<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:82426.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-738
PROTECTING OUR HOMELAND AGAINST TERROR: BUILDING A NEW NATIONAL GUARD
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, TERRORISM,
AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 13, 2001
__________
Serial No. J-107-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-426 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
Bruce A. Cohen, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel
Makan Delrahim, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairperson
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
David Hantman, Majority Chief Counsel
Stephen Higgins, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California..................................................... 5
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 1
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 7
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 32
WITNESSES
Alexander, Richard C., Major General (retired), Executive
Director, National Guard Association of the United States,
Washington, D.C................................................ 15
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 2
Davis, Russell C., Lieutenant General, Chief, National Guard
Bureau, Arlington, Virginia.................................... 11
Libutti, Frank G., Lieutenant General (retired), Special
Assistant for Homeland Security, Office of the Secretary of
Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C................ 8
Monroe, Paul D., Jr., Major General, Adjutant General, State of
California, Sacramento, California............................. 19
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
Hon. James M. Jeffords, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont, Hon. Patty Murray, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Washington, and Hon. Maria Cantwell, a U.S. Senator from the
State of Washington, joint letter to Hon. Tom Ridge, Director
of Office of Homeland Security, December 12, 2001.............. 39
Rostker, Bernard, Senior Researcher, RAND Washington Office,
Washington, D.C., statement.................................... 35
PROTECTING OUR HOMELAND AGAINST TERROR: BUILDING A NEW NATIONAL GUARD
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2001
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government
Information,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne
Feinstein, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Hatch, and Kyl.
Chairperson Feinstein. The meeting of the subcommittee will
come to order.
Senator Kyl, the ranking member of the subcommittee, will
be here about 2:30. Unfortunately, he can't be here before, and
we are delighted to have the ranking member of the full
committee here and because he has got a time constraint, I
would like to give him the opportunity to make his statement
now. Then I will make a brief statement and then we would like
to welcome Senator Bond and we will hear from him.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF UTAH
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Madam Chairperson. I
appreciate you doing this for me because I have to be at the
White House, but I am grateful for this timely and important
hearing that you are conducting. I appreciate the opportunity
to make this opening statement today. Unfortunately, as I said,
I have got to depart shortly.
As a member of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I want to
express my keen interest in the role of the National Guard in
protecting our homeland against terror. This is an important
topic, and I commend you in particular for holding this
hearing.
As a Nation, it is imperative that we get this right. Our
national security both at home and abroad depends on deciding
the right mission for our National Guard and clearly
articulating priorities. All recruiting, training and
resourcing for the National Guard depends on the role they are
given in the 21st century. We cannot afford to waste time,
effort, or money.
Currently, the National Guard has the dual mission as a
State militia and as a national warfighter. I believe this has
worked well. I would encourage a very judicious study of any
new architecture proposed for the National Guard that would not
preserve this dualism.
Another important concept concerning the National Guard is
jointness. The National Guard executes joint operations
extremely well with other active-duty forces. We see that today
as the U.S. active-duty and reserve troops prosecute the war on
terrorism overseas.
I also know that the National Guard implements jointness
extremely well in its State militia role. I point to the
experience of the Utah National Guard as they prepare to
perform security operations for the 2002 Salt Lake Winter
Olympics. I believe the preparation for these Olympic Games
manifests just how well the National Guard has established a
partnership between State and Federal military forces.
Yet, the National Guard's execution of joint operations
does not stop with the military. The Utah National Guard also
established a strong partnership with civil authorities in the
process of gearing up for the Olympic Games. I refer to the
excellent working relationships between the Utah National Guard
and the State, local and Federal law enforcement agencies. It
is essential that these relationships between State and Federal
military and between military and civilian law enforcement be
transparent to ensure effective security for the Games. In a
hearing I chaired last May concerning Olympic security and
cooperation among the various Federal, State and local
agencies, the message was loud and clear. The National Guard
knows how to execute joint missions.
I will close with just one last point. Whatever mission is
handed to the National Guard, we all have a responsibility to
ensure that the Guard is given the proper resources to do the
job.
I am grateful to have Senator Bond here today, who plays a
significant role in this area. We appreciate having you before
the subcommittee.
So, again, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for your
leadership and the opportunity to examine this very important
topic. I think this hearing is a very important hearing, so
thank you.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thanks very much, Senator Hatch. We
are delighted that you came, and have a good trip to the White
House. Thank you.
Senator Bond, if you have a time problem, and perhaps you
do and would like to go now, I will leave it up to you. I can
make my statement or I would be happy to defer to you.
Senator Bond. Madam Chair, if it is all right with you,
this is a rather busy day for me and if I may be permitted?
Chairperson Feinstein. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. I do appreciate the opportunity to appear
before this subcommittee to express my views regarding the role
of the National Guard, and I would thank in absentia my good
friend and dear colleague from Utah for his excellent
statement.
As a former Governor of the State of Missouri and currently
as the co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, I
understand how vital it is that we continue properly to
resource the Guard for the missions they are assigned both at
home and abroad.
