currently the money that is available, as I understand it, tends to center around homeland defense as opposed 

to homeland security exercises. They tend not to be geared to the 

disaster response, but the weapons of mass destruction scenario, 

both of which are necessary to secure the citizens of the United 

States. 

16

Another area that might be of assistance—one of the things that 

was identified in the post—the after-action reviews for KatrinaRita was problems with communication. And when you look—on a 

local level you may have the police department and the sheriff’s department who can’t communicate with each other because they 

have bought equipment at different times, and there has not been 

a standard equipment protocol and cross-banding. 

One of the items in the news I think you saw in Kansas’ response is they had gotten a brand-new trailer with cross-banding 

equipment which turned out to be a very positive thing for Kansas. 

But there is a significant issue I think across all States and territories out there concerning the cross-banding capabilities so that 

the local sheriff or police or the fire can communicate with the military or FEMA, and that is—it is a focal issue right now in a planning group in Missouri, but money is always an issue. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, and that—I am on the Homeland Security 

Committee as well, and the consistency of this problem and our inability to handle this are perhaps the most troubling post-9/11 

issues that the States continue to raise. We have got to get control 

of that. And it has been very, very difficult. I am glad you raised 

it. 

One more question on communications and other equipment. You 

talk about dual-use equipment in your testimony at page 6, and 

you mention among the dual-use equipment, of course, communications equipment, medium and light trucks that you say were in 

short supply before September 11. And you say that you are optimistic that the current emphasis on procurement—you use the 

word ′′procurement′′—will enhance our warfighting capabilities. 

I mean, are you saying that you expect that we are now procuring medium and light trucks and communications equipment of 

the kind you need in Missouri? 

General SIDWELL. Yes, ma’am, I am. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that at the local level or are you saying that 

some money has been allocated nationally that you expect to be 

available at the local level? 

General SIDWELL. For example, a minute ago I mentioned the 

SINCGARS multichannel radio that is being funded. We expect to 

have that fielded to us, the balance to fill us up in approximately 

an October time frame. And that was an issue in the Katrina-Rita 

disaster because the Active component had Sync guards. The National Guard did not. And it created a communication gap between 

the two. 

So those things are being addressed at the G-8 level of the Army, 

and I think are being addressed through congressional funding 

items. We just received $6 million for 915 tractors this last year, 

which is a congressionally funded item, and there was a report 

given by the Office of Legislative Liaison on 26 February of 2007 

which identified in that $4 billion needed for the essential TO&E 

items, and those would be a subset of the $23 billion which is being 

proposed for the National Guard over 5 years. And, again, I remind 

you that some of our shortages may be wartime shortages as opposed to peacetime response shortages. Those dual-use items of 

equipment are the ones that have been identified by the National 

17

Guard Bureau to the Army for funding for the National Guard to 

meet State response. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to move to the Ranking Member of the 

Full Committee. I do want to say I indicated in my opening response that—in my opening remarks—that the administration had 

indeed asked for, I think it is $22 billion more, for the National 

Guard. I believe that the appropriators are going to have to make 

sure that a fair balance of that equipment is retained at home. And 

they know how to do that on the appropriation itself because the 

GAO said that it is concerned that that, or most of that equipment, 

would go abroad. 

General SIDWELL. I believe they have actually instituted some 

new accounting protocols in the G-8 at the Army for tracking those 

items that are funded for the National Guard. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you can track them all you want to after it 

is done. But if Congress allocates money and does not say up front 

that at least a certain amount of money should go to help reequip 

the National Guard at home, the GAO tells us that that might not 

happen. Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. General Sidwell, you probably don’t 

know me very well, but I like to cut right to the chase. Probably 

one of the primary reasons you are here is there is an accusation 

that because of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on 

terrorism that we are engaged in, that the Guard is not prepared 

to address domestic incidents. And, quite frankly, you know, we 

had the Greensburg tornado, and there were some questions as to 

whether you had the resources to respond. Did you have adequate 

resources to respond? 

General SIDWELL. That was actually a Kansas issue as opposed 

to a Missouri issue. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

General SIDWELL. From the standpoint of Missouri in our State 

emergencies, we have had more than adequate resources to respond to those which have confronted us. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. And right now you have enough—if you had a 

Greensburg-type incident, you would have had enough resources to 

respond? 

General SIDWELL. That is a correct statement. 

Mr. MICA. And then you described the 50 percent 25, 25; 50 percent domestic sort of reserve, 25 percent readiness, 25 percent in 

deployment. And that is adequate? Is that what—and what do you 

have? What are your percentages? Are they similar to that? 

General SIDWELL. I am sorry, percentages of what? 

Mr. MICA. You said that your force—you divided it up and I 

thought you said that you had 50, 25, 25. 

General SIDWELL. That is a promise or a representation. 

′′insurance′′ would be a better characterization of how forces would 

be—the States would be called upon to provide forces. 

Mr. MICA. Forces, what do you have? 

General SIDWELL. Missouri is roughly 11,000 end strength when 

I have Army and Air. And I have right at 8,500 Army. And you 

mentioned Greensburg before, that is Kansas. And Kansas has 

about 5,500. They are a little smaller State. 

18

Mr. MICA. But you are within the range of the 50, 25, 25; or are 

you short? 

General SIDWELL. Oh, I am well within—I only have got 142 deployed. 

[Subsequent to Hearing, General Sidwell corrected the following: 

I only have got 842 deployed]. 

Mr. MICA. You said in a couple instances we were below the 50. 

I thought you said some 47 or 48, 52 or 53 percent where some 

have fallen below other States. Is that correct? 

General SIDWELL. During the high watermark, there was a time 

when the Guard provided 50 percent of the combat forces and 40 

percent of the total force in theater. And at that time from the Adjutant Generals Association—I think you have got a letter from 

General Roger Lempke from Nebraska as part of—you were saying 

as part of the record. 

General SIDWELL. Those figures usually—the Guard Bureau will 

come in and review with us to show how each is deployed. And, 

say, a State like Pennsylvania, if they deploy a brigade combat 

team, or an Arkansas with a brigade combat team, that gets up 

close to that 50 percent category because it is a sizable unit. 

Mr. MICA. Let me ask you a question. I don’t know the answer. 

What percentage of your equipment is paid for by the Federal Government? 

General SIDWELL. Paid for by the Federal Government? All of it. 

The act of 1903, the Federal Government pays for——

Mr. MICA. If you aren’t getting the equipment, whose fault is it? 

I mean, who is responsible? 

General SIDWELL. Well, the funding of the equipment comes from 

the Federal Government. 

Mr. MICA. The Federal Government. And again, we are behind—

the Congress is behind in funding some of the requests that the 

Guard has made. And I think you have cited figures a little bit different than I did. About in the $20 billion over a 5-year range and 

about $4 billion domestically. Is that accurate? 

General SIDWELL. That is correct. There is a funding request, 

and certainly the representation has been made that we wish to 

have the National Guard fully funded, fully manned, fully 

equipped, fully trained. Now, when that request—and my guess is, 

is that you get other Federal agencies coming to you asking you for 

money. And Congress controls the purse strings and determines 

the priorities. And if you give money for equipment for the National Guard, then who doesn’t get the money that is available? 

And those tough decisions are the tough decisions that have to be 

made by Congress, and I guess that is why you have this hearing 

today to help you make that deliberation. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Two final things. One, we heard the leaveequipment-behind accusation. What about Missouri? Is there a lot 

of equipment left behind in Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever? And if it 

is brought back, and I know it is a great cost to bring it back, is 

it useable? Tell me your experience. 

General SIDWELL. When a unit deploys, oft times the equipment 

which they take, other than small items, will be left in theater for 

the follow-on unit to utilize. And then you may either get a backfill 

for your individual State from the State that provided forces for 

19

theater, or there may be new equipment bought to replace, or, at 

some point in time, that equipment may be returned——

Mr. MICA. Again, in your situation, are you short equipment because equipment was left behind? 

General SIDWELL. There is equipment in theater that I would 

have if it had not been deployed to theater. 

Mr. MICA. But you don’t have the replacement for that because 

Congress hasn’t appropriated the money for it? 

General SIDWELL. That is correct. An example would be my 

bridge unit. Their assets were left in theater. And the 28 percent 

I had, we went out to get a bridge set to train on. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Again, just wanted to get the specifics of relating to you our operation. Thank you so much. 

I will give you one quick last one, since they are not paying attention right now. We have got this little issue of who controls the 

Guard, and we put, actually, ultimate control in the President’s 

hands. There is legislation before us now to take that out. And I 

heard the Guard was opposed to having the President make the ultimate decision on Guard activation, utilization, and wanted it left 

with the Governors. What is your position? 

General SIDWELL. That is one of the reasons I wore a civilian 

coat and tie today instead of a uniform, so it wouldn’t appear as 

if I represent the interests or the decision process of the Department of Defense, because there is a difference in views between the 

National Guard—the Adjutant Generals Association and the Department of Defense on that issue. We would prefer that it be left 

with the Governors. 

An example of mobilization that is practical to Missouri is when 

we mobilized for Katrina. I established a State policy that I was 

not going to take my college students out of school to miss another 

semester after they had just come back from Iraq. So there was a 

degree of volunteerism in mobilizing the unit. That flexibility 

would not have been available to me if the call-up were on a Federal basis. And I think it is very important from a State perspective that we realize that the State and local governments are being 

supported by the National Guard and the military, and that the 

Governor and local officials are in charge of the emergency response, because ultimately that is who has to answer to the electorate as to whether or not the response was appropriate. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. I think that is a very important question, Mr. Mica. We are still trying to sort through that. Mr. Carney? 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just a couple quick 

ones right now. I grew up just north of you, in Iowa, and I recall 

the floods of 1993. Does Missouri have the capacity now to respond 

to a 1993 flood-type situation?RPTS CALHOUNDCMN 

SECKMAN[11:00 a.m.] 

General SIDWELL. Yes, we do. 

Mr. CARNEY. With the bridging equipment shortage and such. 

General SIDWELL. The bridging equipment really doesn’t provide 

us an asset that is needed or utilized, or we haven’t in the past. 

We didn’t use bridging in 1993. It is a more labor-intensive operation. We provide security, we provide sandbagging, we provide 

20

shelter, and those are more labor-intensive issues. So it is my belief 

that we—we are actually better off today than we were in 1993, 

equipment wise. The metric in 1993 just measured equipment readiness, code A and pacing items, so our percentages of equipment 

are about the same, we just happen to be a little bigger. 

Mr. CARNEY. Did I understand correctly that your manning is up 

from roughly the 1993 time frame? 

General SIDWELL. That is correct. Well, the 1993 time frame, we 

are probably about similar in end strength. We had a period from 

1993 until 2005 where end strength went down and nonvalidated 

pay went up, and we cured that. We also happen to be number one 

in the Nation on people who attend real nonvalidated pay. 

Mr. CARNEY. What do you guys do in Missouri that makes everybody want to show up? 

General SIDWELL. I think they are proud of their organization. I 

am proud of them. 

Mr. CARNEY. They should be. I want to come back to the interoperability issue for a moment. How severe is it in Missouri or if 

you want to comment from what you have heard from your counterparts in other midwestern States? For, example, radios, the ability to talk to other responders in cases of disaster? 

General SIDWELL. I may be a little more robust in cross-banding 

equipment than my other counterparts. And we have provided 

some cross-banding equipment to the hurricane region and States 

in anticipation of hurricanes. The interpersonal relationships and 

working together, for example, the State emergency management 

director and I are in the same building. We eat lunch together. So 

the ability to work together is good. 

Our practice has been, during a State emergency, we immediately push out liaison officers to the local emergency operations 

centers. And the SEMA liaisons have told me and the locals have 

told me that they find that a very helpful practice on behalf of the 

National Guard. So that works well. But from a State perspective, 

on communications, we have a homeland security committee of all 

the directorates in the State which meets regularly and a Subcommittee which is on communications. There is a lot that needs 

to be done in Missouri for local officials’ equipment to get everybody on the same protocol for communications. 

From the standpoint of FEMA, region 7 has been very helpful. 

I go visit with them in Kansas City, they come to my headquarters 

and visit with me. The FEMA representative happens to be a 

former Missouri National Guardsman, so he understands. And the 

Corps of Engineers, Colonel Rossi has been very good about communicating their plans for emergency. So I feel good about the 

intercommunication operability that we have. I am pleased. I told 

you that I got calls when we saw the floods. I got a call from the 

Pentagon asking to help. I got a call from NORTHCOM asking to 

help. I got a call from the Defense Coordinating Officer asking if 

they could help. And I thanked them and told them, right now, we 

were well within capabilities, but I certainly would go through 

FEMA through the DCO if I needed additional assistance. 

I think Katrina served as a wakeup call to the entire Nation, and 

the degree and synergy of cooperation is much greater today than 

it was 5 years ago. 

21

Mr. CARNEY. I am very happy to hear that the upper-level decision makers are talking to each other. That is great. My concern 

is, can police and fire and rescue talk to each other? 

General SIDWELL. I think there are problems in that arena. From 

a national perspective, we really need to look at the protocols that 

assure that one community can communicate adequately with the 

next community and that firemen and police can talk together. I 

know some local jurisdictions in some of the emergencies we have 

already had, had some difficulties in their communication. It is a 

funding issue. The local municipality can’t afford to upgrade their 

equipment, but on the other hand, they can’t afford not to. So 

where are you. 

Mr. CARNEY. I agree. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kuhl has assumed the Ranking Member’s chair, so Ranking 

Member Kuhl. 

Mr. KUHL. Moving up the ladder fast here. 

Thank you, General Sidwell, for coming here to testify. I wish the 

entire Nation could hear the optimism that you bring, I think, to 

this hearing, and certainly I think they would be pleased to know 

what you are doing and feel satisfied about your current situation 

in Missouri and the ability to carry out the tasks that are your responsibility. 

I just want to explore a couple of questions with you and be brief 

about that because I am concerned that when you say in your 

statement we currently have 53 percent of the total National 

Guard equipment authorized within the kinds of units assigned to 

our State, that if you take that statement out of context, it would 

appear as though you are only half prepared to do the job that is 

your responsibility. 

So I am not so sure, and I just want to reassure myself that the 

statements that you made, that you feel confident that you can accomplish the task which you are required to accomplish, given the 

fact that you have 53 percent of the equipment necessary or assigned that’s authorized, I should say. 

I guess my question to you would be, as another way of putting 

it, have you ever in the history of the Missouri National Guard and 

particularly during your assignment had 100 percent of the equipment that was authorized? 

General SIDWELL. No. We were, pre-9/11, about 58 percent. That 

included a lot of authorized substitutes which are not authorized 

substitutes today. For example, back then, a CUCV, which is essentially a pickup truck with a radio mount in it, was an authorized 

substitute for what we now call a Humvee, and now we require an 

up-armored Humvee in order to meet that percentage of requirement. 

So it is really comparing apples to oranges to look at what percentages were. They use a different metric. The metric, even at 

both of them, is a wartime metric, not a peacetime metric. And 

things that previously were concluded in that 58 percent would not 

be included today. 

22

Mr. KUHL. So would you be in agreement with me that that 

number of 53 percent is really kind of misleading as to a designation of your capability to do your job? 

General SIDWELL. It is misleading with respect to response to a 

State emergency issue. It would be accurate with respect to a wartime measure of capability for deployment to theater to engaged in 

combat. My 53 percent is above the national average. National is 

40 percent. 

Mr. KUHL. Would you recommend that there be two types of classifications to better reflect to the general public your capability in 

both of those scenarios of carrying out your responsibility? 

General SIDWELL. Probably it would be more informative to the 

public for local response if they understood that the equipment necessary for a local response is different than the equipment measure 

for deployment to a combat theater. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay. Good. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Kuhl. 

Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, General Sidwell, for taking time to come 

here today. I appreciate your insight. I share a unique insight 

maybe with you on this. I have the unique privilege of being the 

highest-ranking enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress as a command sergeant major. So I wish you would have brought one along 

with you. 

General SIDWELL. In a reversal of roles, I salute you for that. 

Mr. WALZ. So having been someone called up for fire, tornados, 

floods and in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, that is 

something that I look at very closely, how we are going to deal with 

the guard as it assumes a new role and as it changes in the new 

environment we are finding ourselves in. 

Just a couple of things I would note, and in speaking of the lack 

of equipment, it has always been an issue. I am an artillery guy 

who taped Howitzers on the floor and used toilet paper roles on the 

floor to simulate draining. You have seen it. So that did happen. 

We have always been in a make-do type of situation, and I applaud the Guard because they have already found a way to do that, 

and you epitomize that attitude. We were just discussing also that 

it might also be of note that, Ike Skelton is from Missouri, so we 

don’t know because our States are somewhat different in that because we are not hearing this across the Nation. 

My concern now is for the Nation as a whole but your unique 

perspective, as I would agree with the current Ranking Member, 

there is reason for optimism because, when it is the Guard, they 

will get the job done. I have the utmost confidence in them. Our 

job is to find out how to best maximize the use of our resources to 

make you as effective as possible. 

Your last couple of statements are where I get a little concerned, 

too. I think probably we will make do the best we could on statewide emergencies. My concern is, and just a couple of questions to 

you, General, and I know this is somewhat subjective, this level of 

deployment that we are seeing, did we ever prepare for that? Did 

we ever foresee this level of continuous deployment and the wear 

and tear on the soldiers, the families and the equipment in general? I am just asking you. I know we prepare for all things, but 

23

I left in the spring of 2005 after having done—seeing this. I never 

anticipated it to this level. So I am just getting your comment as 

we look to the future. 

General SIDWELL. The character of the use of the National Guard 

has dramatically changed and in fact the terminology used in describing that has changed. Instead of being a strategic reserve, 

where you presume that you would have a long dwell time in 

postmobilization training before deployment to a theater, we now 

have become an operational reserve, and as of January 17 of this 

year, with the changes that the Secretary of Defense has made in 

the regimen of training, much of the training that we previously 

looked to postmobilization is now trained and evaluated 

premobilization in order to shorten the postmobilization dwell time 

at a training station and to shorten the overall deployment time for 

individual soldiers and units, and we deploy as units. 

Certainly the Guard of today is vastly different than you and I 

knew when we enlisted. 

Mr. WALZ. And I would also say this, I really applaud your answer when the Ranking Member of the Full Committee was here, 

on your flexibility, when asked about who should make those decisions, your ability to depend on volunteerism or try and make the 

impact spread out a little bit, not felt so heavily on those that had 

maybe 6 or 7 children at home or were in school or whatever in 

trying to do that. I know that has been happening across the Nation from the Guard. 

Is the National Guard Empowerment Act in your opinion—and 

I know it is in your opinion, you have got the civilian suit on, but 

you have got a lot of experience—is that going to be helpful in some 

of these issues? 

General SIDWELL. It will be helpful. For example, the 4 Star position should be helpful in making decisions concerning priorities for 

purchase of equipment and allocation of resources. Because there 

is increased responsibility, the end strength is about 358,000 in the 

Army National Guard; 102,000 in the Air National Guard. 

The joint credit for adjutant general to then go on to be able to 

serve in a joint billet to help integrate the National Guard into the 

total defense force would be of assistance. So certainly the impact 

of the Empowerment Act on behalf of the Adjutant Generals Association uniformly support those changes. 

Again, that is not something that is embraced across the Department of Defense. I don’t want that to be confused as an official position of the Department of Defense, and as a matter of fact, I 

think Secretary Gates endorsed a number of the CNGR recommendations but not all of the CNGR recommendations, and I 

certainly respect differences of opinion, and we end up with a good 

result when we can accommodate all of the opinions into a final decision process. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, I would just say, from my perspective, I simulated too darn many of those toilet paper charges to not think this 

is important. Just to let you know. I yield back my time. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Walz. I have only two 

more questions for you, and then I will ask if any other Members 

have questions. We want to make sure we maintain a balance here. 