I also understand the need to preserve the National Guard's
constitutional role. The Guard aptly states that ``Today's
National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing
to the States units trained and equipped to protect life and
property, while providing to the Nation units trained, equipped
and ready to defend the United States and its interests all
over the globe.''
I would add that during my time as Governor, I frequently
called on the Guard to meet its civilian role. I called them
out frequently. I was said to be the master of disaster because
we had floods, tornadoes, fires, everything but earthquakes and
pestilence, and the Guard was there.
Now, we have seen the Guard respond to the national
security mission, and I am very pleased and honored to testify
on this, the 365th birthday of the National Guard. If I may, I
would extend my hardiest, most sincere birthday wishes to
Lieutenant General Russell Davis and the men and women who
serve so faithfully as citizen soldiers and airmen.
We wish you, General Davis, not only a happy birthday, but
as we would say in our line of work, many happy returns. Thank
you, General Davis.
It is an honor to testify because we are here today to
discuss the role of the Guard, while celebrating the Guard's
record of unsurpassed service over 365 years. Over all these
years, the Guard has been the bedrock on which our Nation's
security has rested both at home and abroad.
Our national security depends upon the health and continued
stability of our Guard forces. The Guard's dual role as the
States' and Governors' first line of defense in support of
local and State civil authorities and as the vital reserve for
our active military forces is well-established.
I cite a recent Washington Post article entitled ``Military
Favors a Homeland Command: Forces May Shift to Patrolling
U.S.'' The author there, Bradley Graham, states that our
Nation's top military authorities favor appointing a four-star
commander to coordinate Federal troops used in homeland
defense. He correctly points out that the chain of command is
not clear, and I would agree that that must be rectified.
The article also suggests that the historic Federal role of
the Guard as the vital reserve for our active forces might be
reevaluated in favor of restructuring the Guard, or portions
thereof, for a more narrow homeland defense role. While
discussing the National Guard's dual role, the author quotes
Secretary Tom White, the interim Department of Defense
Executive Agent for Homeland Security, who says, ``One school
of thought says we can still do both'' for a domestic
operation, ``but the other side says we can't.'' The author
also writes that Governor Ridge said the administration would
look at whether to shift some Guard units and assets.
I am not suggesting that the Guard force structure should
not be adaptable to a changing threat environment. It has, it
can right now, and it always will. But I would caution anyone
who would seek to alter the traditional dual role and mission
of the Guard.
If, God forbid, we must endure another attack on our home
soil, there is no doubt that the National Guard will be on
station assisting local and State civil authorities. Any
expansion of responsibilities of the National Guard must be
fully supported with the resources necessary to perform its
expanded mission. But any effort to reduce the Guard's
longstanding wartime role in support of our National military
strategy overseas would, I believe, be met with fierce
resistance, and for good reason.
We all know that the First World War was labeled the war to
end all wars. Little did we know that Nazi Germany had other
ideas, and Japan. Ask our veterans and strategic reserves who
served in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Desert Storm, the Balkans,
Kosovo, and now Afghanistan, if these events were fully
anticipated. We know not what the future holds, but we do know
that our best defense is the ability to field a sound defense,
and this, in my view, must continue to include the Guard.
We also know that without a vibrant force in reserve, ready
to step in when our active forces absolutely must have
reinforcements, our ability to wage a sustained war is
weakened. If war must be waged, let it not be waged on our
soil.
We are waging war in Afghanistan because we do not want to
wage war here at home. Our active forces are designed and
equipped to carry the fight to any enemy on his territory, but
if our worst fears come true, if the bench is empty when our
active forces overseas need replacements because we have
foolishly weakened our vital reserves here at home, we are in
deep trouble.
To recap, we must, in my view, acknowledge the need
properly to shape our forces to respond to any attack here at
home or abroad. Furthermore, additional requirements placed on
our Guard forces must be adequately and fully resourced. That
is military-speak for funding it.
Any attempt to fund the increased cost of homeland defense
by radically restructuring the Guard and changing its
traditional role would significantly weaken its ability to
support our National military strategy. As we look to
strengthen our homeland defenses, as we must, we must ensure
our active and Guard forces are able effectively to coordinate,
plan and implement a cohesive homeland defense strategy. And we
must work to improve interagency communications and teamwork.
The Guard has a well-established record of working with
local and State civil authorities and Federal military forces
to accomplish the Nation's business. I am fully confident that
the National Guard, led by Lieutenant General Davis, will
continue to meet the requirements and responsibilities demanded
by current and emerging threats.
We have no draft. Our only bench, our only emergency call-
up forces are the strategic Guard and reserve. The strength of
the strategic reserve remains the flexibility of the National
Guard to shape our forces and respond to any threat either at
home or abroad. This is the Guard's stated mission, and I truly
believe any attempt to change it would be shortsighted.
I thank the subcommittee very much for the opportunity to
share these views.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thanks very much, Senator Bond. We
appreciate your comments, and particularly as a former Governor
they have double meaning. So thank you very much.