The letter from General Lempke who of course is the major general 

24

of Kansas and head of your own association of adjutant generals 

says, and I am quoting him: The Army National Guard was never 

fully equipped. Pre-9/11 States generally hovered around the 60 

percent range. 

So, in a real sense, when there is a war, then, as you said, the 

General said, well, there is a tendency to look at the equipment 

then and perhaps bring in new equipment. The problems we are 

dealing with here of course is this war is going on longer than some 

have anticipated so the equipment is left in the field, perhaps some 

you would prefer to have at home. At the same time, Major General Lempke said unanimously, we believe the National Guard’s 

ability to support disaster response and recovery is as important as 

its Federal mission to provide trained forces to support national defense. 

I assume you agree with that statement as well. You will recall 

that I think I said the Pentagon has had to help us sort this out. 

We have to get some kind of data base. We have to know what we 

don’t know now, which is, how much is equipment is out there, so 

that we can measure how much equipment there should be out 

there? 

We know that equipment may grow old and equipment may seem 

as much not needed when there hasn’t been a disaster for some 

time. When there is a disaster, we are all Americans; Americans 

operate on an emergency basis for everything. When something 

happens is when things begin to happen; otherwise we assume 

things will always go well for us. 

He says, however, Major General Lempke says that Lieutenant 

General Steve Blum, who is the chief of the National Guard Bureau has devised a list of 10 critical capabilities needed or that 

should be quickly available to each State, he says this is perhaps 

the best measure, at least available now, to assess individual State 

capability from a national perspective. 

Would you agree to that? Are you familiar with this list of 10 

critical capabilities? 

General SIDWELL. Yes, ma’am. Those are the items which are 

listed in the essential 10 equipment requirements for the global 

war on terror, which is the Office of Legislation Liaison Report of 

26 February 2007. Specifically, it is page 5 of that report. It includes joint force headquarters, command and control, civil support 

teams and force protection, maintenance, aviation, engineer, medical, communications, transportation, security and logistics. 

General Blum has assured that he will place some, to the maximum extent possible, make those capabilities resident in each of 

the 54 States and territories, and it is part of the backdrop which 

provided decision makers with input as to where to place units 

when we went through the restationing and rebalance. An example 

of that would be that, prior to the rebalance, I had four engineer 

battalions in the State of Missouri. There were other States who 

had no engineers. After rebalance, I have two engineer battalions, 

but other States that didn’t have any now have some engineering 

effort. So it is an attempt to spread that availability to a regional 

and State basis for more rapid response in the State to emergency 

response. 

25

Ms. NORTON. This becomes critically necessary when you see the 

imbalance among the States. You feel you are ready, but as I indicated in my opening remarks, if you live in Arizona or you were 

adjutant general there, you had just 34 percent of the allotted 

equipment. You might have a different answer. Or in New Jersey 

where you had just 42 percent. 

What General Lempke does is simply to use his own State as a 

case in point, Nebraska. He said Nebraska is dominated by transportation units, but he says I have half of the 5-ton trucks authorized. Quote: This certainly limits my authority to train and mobilize units. However, even down by 50 percent leaves me with nearly 150 trucks to deal with disasters in State, a quantity I believe 

to be more than sufficient. 

So he says that: While his reported readiness level is down, my 

assessment of the National Guard’s ability to support disasters in 

State is positive. 

Again, this brings home the importance of some kind of measure 

so that these numbers mean anything to us because some layman 

or some Member of Congress looking at these figures by percentage 

sees the kind of interpretation I am giving to Arizona and New Jersey because I don’t have any way to evaluate what 34 percent and 

42 percent means. 

General SIDWELL. Yes, ma’am. What further exacerbates that 

problem is, for example, in Missouri my Army strength is roughly 

8,500. In Nebraska, their Army strength is 3,500. They are not terribly different in geographic land mass than I am. I am different 

in population and recruiting and the size that may be allocated to, 

in the end structure, allocated to any individual State impacts how 

they may respond to a local emergency. For example, your district 

of D.C. is roughly 1,146 on Army. So, certainly, I have got greater 

ability with 8,500 than you do with 1,146. 

Ms. NORTON. But you are a State; we are a city. But can people 

out of State belong to your National Guard across State lines. 

General SIDWELL. That is actually a common practice. We find 

that a number of Missourians will be in units in an adjoining 

State. For example, for me, I don’t have infantry in the State of 

Missouri. I am a combat service, combat support State. A lot of individuals who wish to enlist as an infantryman within 11B may go 

across to Arkansas or Illinois or Kentucky, and by the same token, 

I have soldiers who have come across the State line to belong to 

the Missouri National Guard. The National Guard is more tightly 

geographically contained than the United States Army Reserve, 

which will typically have a unit that will cross several States and 

you may have people traveling 500 miles in a Reserve unit for a 

drill. Theoretically, a Guard unit should be roughly in a 75-mile 

circumference for manning. As a practical matter, I may have people who travel 150 miles. 

Ms. NORTON. But it is their choice; isn’t it? 

General SIDWELL. Yes, ma’am, it is. 

Ms. NORTON. We are proud to have members, citizens from Virginia and Maryland in the D.C. National Guard, and of course, 

they would tend to be from less than the 75-mile radius. But that 

suggests that some of them of course may do so because of the kind 

of specialty that is available, but it suggests that members of the 

26

Guard understand the regional basis makes sense and makes me 

wonder whether or not the Guard itself, particularly after Katrina, 

ought to be organized on a more regional basis. Some of those ideas 

come from your own testimony. 

General SIDWELL. I probably would take issue with the regional 

basis organization. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not saying break down the State unit, sir. I 

am not trying to reorganization what the country began with, 

which was every State had a militia and from there grew the National Guard. But one wonders about whether or not, assuming 

these are discrete units that ought to be having a discrete amount 

of equipment. I mean, does it really make sense for Uncle Sam to 

say that every State ought to have a certain amount of equipment 

even though we know different things about how the States operate 

and what kind of disasters come as opposed to assuming certain 

kinds of sharing where we might be able to replenish more easily. 

General SIDWELL. That is the function of the National Guard Bureau. They, in fact, allocate structure among the States and take 

into account that regional response, ten essential capabilities so 

that you have those essential ten items regionally available and accessible. They may need to access those through an EMAC, but 

they are geographically dispersed throughout the country to try to 

level the ability to respond among the States and territories as opposed to solely being resident in one State. 

Ms. NORTON. Very good. The final question, for me at least, has 

to do with the National Guard Reaction Force. Would you tell us 

about this? It sounds like a more supple kind of force that is more 

generally and quickly available. Would you tell us whether you 

have such a force, what the difference between that force and how 

it is composed and the guard itself? 

General SIDWELL. There is what is referred to as a CERF, which 

is to be a rapidly accessible force to do essentially a search and rescue type of mission, which I believe is—I have one in Missouri, and 

I believe it is residents in each of the 54 States and territories. 

There are some funds that are allocated separate from our normal 

funding to train that force. It tends to be, or at least in my State, 

the people who make up that CERF mission come from different 

units. I think it is still a process in maturation as far as its development and how rapidly it deploys. 

For example, General Blum and some of my counterparts, I was 

not able to go, visited Israel not long ago to see how they do their 

rapid reaction, and they in fact put pagers on individuals so that 

they get paged and report to the scene of the incident, whereas our 

construct is we bring people into the armory and then send them 

from the armory to the incident. 

Those are things that we continue to explore as ideas of ways to 

improve the process, but we have identified individuals who are on 

that CERF for rapid reaction and can be called to respond to a localized event. 

Ms. NORTON. For lack of a better analogy, kind of like Special 

Forces that go—that the Army uses when they have critical missions, that they pull people out and send them in with the Special 

Force Operations? 

27

General SIDWELL. Certainly they have special training to address 

those issues, but I would remind you. And I think it is a wise construct in the national response plan that the first response to a 

local emergency is the local civilian responders and then the National Guard when it exceeds that capability or the State’s capability can be called to assist. 

An example of planning would be, in my earthquake, crackedearth scenario, I do not place a great deal of weight on my soldiers 

who happen to be near the epicenter of the event because I think 

they have got to take care of their own families so I look to those 

more heavily to those outside the epicenter as the responding force 

to provide assistance. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Sidwell. 

Mr. Kuhl, any further questions? 

Mr. KUHL. Nothing further. 

Ms. NORTON. Any further questions? 

Mr. CARNEY. Yes, Madam Chair. One more. General Sidwell, I 

really do appreciate your candor and your comments this morning. 

I feel very good about the Missouri case. It is great. I read this 

morning with concern an article in the Harrisburg paper, and I 

want to get your impression on this, if you have noticed this in 

terms of what has gone on in the Missouri Guard or if you have 

heard other anecdotal information on this, that you are losing soldiers because of employment issues. 

I want to read this little passage from the paper this morning. 

It says, about 54 percent of employers surveyed said that they 

would not knowingly hire members of Guard or Reserve, though 

they know that would amount to discrimination, because of disruption and cost to the employer. 

Have you noticed that having an impact on certainly the Missouri Guard? 

General SIDWELL. I think that an impact has existed for a long 

time. I have been in for about 34 years, and that impact has been 

there for 34 years, where an employer, especially the small employers, not as much the large employer as the small employer, when 

I take a third of somebody’s workforce for a mobilization, it is catastrophic to that employer, and certainly, they are not supposed to, 

but they do take that I think into consideration when looking at 

employing somebody who is in the National Guard. 

I believe there are things that can be done to help address that 

on a national level. Sometimes an employer may be motivated by 

patriotism, and I am certainly grateful to a lot that the employers 

have done out there, but the Congress may wish to consider some 

type of tax credit or incentive with respect to a guardsman who is 

deployed. It may be that in the health care, since there is 

TRICARE available to guardsmen, if it is not, if TRICARE is the 

primary carrier instead of a secondary carrier, then an employer 

may look more favorably on a guardsman because it could reduce 

his costs. An employer has got about a third of his costs tied up 

in employee benefits when he has got an employee out there. 

So it may be when some of those benefits are available to the 

prospective employer through their National Guard service, that 

employee becomes a more attractive employee to the employer in 

the hiring process. 

28

Mr. CARNEY. I certainly understand that, but have you noticed, 

because of employment issues, in the Missouri Guard a loss of personnel? 

General SIDWELL. It is hard to identify one-for-one. Nobody is 

going to raise their hand and say, it is employment issues, because 

they are going to have a USERA problem. So you have losses which 

may be employer issues that may be identified as a different issue 

when you do an exit interview with that employee. And certainly 

no employer is going to raise their hand and say, I am not going 

to employ a guardsman. 

Mr. CARNEY. Right. No further questions. 

Ms. NORTON. They better not. Mr. Walz, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Sidwell, this has been invaluable testimony. We so appreciate you traveling all the way from Missouri to offer this testimony to us today. Thank you very much. 

General SIDWELL. On behalf of Missourians and the Missouri National Guard, I certainly appreciate the interest this Committee 

gives toward the health of not only our Nation but the National 

Guard. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. We thank you for your service and the service of 

the Missouri National Guard. 

Could I call the next witnesses? And we have inquired and appreciate they are willing to serve on the next panel together. The 

next witnesses of course are the administrator of FEMA, the Honorable David R. Paulison, and David Hoell, who is the chair of the 

National Emergency Management Association, EMAC and who also 

serves as director of the North Carolina Division of Emergency 

Management. Thank you both for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF R. DAVID PAULISON, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND DOUG HOELL, CHAIRMAN OF 

THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE COMPACT COMMITTEE, AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, we will begin with you. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member, 

now, Kuhl, and the rest of the Committee. I appreciate you inviting 

me here. As the administrator of FEMA, I am proud of the many 

reforms we have implemented in the past year. Today FEMA is 

stronger and more nimble than it was in the past. The proof is visible in our response to tornados earlier this year, our multi-State 

efforts across the northeast in April storms, and most recently our 

actions in Greensburg, Kansas. At each instance, American people 

saw a FEMA that is leaning further forward, moving quickly to respond and working closely with our Federal, tribal, State and local 

partners to ensure a response of which we can all be proud. This 

did not happen overnight. It is the result of close review of our past 

practices and hard work of the men and women at FEMA and 

across all levels of government. 

Following Katrina, the White House issued a report calling the 

Federal response to Hurricane Katrina lessons learned which recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35927 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
29

ommended integrating the use of military capabilities into catastrophic disaster response. The report specifically stated that the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security 

should jointly plan for the support of Federal response activities 

and that DOD should be included in all Federal emergency plans. 

DOD has a key role supporting FEMA in many of these areas 

and overall planning, coordinating and integrating defense support 

civil authorities with local, State, tribal and Federal agencies. The 

DOD focus in domestic response is on providing homeland defense, 

supporting civil operations and cooperating in theater security activity designed to protect the American public. 

FEMA’s partnership with DOD continues to evolve and the disaster response support DOD and its multiple components bring to 

FEMA is critical in enhancing our comprehensive preparedness, 

protection, response, recovery and mitigating capabilities in dealing 

with all types of natural and manmade disasters. 

Specifically FEMA has taken direct action to improve our coordination with the Department of Defense, the National Guard, the 

Coast Guard and other Federal tribal, State and local government 

partners across the board. Joint participation in training and exercises is a vital element in this improved coordination. 

FEMA and DOD have implemented numerous improvements 

based on the lessons learned in Katrina as a result of changes required by the post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act. Among those 

changes, the DOD assigned liaison offices at FEMA headquarters 

to promote effective coordination of activities and FEMA reciprocated by providing permanent staff to serve at NORTHCOM. We 

also have defense coordinating officers in every region in this country. 

FEMA is coordinated closely with DOD and many elements of an 

improvement in the national logistics system. A key partner in this 

relationship is the defense logistic agency, or DLA. In the past 

year, the relationship has evolved from support to disaster response, to proactive logistical and planning support both before an 

event occurs and during the response efforts. 

Similarly, FEMA has an agreement in place with the Marine 

Corps systems command to support FEMA with emergency response equipment that can be deployed to respond to a major 

chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, explosive or natural hazard event. With the Natural Guard FEMA coordinates both the 

Federal level with the National Guard Bureau as well as the State 

level with individual adjunct generals. 

FEMA continues to coordinate and cooperate with Federal and 

State leaders of the Guard in a number of disaster response-related 

areas to include improving situational awareness, communications 

planning, force package planning, and overall mission and disaster 

response planning. 

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security brought 

the Coast Guard and FEMA into the same department. This has 

led to a steadily increasing cooperation between the two across the 

spectrum of preparedness planning, exercise and training, response 

issues and identifying lessons learned and in tracking and implementing remedial actions at the national level. 

30

Today two Coast Guard liaisons are permanently assigned to 

FEMA. In this cross-pollenization, both agencies have been able to 

make a number of improvements to their respective contingency 

plans. These new relationships are reflected in our revisions of the 

National Response Plan or the NRP. The NRP provide the structures and mechanism for national level policy and operational direction for domestic incident management. 

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA value the support of the Secretary of Defense and DOD components to facilitate 

and support Federal, State and local disaster response activities. In 

addition to direct support for disaster response, DOD possesses the 

specialized testing and evaluation and education facilities, training 

and exercise expertise, medical capabilities, and technology programs that provide important support to all levels of government 

in enhancing the Nation’s disaster prepared response capabilities. 

Madam Chair, in conclusion, I would like to thank our partners 

at the Department of Defense and across all levels of government 

for their effort to make the system work better for all Americans. 

FEMA has learned a great deal from our are friends in the Armed 

Forces. The open lines of communication and improved coordination will assure a stronger response and recovery effort when our 

Nation calls in times of need. We have taken the first important 

steps both inside FEMA and throughout the Federal Government 

to improve our readiness posture. Thank you. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Paulison. I thank you 

for your graciousness in allowing General Sidwell to go first. That 

was in deference to the Ranking Member, who had a plane to 

catch. We appreciate you being back here in time for this hearing. 

We know it took some doing. 

We want to now go to Mr. Hoell. We appreciate your coming from 

North Carolina. 

I am the only one that everyone can hear because I have learned 

from experience, at least since becoming Chair, that if you do not 

talk directly into this, we do not hear you up here even. So try to 

be as close and directly to this microphone. I think it has to do 

with the high walls here, not so much with the sound system. 

Mr. HOELL. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Kuhl, Members of the Committee, for allowing me the opportunity to provide a statement for the record. In my statement, I am 

representing both North Carolina Governor Michael F. Easley and 

the National Emergency Management Association, NEMA, whose 

members are the State directors of emergency management in the 

States, territories and District of Columbia. 

There are three key areas that I wish to discuss with you today 

that need to be resolved in order to secure our preparedness in 

partnership with the National Guard to address disasters. First, 

authority to maintain and control the National Guard should be restored to the Governors for their use during disasters and other 

civil emergencies. 

Second, the National Guard’s utilization of the emergency management assistance compact, EMAC during Hurricane Katrina 

worked well and should continue to be a strong component of the 

Nation’s mutual aid system. Third, National Guard equipment 

31

should be maintained updated to ensure that the Guard can fulfill 

domestic missions. 

Recent changes to the Insurrection Act may change the chain of 

command for the National Guard in times of emergency. Section 

1076 of the act allows for the President to take control of the National Guard during a natural disaster or emergency without the 

consent of a Governor. Previously the Insurrection Act provided for 

the Governor to maintain the control over the National Guard and 

to allow the President to take control in rare and exceptional circumstances. 

The 2006 Defense Authorization language could confuse the issue 

of who is in charge of commanding the Guard during a domestic 

emergency. The bill as signed into law by the President does not 

require the President to contact, confer or collaborate with the Governor before taking control of a State’s Guard forces. 

This language was included by Congress and signed into law by 

the President despite the opposition of Governors, NEMA and others. The current law could negatively impact the decision-making 

process and speed with which the National Guard currently acts in 

consultation with Governors to respond to an emergency. The 

change exacerbates the current manpower and equipment shortages in all States because of demands in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Governor Easley was in Washington, DC last week to discuss 

this very issue and his concerns that the language currently weakens North Carolina’s ability to respond to disasters in our State 

while expanding the President’s authority over the National Guard. 

These concerns arehighlighted in the recent release of the Department of Defense implementation plan for pandemic influenza. 

Under law as written now the President would have the power to 

take control of the National Guard at such a critical time, and the 

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal officials have told each Governor that in the event of a pandemic flu, 

Washington, D.C., would not be able to help every community affected. Therefore, we will be responding with our own State’s resources. 

The result is that any Governor could be left without National 

Guard resources that might be taken by the President. These facts 

make it even more urgent that section 1076 be repealed. 

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services 

Committee took an important step by including language repealing 

section 1076 in the markup of fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense authorization bill H.R. 1585. We hope this provision will be 

maintained in the final conference report. 

Mutual aid assistance provided during 2005 vividly exposes the 

interdependencies of the Nation’s emergency management systems. 

For hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the emergency management assistance compact, EMAC, fulfilled over 2,174 missions with 49 

States, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto 

Rico, providing assistance in the form of 65,919 civilian and military personnel and equipment assets to support the impacted 

States. The estimated cost of this assistance may exceed $829 million. 

The National Guard sit in support of the response mission under 

Title 32 status and remained under the Governors control at all 

32

times. EMAC allowed for reimbursement, liability protection, workers compensation protections, and allowed the home State Governor to call back the units for other domestic emergencies. 

FEMA funded EMAC in 2003 with $2.1 million because of the 

national interest in mutual aid. The EMAC grant will end on May 

31st 2007. The post-Katrina FEMA authorizes $4 million annually 

for the program. However, no funds have been appropriated for fiscal year 2007. We hope we can count on this Committee to support 

funding in the next budget cycle. 

Our citizen soldiers can only be effective with training and adequate equipment to do their jobs in both the domestic and international theater. The North Carolina National Guard has almost 

12,000 members, approximately 750 are currently mobilized in theater overseas and about 95 are in Arizona working the southwest 

border mission. The North Carolina Army National Guard has 

about 55 percent of authorized equipment on hand. We are currently short about 50 vehicles, such as Humvees, tractors, trailers 

and loading equipment. As we go into hurricane season, our governor is concerned that our troops and resources may not be 

enough if we have a catastrophic event. 

We appreciate Congress’s increased attention and focus on disaster preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation efforts. We 

must ensure that Federal, State, and local governments have adequate funding for baseline emergency preparedness so exercises 

and training can ensure plans and assistance are effective before 

a disaster. Preparedness includes ensuring appropriate authority 

and funding for the National Guard. 

I thank you on behalf of the National Emergency Management 

Association and Governor Easley for the opportunity to address 

your Committee. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. One moment, please. I am 

going to ask Mr. Kuhl, since I have got to do something for 2 minutes here, to save everybody’s time, if he would proceed first. 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you, gentlemen, for being so patient with our 

questions and the testimony of the prior witness. Pressure indulgence here. Obviously, Administrator Paulison, many much us are 

very concerned with the transformation of FEMA obviously because 

of the failures that we saw during the Katrina catastrophe. I am 

certainly pleased to see in your testimony today, and I apologize 

that you didn’t have enough time to go through all the written testimony, but I appreciate, given the hour and the time here, limited 

time we have, your keeping your testimony within the 5 minutes 

prescribed. But I am curious about the ten Defense Coordinating 

Officers that were placed in FEMA regions last June, and obviously, we look at those as solving some of the major coordination 

problems that we saw between the States and FEMA and DOD. I 

am just curious as to what realistic and practical benefits you are 

seeing from that, if you have had the time to have that experience. 

Mr. PAULISON. The benefits are very significant. The fact that 

now we have a liaison not only at our regional offices but also in 

our headquarters and we have people in NORTHCOM that we can 

talk to on a daily basis, sharing information back and forth, setting 

up exercises. 

33

This last week we had a major exercise with the Department of 

Defense that involved FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, 

including the White House, involving a major hurricane up in the 

northeast and also a nuclear explosion in a major city in this country. 

So having those Defense Coordinating Officers in the regions, 

having the people in our headquarters, having our people at that 

NORTHCOM is really making a major difference. Along with that 

is the prescripted mission assignments that we now have with the 

Department of Defense we did not have before Katrina. So now the 

Department of Defense exactly knows what our requirements are 

going to be; we know exactly what they can give. It has been tremendous cooperation back and forth. Every video conference that 

we have had, the National Guard has been involved in, the Department of Defense, through NORTHCOM, with the real-time disasters we have been having, they participate fully with us and at a 

level of cooperation we have not seen, in the history of FEMA anyway. 

Mr. KUHL. So those prescripted mission assignments, which were 

I guess one of the requirements, are now in place? 

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct. We have quite a few in place, not 

only with the military but across the Federal agency. I think that, 

prior to a Katrina, if we are talking across the entire Federal family, there were only 14. Last year, there were 44; this year, over 

180 prescripted mission assignments. That goes along with all the 

contracts we put in place, too. So we don’t have to start doing these 

things after a storm hits, they are going to be in place ahead of 

time. They are in place ahead of time. 

Mr. KUHL. 144 in place now? 

Mr. PAULISON. 180. 

Mr. KUHL. I was going to ask you to tell me what they all were, 

but I couldn’t remember 5, much less 180. 

Mr. PAULISON. They range the gamut of getting heavy lift helicopters from the Department of Defense, the National Disaster 

Medical Team from HHS, housing from HUD. Right across the 

Federal Government, almost for 21 different agencies we have now 

prescripted mission assignments and are working very hard and 

have been over the last 2 years to put those in place. Just trying 

to put things in place I saw did not work in Katrina and what 

stopped some of the ability to respond quickly and nimbly; having 

those in place allowed us to do that. If you want to give me a couple of minutes, let me just quickly tell you what we did in Kansas 

during—we, within 72 hours, we had the Army Corps of Engineers, 

National Guard Bureau, Small Business Association, HUD, U.S. 

force service, Social Security Administration, Veterans’ Administration, EPA, postal service and the Economic Development Agency on 

the ground within 72 hours in Greensburg, Kansas. That is the 

kind of partnership we have been putting together and that is the 

type of response we had. That is what these prescripted mission assignments do. I know it is not just DOD, it is across the whole Federal family. We are one government, we have to start acting like 

it. 

Mr. KUHL. Just to follow up on that, you had them on the ground 

and I assume that the feedback from that is positive as it relates 

34

back to contrasting feedback that you got on Katrina. Of course you 

weren’t there during Katrina. Just kind of tell me what kind of 

feedback you are getting out of having that prescriptive mission assignment in place. 

Mr. PAULISON. I should send you the news reports that we got 

back the next couple of days from that whole area from all the 

news media that were on the ground and saw what we were doing. 

We put communication vehicles on the ground. The city is actually 

operating out of one of our command posts. That is their city hall, 

big sign on it that says city hall. 

We were right there with them from day one. They got their local 

urban search and rescue teams to respond but when they asked 

from help from us, we had a team on the ground within several 

hours. We were there helping them set up cell phone communications, land mobile radios for their first responders. They didn’t 

need food at the time. They had plenty of food, but we did move 

food and ice and water. Just to give them the tools they needed to 

do the job. Everybody lost their homes there, including the mayor, 

including the city manager, including all the first responders, but 

they kept working so we were there to back them up, and the response was what I want FEMA to be, there early, leaning forward, 

not waiting for the declaration before we start moving equipment. 

We started moving equipment right away. But within 24 hours of 

the tornado hitting, the President had signed a declaration. So we 

moved very quickly, and that is what we are going to be doing. 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, out of curiosity, 

obviously, compared to the disaster in New Orleans and in the Gulf 

Coast that was a small catastrophe size wise, certainly as tragic as 

the issue was in the gulf States. From what you have seen and 

what you have put in place, can those same kinds of activities 

occur in a larger geographical disaster arena? 

Mr. PAULISON. You are absolutely right, it was not a Katrina. It 

was a smaller event but it did take out the whole town. And the 

answer is yes, it is a different philosophy, a different culture that 

we are building inside the organization. We have prepositioned 

supplies around the country but we are also going to be 

predeploying them to move in things quickly, setting up a communication system. I think everyone here today understands the biggest failure we had was communications and not having the right 

type of people on the ground who knew how to manage disasters. 

Eight of my 10 regional directors offices were empty when I took 

over at FEMA. They are now filled with people with 25, 30 years 

of experience in dealing with disasters. So we are going to put the 

right people on the ground, move much more quickly. We have 

worked very hard to instill a unified command system where we 

are sharing information, so if you have a need for something like 

buses, you know who is responsible, who is going to get them there, 

when they will show up. You are not going to see the same failures 

you saw in Katrina. 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you. I do have one more question if you don’t 

mind. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I. 

Am very curious, because I think all of the finger pointing that 

went on during Katrina, as to what the actual process is for requesting military support, and I wonder if you can walk me 

35

through the process as it starts from say the request coming from 

the Governor’s mansion as to who then makes the decisions and 

who actually makes the calls as to how you get involved, how any 

National Guard gets involved or anybody else. Just so that you can, 

I think, kind of lessen my anxieties in fact by your explanation and 

your answer as to my belief and feeling that we have made significant strides ahead, or you have in the department. 

Mr. PAULISON. The declaration process, really the process has not 

changed. The Governor declares a State of emergency for their 

State. They will either do preliminary damage assessments with us 

if it is not a significant event where we can take a couple days to 

do that. If it is an overwhelming event like, the Greensburg, Kansas, our people will tell us on the ground immediately to say it is 

going to be a declaration. The State sends a request to the regional 

office through the President to the regional office. They do a quick 

evaluation, send it to me, and I send it over to the White House 

for the President to sign with my recommendation. The President 

makes the final decision obviously but I send it over with my recommendations. 

Mr. KUHL. So it comes directly through you, now to the President. We don’t have to worry about Homeland Security approval or 

authorization. 

Mr. PAULISON. We copy Homeland Security on it. In the case of 

Greensburg, we told them what was happening, they, said don’t 

even bother sending it here right away, send it right to the White 

House. There is a communication going on constantly between us, 

Homeland Security and the White House on the phone before it 

even comes in. So everybody is ready. In the case of Greensburg, 

I kept my staff literally overnight to work on it, so did the White 

House staff, to process that, and we turned it around within 24 

hours of the time the storm hitting—actually from the time we got 

it—the President had signed it within just a matter of hours. 

Mr. KUHL. What about the actual request for military assets, 

which is one of the concerns we have here obviously. 

Mr. PAULISON. There are two types of military assets that we 

would use, one is the National Guard, as controlled by the Governor. We do not prescript assign them; that is a State asset at 

that particular time. But from the Department of Defense we have 

these prescripted mission assignments that just take a phone call 

or a memo over to the Secretary of Defense that we are asking for 

this particular asset to be mobilized, and they will start mobilizing 

it. 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the extended time. 

Ms. NORTON. Certainly so, Mr. Kuhl. So you are the Ranking 

Member now and therefore you can get all the time you like. We 

don’t have many Members. This is important to bring some of this 

out. Mr. Hoell, I do want you to know that in the defense authorization passed just yesterday, there was the repeal of the Insurrection Act, which you strongly advocate on page 2 of your testimony, 

the need to restore to the Governor’s full authority to maintain the 

National Guard. What was the difference? What difference did it 

make, or did you see that difference over the time? Actually, it was 

just done, I suppose. It was just done in the last appropriation. So 

36

I am not sure if you had time to see what difference it made to 

have that control shifted, but if you saw any difference, it would 

be good to lay it on the record at this time. RPTS 

BINGHAMDCMN NORMAN[12:05 p.m.] 

Mr. HOELL. I think that our concern was that you know the Governor relies very heavily on the National Guard as a support force. 

And, quite frankly, our National Guard in North Carolina has built 

the same kind of mission packages that Director Paulison is talking 

about. So our forces are organized into response packages that can 

come in and do immediate response work for State and local government and the Governor needs to have control of those resources 

to be able to bring them on immediately, you know, when a disaster occurs and be able to control those forces. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, General Sidwell spoke about, for example, the 

discretion to say to students who just come from Iraq, you are not 

going to be pulled out of school again, and apparently that wasn’t 

possible under this short-lived bill. 

I think we ought to say, well, particularly when both of you hear 

about EMAC, I am always impressed with what I—you will have 

to forgive me, for lack of a better analogy, used in another context 

in Major General Sidwell’s response to his testimony; for lack of a 

better word, I think it was Special Forces people, people who can 

get there even quicker or who can go across State lines. 

I must say Mr. Hoell, when you indicated that you—the amount 

that was available, $4 million annually for this program, apparently it is authorized, but that the grant will end on May 30th and 

you are not sure it was—it would be appropriated again. I have instructed staff to make immediate contact with the appropriators in 

the hope that we can make sure that that appropriation is, in fact, 

there. 

And the reason I do so, I think you could—both of you—could 

help elucidate. The EMAC system that we funded allows, as I understand it, units to cross State lines, emergency management 

units. I take it that they could have some Guard in it, some FEMA 

in it. They are designed to be nimble. 

Could each of you give us some sense how the EMAC system 

works, whether it works, or how it works—it must have worked 

during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita—why you consider EMAC, 

what it is, why you consider it an important part of your work? 

Mr. HOELL. The EMAC system, Emergency Management Systems is a compact, it is a State-to-State mutual aid agreement basically made between Governors that we can share resources from 

State to State. 

It has a well-defined operational system so that a State that is 

in need of help can broadcast to all the other member States what 

need they have. Other States then can look at that, say we have 

got a response resource that we can deliver to you. We write a formal contract between States such that when the resource is delivered to the requesting State, it goes—it goes under, you know, coverage for liability; you know, the people are brought right into that 

requesting State’s operational capability. They carry out their mission. When they return home to their responding State, we then 

turn around and send a bill back for the service that was rendered 

to the requesting State. 

37

So it is a well-defined system. It worked extremely well in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We delivered over 65,000 personnel. Of 

that, it was said today, roughly 50,000, over 46,500 National Guard 

personnel that were delivered to those events in the gulf region. 

And, again, I think it was an efficient and effective response, and 

details are proving themselves to be a very responsible way to do 

business. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, what is a unit? How does FEMA relate to what you put into such a unit? 

Mr. PAULISON. The thing Mr. Hall said, the EMAC system is 

really a State-to-State mutual aid agreement to move resources 

from one State to another in the event of a disaster that overwhelms the State’s capabilities. 

During Katrina, particularly National Guards—and I think the 

gentleman behind me will correct me—all 50 National Guards contributed to responding to Katrina. And like Mr. Hoell said, the system worked very well. It allows a lot of resources——

Ms. NORTON. Does it have units, civilian and National Guard 

units in the same unit responding across State lines? 

Mr. PAULISON. Whatever the receiving State requests. It may be 

National Guard units. It may be bulldozers. It may be firefighters. 

It may be police officers. It could be heavy equipment. Whatever 

the State happens to need——

Ms. NORTON. Who coordinates that? Once you know that is going 

to happen, who is in charge of those people? 

Mr. HOELL. It is coordinated by the States. The State is asking 

for the resource. You know, the responding State then delivers the 

resource to the asking State, and it is under the control and direction of the asking State once it gets there. And, again, we do move 

both National Guard assets, State assets, and quite frankly we can 

also move local assets, you know, through mutual aid, where we 

have a written agreement so that that local resource can come on 

as an agent of the State and be delivered to the other States. 

Ms. NORTON. So agreements exist easily among all States in the 

same region, for example? Do written agreements exist today 

among all the States in the same region so that Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. Will have, for example, automatically almost such 

an agreement? 

Mr. HOELL. And 50 States and three territories are signed-on 

members, plus Washington, D.C., with the exception of California. 

They had a sunset law on their signatory to EMAC and it ran out. 

So they are currently trying to get their legislation reenacted. 

Mr. PAULISON. To answer your question directly, the National 

Emergency Management Association is the one that controls the 

EMAC system. It goes through their organization. And we support 

them with that. As part of our whole ESF system that we have, 

we can assign those resources. But this really does go from State 

to State and it works very well, and we are glad now we have all 

50 States on board, and hopefully California will sign back up 

shortly. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, I do not understand the relationship 

of FEMA to the National Guard. I know you have National Guard 

units and you talked about National Guard units that are on site, 

the National Guard Bureau on site, now. And in your headVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:19 Feb 13, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\35927 HTRANS1 PsN: JASON
38

quarters, when the President declares a National emergency and 

the National Guard is called out, has FEMA any sense of the capacity of the National Guard to handle the emergency? Or is that 

still a whole separate matter for the National Guard? 

Mr. PAULISON. We do have the capacity to—we have the ability 

to understand what the capacity is, because we are working with 

them side by side. 

Ms. NORTON. Were you doing that before Katrina? 

Mr. PAULISON. We do it in exercises. We have been exercising together. We need to do more of that. And now that I have the exercise program back under FEMA, because of the Post-Katrina Reform Act, that is going to allow me to have a better hands-on in 

setting those exercises up. But we work with them right at the 

State level. We move people right in the State Emergency Management Center right away, so we know what the States’ needs are, 

including the capacity of the Guard and all the other capacities of 

the State, so we can start assisting them in backing it up in what 

the gaps are. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, could I ask you a question that may 

seem parochial, except the entire Federal presence is located here. 

Half of it is in D.C., the rest in the immediate region. Have there 

been any of these exercises involving the National Guard and 

FEMA in this region? 

Mr. PAULISON. That, I am not sure. I need to find out on that. 

I don’t want to give you a bad answer and say ′′yes′′ or ′′no.′′ Ms. NORTON. I would like to know. I would think that such realtime exercises are imperative in this region; 200,000 Federal workers come into this City alone, every day, using public transportation. Many of them are coming underground by subway. We have 

crowded highways. Are you aware of the real-time exercise that the 

District of Columbia did on July 4th? I think it was done two July 

4ths. I don’t know if the National Guard was involved. But it is, 

as far as I know, it is the only real-time exercise ever done by a 

major city. 

And what it said was since you have what can only—what I am 

sure are hundreds of thousands of people that are here not only for 

the sights, but because of a major concert that is held that evening, 

we will use this as an exercise to see if people can—will follow instructions about getting out of town. And all they did was to put 

the red lights, held the red lights longer than they otherwise would 

have, just to see what people would do. 

It was announced ahead of time that this would be an exercise. 

But, for example, if you are used to waiting, I don’t know, 2 minutes for a red light, and for some reason in order to—I don’t know 

exactly what they were doing to get emergency vehicles through. 

Everybody had to stand still for 10 minutes. 

The point was to see if it worked. And each time it worked just 

a little better than the next time. With all of those folks it didn’t 

work very well. I would like you to come see me about doing such 

an exercise here and encouraging exercises of this kind to be done 

all over the country. 

I just don’t believe that instructions much matter. This is what 

you should do, XYZ. We believe, for example, in this region most 

people would just flee, giving the National Guard much more of a 

39

huge debacle than it would otherwise have, since there is nowhere 

to flee to. You get on the roads trying to get out of this city at rush 

hour, you are in bad luck. Imagine if everybody who lives here is 

also trying to do the same thing, particularly since the word is not 

altogether clear to people that the first thing you ought to do is just 

stay where you are; probably they are not blowing up the whole 

city, probably it is compacted in a certain part of the city, so everybody is probably better off just not moving. 

I don’t even think that is thought out, because they saw Katrina, 

whoops, we are certainly not going to be caught if there is some 

kind of disaster, and we are going to get out of town. 

Mr. Hoell, have you ever done any real-time exercises with or 

without the National Guard in North Carolina, and has any national official indicated that that would be a good thing for you to 

do? 

Mr. HOELL. We have done exercises with our National Guard. In 

fact, we include them them in all of our planning efforts in North 

Carolina. They are a vital——

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about where you wouldn’t involve the 

civilian population. I am speaking about the kind of real-time exercises of the kind I just described here on July 4th, where, in addition to people who are trained, you are implicating the civilian population who would be affected almost surely if there were a natural 

or other kind disaster. 

Mr. HOELL. We just recently did a major exercise in Charlotte, 

our largest metropolitan area, where we did a significant building 

collapse, and then that followed on with an additional search-andrescue exercise in a city outside of Charlotte. And the National 

Guard was actively involved in that mission, in that exercise. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. I have some more questions but I am 

going to defer now to my colleague, Mr. Carney. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Paulison, good to see you again. It has been a few days. As 

you know, of course, one of FEMA’s primary responsibilities is 

emergency preparedness planning. How has FEMA adapted to 

emergency planning to account for a reduction in National Guard 

personnel and equipment? 

Mr. PAULISON. We haven’t, quite frankly, seen an impact on our 

emergency response because of the deployment of National Guard’s 

assets overseas. Even in Greensburg, Kansas, when I sat down 

with the adjutant general, I said okay, what do you need that you 

don’t have? And the answer was, we have everything we need. And 

I think you heard General Sidwell just say the same thing. I asked 

him the same thing. There was plenty of resources on the ground 

to do that. 

However, he did say that if there was another disaster that size 

in his State, back to back, he would not have the resources. And 

so we talked about the EMAC system and how we can draw resources from other States, how we could mission-assign the Corps 

of Engineers to come in with heavy equipment if you needed that. 

We have contractors, contracts in place to bring in the same type 

of equipment. 

So we have a backup system in place that, should something 

happen catastrophic enough to overwhelm local resources—like we 

40

saw in Katrina—that we can move things in from other States and 

other areas to back that up. And that is how our system works. 

That is how it has been working. 

Now, what we have done now is just making it much more robust, better communications, better systems in place where missions assignments are already—where everybody knows what they 

are going to do. There are contracts in place. Instead of writing 

those after a disaster, where you don’t get a good contract, we have 

them in place ahead of time. 

Mr. CARNEY. That is great. The EMAC response takes how long? 

I know you respond, but there is timely response and then there 

is simply response. What are we looking at if Greensburg happened 

twice on the same day? How long would it take, just a wag, from 

your point of view? 

Mr. PAULISON. Well, with Missouri right next door, I think they 

could move equipment very quickly and the surrounding States 

would move very quickly so, yes, there is going to be a delay because it is not right there. But at the same time, a lot of equipment 

that you would use in a disaster like that, you don’t necessarily 

want right there immediately. You know you want to do basic 

search and rescue and those types of things, system after system, 

to be able to set up a staging point to be able to bring those resources in. 

So, you know, any catastrophic event is going to have a delay in 

it if it is a huge event. It is going to slow everything down. 

Mr. CARNEY. If you are not fortunate enough to have Missouri as 

a neighbor—tip of the hat, General—but has FEMA considered 

something that the military does, and that is prepositioning of 

equipment in various regions? 

Mr. PAULISON. And we do a lot of that already. We have a lot 

of prepositioned equipment around the country, and then in a notice event like a hurricane or something like that, we are actually 

predeploying equipment. We do have pre-stages, much more than 

we did during Katrina, scattered across the country to be make 

sure we can move things fairly quickly. 

And, again, the contracts in place—like contracts with with 

buses, contracts with ambulances, working with Defense Logistics 

Agency—that we did not have before, is really more of a partner 

to help us move supplies; is going to make a significant difference 

in now how we respond. 

Mr. CARNEY. So basically it is your testimony that you have noticed no reduction in FEMA’s ability to respond or with drawdowns 

and National Guard personnel and equipment? 

Mr. PAULISON. I have not seen that. Again, the disasters have 

been smaller in scale than a Katrina, but every time we responded—Florida, there were tornadoes there; we had the tornadoes in Georgia and Alabama; the ones in Greensburg; the floods 

we had up in the Northeast. Every Governor I talked to—and I 

talked to all of them—we have the right amount of equipment. We 

need you here to help us on the public assistance and individual 

assistance and communications equipment. And we did that. But 

as far as National Guard’s assets, none of them have said to me 

that we don’t have the right equipment. 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Paul Hoell, can you echo that? 

41

Mr. HOELL. I would say in Florida in particular in 2004, and in 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005, those States were drawing on National 

Guard assets of other States. And that is how adequate numbers 

are delivered. So that is what we are going to do. If we don’t have 

adequate numbers in our State, we are going to ask other States 

to deliver through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. 

I think our biggest concern is, should we be faced with another 

Katrina, you know, are there adequate numbers of personnel and 

equipment that are readily available nationwide to come to our aid. 

But, again, it will be done through the Emergency Management 

Assistance Compact. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, gentlemen, that is all then. Nothing 

further. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kuhl, do you have anymore questions. 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. I just have one. 

What happens if EMAC—if States ask EMAC to come forth with 

resources that they don’t have individually. And EMAC can’t respond? What is the next step? 

Mr. HOELL. I think most States, certainly in North Carolina, we 

have contracts for resources, just like FEMA does. We would borrow from other States where those resources are available. We are 

partnering, or at least attempting to partner with the private sector, quite frankly. The private sector—I met with them yesterday 

with the business executives for national security, because they are 

very much used to engage with the public sector on how we would 

respond to significant disasters. 

And the other option is for us to turn to the Federal Government 

and say, we need help we can’t find; are there in the public sector, 

at the State and local government level or in the private sector, 

that is readily available to us, do you have something you can support us with? 

And so I think, partnered with the Federal Government, 

partnered with the private sector, and partnered with our local 

counterparts and other States across the Nation, we are fairly well 

positioned to respond to significant events. 

Mr. KUHL. So you don’t envision any shortage of resources ever, 

then? 

Mr. HOELL. In a major catastrophic event, who knows? It could 

happen. Pandemic flu, I think we are going to have shortages. And 

I don’t know where all the resources will come from, because States 

will probably be reluctant to give up their resources through EMAC 

if they feel like they are going to be affected as well. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Kuhl. 

I note on page 7 of your testimony, you indicate that you have 

members mobilized overseas, in Arizona working the Southwest 

border mission. Do you know if North Carolina has had the full 

complement of its National Guard or it has had any difficulty in 

recruiting National Guard? 

Mr. HOELL. I am not aware that they have had any problems, 

no. 

42

Ms. NORTON. That is good to hear. You say on that same page 

that the North Carolina Army National Guard has about 55 percent of authorized equipment on hand, that you are currently short 

about 50 vehicles. And you name Humvees, tractors, trailers and 

loading equipment. 

Does that mean that even with those deficits, you feel that you 

could respond at least to the kinds of emergencies that most typically occur in North Carolina? You have large hurricanes, we know, 

because they go from North Carolina right up here. 

Does it mean that you could continue through your—to respond 

through EMAC to Florida, which apparently you have done on a 

frequent basis? I mention in my opening testimony that you are 

typically available to help evacuate people from Florida hospitals. 

Could you comment on whether or not this report of your equipment is enough to handle emergencies in North Carolina today? 

Mr. HOELL. When we activate for an event, we will have Guard 

representation in our emergency operations center. And we basically will, you know, call up certain numbers of resources to start 

with, which wouldn’t deplete all that we have. We would start with 

the packages we feel like we need. 

As we enter into the event and there is increased need for resources, we would use the North Carolina resources first. If we see 

that we are going to run out of North Carolina resources, we may 

turn to our FEMA counterpart and the Defense coordinating officer 

to ask for military support. We may turn to EMAC to ask for other 

States to deliver resources. We may even turn to our own contracts 

to bring in transportation resources. We do have a contract for 

transportation resources. 

And not necessarily in that order. It depends upon, you know, 

how the events unfold and what resources we would want to bring 

up to support those resources that we had in the State of North 

Carolina. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know how civilian and National Guard 

forces can adequately prepare without some kind of baseline indicating what people ought to have. This is where this Committee 

and the Homeland Security Committee are going to have to work 

together. Again, I am using these statistics. That is all you have 

are these statistics about 55 percent of authorized equipment. And 

all you can say is if you don’t know what is going to occur, is, well, 

we would reach out for more equipment. And that, of course, is fine 

and it ought to be done, as we have learned from Mr. Sidwell, that 

it is done on a regional basis. Again, that kind of knowledge and 

information would just help everybody to feel better about coming 

disasters. 

Mr. Paulison, I must ask you about recent reports, press reports 

about formaldehyde in Federal Emergency Management Agency 

trailers, I know that you yourself requested a report from the 

Agency for toxic substances and that that report cautioned about 

generalizing to a larger population of trailers. 

But your statement of May 15th in response to formaldehyde 

found in trailers was—in a Homeland Security hearing—seemed to 

indicate that everything was normal, although you apparently had 

sampled air in only 96 trailers. 

43

There was some concern that you indicated people should open 

their windows. I am sure they did that if they smelled formaldehyde. But then experts say that that can have the effect of—certainly if you put on air conditioning—of increasing the amount of 

formaldehyde. 

I wish you would elaborate on the safety of trailers which are 

now being used. Many of them are, of course, old trailers that you 

put out, or trailers on hand that you put out, I should say, as the 

need arises. And how you can assure those who use the trailers 

that formaldehyde levels for those trailers in particular are safe, 

whether they are running their air conditioners or not, and particularly considering what the heat is likely to be, the temperature is 

likely to be in the southern States where many of these trailers are 

in use. 

Mr. PAULISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We have been concerned about this for a long time. We have 

been on top of this for a long time. This is not something new. We 

have been dealing with the formaldehyde issue with the travel 

trailers for 6 or 7 months, maybe even longer. We have brought in 

the EPA and CDC to give us some very clear advice on what to do. 

Ms. NORTON. Was that after the report of formaldehyde in the 

trailers, I guess, in Louisiana? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, this was months and months ago that we did 

this. We have been working on this for a long time and the advice 

they gave us—and I can give you copies of the report if you don’t 

already have it—is that if they air the trailer out, the formaldehyde dissipates over time. They said formaldehyde is in everything 

we produce. It is in travel trailers. It is in wood. 

Ms. NORTON. That is like saying arsenic is a natural substance. 

Mr. PAULISON. So we have done a couple of things. One, we 

have—first of all, out of the 115- or 20,000 travel trailers we put 

down on the ground, we have only had around 100 complaints. 

Ms. NORTON. Of how many you put on the ground? I am sorry? 

Mr. PAULISON. 115,000 or so. Is that the right number? Yes, give 

or take a few, over 100,000. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that mean you have tested before you put 

them on ground and found they are free—or at least have levels 

below the dangerous level of formaldehyde? 

Mr. PAULISON. No. What I am saying is we have installed over 

100,000 travel trailers and we received around 100 complaints. 

Ms. NORTON. I am asking, therefore, since you have not received 

complaints, does that mean you have tested them before they were, 

in fact, leased out to people to use? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, we did not. When we installed them, the 

formaldehyde was not an issue. We were not aware of the issue. 

Put it that way. 

Ms. NORTON. How do these emerge just this month with formaldehyde? 

Mr. PAULISON. I think it is an old issue——

Ms. NORTON. I think it is that it is hot in Louisiana, is what I 

think. I think that it emerged because the heat may have—here I 

am doing what scientists do. Of course then they do a test to see 

if it is true or not. You put any trailer that has some formaldehyde 

in it, it might be a new trailer but it is in storage for some time, 

44

you expose it to the kind of deathly heat that you have in Louisiana, then the formaldehyde may come out. 

So my question is, how can we assure people in those areas—and 

those are the areas where we have most of the trailers—that you 

have looked at such trailers for formaldehyde before they are 

leased out, and that any formaldehyde at that time in those trailers is below the dangerous level? 

Mr. PAULISON. We have had a couple—first of all, we are bringing in our Department of Homeland Security’s medical officer based 

on the report that we saw the other day, Dr. Jeff Runge, to work 

with us and get with that doctor and look at those case studies that 

he said he has, and see exactly what the issues are. 

Secondly, we have——

Ms. NORTON. You bring him in to look at the trailers where the 

reports have been made? 

Mr. PAULISON. He is going to talk to the doctor that reported on 

CBS. Talk to him, find out what his findings are, look at those. The 

trailers that people continue—we have had several that we have 

replaced that people are sensitive to formaldehyde, and if they continue to complain even after we have aired the trailer out and air 

conditioning, like the CDC told us to do, we will change those trailers out. We will continue to do that. Also——

Ms. NORTON. You change those trailers, meaning you put those 

out of use, you no longer use them? 

Mr. PAULISON. Took it out of use and gave them a new trailer. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that mean the trailers are then put back into 

your stockpile of trailers? 

Mr. PAULISON. No, we won’t do that. We have also changed the 

specification——

Ms. NORTON. I don’t mean to say—I just want to say for the 

record, taxpayers have paid for those trailers. I don’t mean to say 

those trailers are useless. I would rather see those trailers—I think 

they should be taken out of service, just as you are doing. But I 

would much rather see somebody look at those trailers and deal 

with formaldehyde than to have those trailers just carted off as no 

use to anybody, and we write it out. 

Mr. PAULISON. In most cases, airing the trailer out reduces the 

amount of formaldehyde very quickly and then, over time, the 

formaldehyde does dissipate——

Ms. NORTON. Or you might in fact find—and here is where we 

need scientific study. We might find that if there is a need for a 

trailer in Maine or in New York, that this is simply not a problem; 

that subjecting a trailer to intense heat of the kind we have in 

some States makes this an issue. 

And I would just—and here I am doing the kind of hypothesizing 

that scientists do, they just hypothesize various scenarios and then 

they test them out. I would ask that that there be some kind of 

testing by scientists so that this disappears, particularly since you 

say this is an old complaint. If it keeps coming back, we have got 

to find a way to deal with it. 

Mr. PAULISON. That is what we are trying to do. Also, the mobile 

homes has a—HUD has a specification for the amount of formaldehyde they can have there. Was no specification for travel trailers. 

45

Our new contracts for travel trailers have to meet the same specification that HUD sets down for mobile homes——

Ms. NORTON. And does that include—does that say something 

about formaldehyde? 

Mr. PAULISON. That is what I am talking about, the formaldehyde issue. I am sorry, I should have said that up front—that deals 

particularly with formaldehyde. There are specifications for mobile 

homes. There were none for travel trailers. So our——

Ms. NORTON. And these were travel trailers? 

Mr. PAULISON. That is correct. The new travel trailers that we 

are going to be purchasing, if we buy new ones, will have the same 

specification as a mobile home does. So we won’t have the issue in 

the future. 

In the meantime, we are telling people how to mitigate the formaldehyde in their trailer, if they have a complaint—it is usually 

just people who are sensitive to that—air them out, turn the air 

conditioner on. I know it sounds simple, but according to CDC that 

works very well. 

If it doesn’t work for them, we will change their trailer out and 

give them a new trailer and test it before we give it to them. We 

are on top of it. We do understand this issue and we are taking 

it very seriously. We are not making light of this at all. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Paulison, one more question. You are going to 

get this question—first of all, I will not ask you a question on the 

disposition of trailers here. I will ask you—I asked for a report 

within 30 days. I need to know the disposition of trailers, about 

which we had a hearing earlier, about whether we are disposing of 

them, how we are treating—how we are retaining them, how taxpayers are being relieved of what may be excess trailers. 

But I will ask that report to come to—and I will ask staff to give 

me what the status of that is. 

But this is a question you are going to get. You got it from 

Homeland Security just last week, and here it comes from us. And 

that is the status of the National Response Plan. This is a plan 

where essentially all of the assets on the ground, public and private, be a plan, not a tailored plan but an overall plan of how we 

will deal with disasters of every kind. What is the status of the 

plan and when will it be ready for public comment? 

Mr. PAULISON. Okay, we have—the National Response Plan is in 

place, and it has worked. It is a good solid plan and we are using 

it. Everyone knows who is going to report to whom and how we are 

going to manage this. 

What we are doing is rewriting that plan. We are going to make 

it more user friendly. We want to make it bottom up, so it is much 

more easy for people to understand, and how they are going to use 

that. We are currently working on that. It will not be done by June 

1st, but it will be done in the June time frame. 

We are moving very quickly on it. We are going to put it up for 

review as soon as we can get the draft done. So we have staff working literally almost around the clock to get the thing. We have a 

lot of input from our users out there, and NEMA is helping us with 

this. Other agencies are making sure that we get this plan out and 

get it done right. 

46

Ms. NORTON. A final question for Mr. Hoell. You praised the 

EMAC system. You indicate it is not a perfect system, since we are 

trying to find ways and recommendations to offer for the EMAC 

system which we, too, are very impressed with. I would like to ask 

you what recommendations would you make to make it a more perfect system? 

Mr. HOELL. Well, I think what we truly need is some funding 

support through FEMA to the EMAC system, so that we can do 

better planning and better education across the board of all our 

component parts, you know, so that everybody understands how 

EMAC works, and it can be appropriately activated and utilized in 

disaster time. 

We believe strongly that, as the Nation’s mutual aid system, it 

is a very valid program. And that is what EMAC is; it is a Nation’s 

mutual aid system. But it does need some funding support and that 

is something we would ask for. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, we strongly support it. This Committee has 

always supported those grants and we will support the appropriation based on your testimony that said that the appropriation was 

running out at the end of 2007. I will ask Mr. Kuhl if he has any 

further questions. 

Mr. KUHL. Actually, I have just two. 

And I am not sure, Mr. Hoell—or Mr. Paulison can answer the 

first one. And it comes back, it is a continuation of the EMAC system. Your percentage of equipment authorized and every other 

State’s doesn’t appear to be 100 percent. And the question would 

be from your perspective, I guess in your National Association role, 

would be: Do you have a dollar figure, if every State was to have 

100 percent of its authorized equipment, what that dollar number 

would be? In all 50 States? 

Mr. HOELL. I don’t have an answer to that. No, sir, I don’t. Can 

we get that, Kristen? 

Through the National Guard Association we can probably get 

that information, but we do not have it. 

General SIDWELL. Actually, I think the National Guard Bureau 

could provide that number. I can get together with them and get 

back with you. 

Mr. KUHL. That would be great if you had that. 

[Subsequent to Hearing, General Sidwell added the following: We would need $50B worth of equipment to bring all 50 states to 100 

percent of its authorized nationwide fill] 

Mr. KUHL. And then relative to the National Response Plan, Mr. 

Paulison, can you tell me who actually is involved in the development of that? Is that something you personally are doing, or is 

there somebody within your agency or Homeland Security? 

Mr. PAULISON. A combination of several things. One, input from 

the user groups out there, having input into what they seem to 

need to be in the plan. The information from the post-Katrina format. FEMA has the overall responsibility for putting that plan together and getting it out, working with Homeland Security, working with people out of the White House. It is a combination of Federal agencies that have them put into the plan, including the Department of Defense. But FEMA is the one that is coordinating the 

actual writing of the plan and making sure we get all the things 

47

in there the other agencies see we need to tweak and change for 

the plan. 

Mr. KUHL. Is there one person who has, really, the overall oversight? 

Mr. PAULISON. Right now, I have—Bob Shea has the oversight 

for FEMA, and also I just assigned my deputy, Harvey Johnson, 

Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, to also assist with that plan to 

make sure we get it in a timely manner. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay. Thank you both for your testimony. I really appreciate your being here. 

Ms. NORTON. I thank you, Mr. Kuhl, and I want to thank you 

as well, both Mr. Paulison who had to fly back in order to testify 

today—we very much appreciate that sir—and Mr. Hoell who had 

to come all the way from North Carolina for testimony that proved 

very valuable to us. We appreciate that both witnesses have testified. And we apologize that when you are on the second panel you 

have to wait. 

But as you can see, Mr. Hoell—with Mr. Paulison, who is the 

agency head on the second panel with you—that certainly did not 

say anything about the importance or the priority of importance to 

this Committee. I thank you both for coming. 

We will hold the record open for 30 days, especially considering 

the material that General Sidwell promised to get in response to 

Mr. Kuhl’s questions, and any of the materials that we have requested. 

The hearing is adjourned and I thank all the witnesses once 

again. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

48


35927.009
49


35927.010
50


35927.011
51


35927.012
52


35927.006
53


35927.007
54


35927.008
55


35927.013
56


35927.014
57


35927.015
58


35927.016
59


35927.017
60


35927.018
61


35927.019
62


35927.020
63


35927.021
64


35927.022
65


35927.023
66


35927.024
67


35927.025
68


35927.026
69


35927.027
70


35927.028
71


35927.029
72


35927.030
73


35927.031
74


35927.032
75


35927.033
76


35927.034
77


35927.035
78


35927.036
79


35927.037
80


35927.038
81


35927.039
82


35927.040
83

Æ


35927.041