I would like to acknowledge the presence of the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Senator Kyl, with whom I have
worked closely on other issues.
Senator, I would like to make a brief opening statement,
then turn to you. My understanding is the chairman of the
committee--
Senator Kyl. Might I just thank Senator Bond as well, Madam
Chairman?
Senator Feinstein. You certainly may.
Senator Kyl. I very, very much appreciated his comments,
and look forward to speaking with you personally about more of
the ideas that you expressed. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Kyl.
The chairman of the committee, Senator Leahy, it is my
understanding, may wish to attend and make a statement, and
when he does, we will defer to him as well.
Senator Bond mentioned the birthday of the Guard, and
actually there is a very interesting historic anecdote about
the birthday. The Guard dates its founding back to December 13,
1636, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony Legislature--that was
called the General Court--divided the militia into three
separate groups, with the purpose of increasing its efficiency.
For years, the Guard celebrated its birthday on the wrong
day, October 10, not December 13, and that is because
historians had determined that the General Court had met to
reorganize the militia on the 10th day of the 10th month.
However, in 1983, a National Guard historian researched the
issue and determined that the legislature actually ordered the
regiments to be formed on the 13th, not the 10th. He also
determined that the calendar year in 1636 began in March, not
January, so that the 10th month was December, not October.
So I too would like to say happy birthday to our National
Guard.
This is a hearing on whether the National Guard should have
an enhanced role in homeland security, not to defer or deter
from its primary mission, but to give it another role. In many
ways, such a role would return the National Guard more to what
was envisioned by the Founders of the country.
Colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from
Indian attack, from foreign invaders, and later helped with the
Revolutionary War. And during the 19th century, the militia
provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the
early years of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.
It was not until 1903 that Congress passed legislation to
increase the role of the National Guard as a reserve force for
the United States Army, and that has become a primary role
today. Currently, the National Guard acts as a strategic
reserve for the Army and Air Force and as State militias.
Because Federal law requires that the Guard receive the
same training and equipment as the regular armed forces and
reserves, Guard members often spend a fair amount of time
preparing for overseas deployment, and that is their primary
mission, as well it should be.
However, it is far more likely that the National Guard will
be used to respond to a terrorist threat, or even to help clean
up a natural disaster. That is because in their role as State
militias, they are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act and thus
are used as the armed forces' primary provider of support to
civil authorities.
The National Guard's access to military command and
control, discipline, training and equipment makes it well-
suited to coordinate with and back up police, firemen, and
other responders.
There are about 460,000 National Guard members that train
throughout the year--353,000 Army National Guard and 106,000
Air National Guard. The approximate numbers of National Guard
in individual States run from about 1,000 to 21,000, and vary
according to the population of the State and the recruitment
efforts.
In light of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, as well as the October 2001 anthrax
attacks on Congress and the media, many experts have come to
believe that the National Guard should play a more central role
in responding to terrorist attacks, particularly those with
weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the Guard has already
played an important role in helping respond to these attacks,
not only at the site of the attacks but also at airports,
around the Capitol, and elsewhere where it is serving today.
The National Guard is well-suited to performing an enhanced
homeland security mission because it is already deployed in
communities around the country, integrated into local, state
and regional emergency response networks, has ties with key
players in local, State and Federal Governments, is not bound
by the Posse Comitatus Act while serving in Title 32 status and
thus has maximum flexibility. The Posse Comitatus Act generally
restricts law enforcement to civil authorities.
The Guard is responsible for and experienced with homeland
security missions, including air sovereignty, disaster relief,
responding to suspected weapons of mass destruction events, and
counter-drug operations. The Guard has existing physical,
communications and training infrastructure throughout the
United States.
It has existing training facilities, distance learning
training networks, and a number of highly skilled individuals
who have left active forces. And the Guard helps preserve a
constitutional balance between State and Federal sovereign
interests, given its unique dual Federal/State role.
Moreover, the Department of Defense reviews and reports,
including the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and Reserve
Component Employment 2005 study, have made clear that the
National Guard should have an expanded role in homeland
security. Other experts agree. Both the Hart-Rudman and the
Gilmore Terrorism Commissions have both recommended that the
National Guard be given a more direct role in the war on
terrorism.
In close consultation with the Guard, we are currently
drafting legislation that would do just that. It would build on
two more narrowly defined missions the Guard has already
assumed. The Guard currently has a number of civil support
teams that assess a suspected weapon of mass destruction event,
advise first responders, and facilitate the assistance of
additional military forces, if needed. The Guard is used to
provide support to law enforcement to help stop illegal drugs
from being imported, manufactured and distributed, and in
supporting drug demand reduction programs.
Essentially, the legislation that I am thinking of and we
sent to your office, Senator Kyl, in hopes that you would like
to weigh in on this, would establish in each State National
Guard homeland security forces that, in their non-federalized
role, would have homeland security as their primary mission.
That is only in one part. We are not taking the other part of
providing people for our military.
The legislation would also provide for appropriate command,
control and coordination; statutory homeland security duties;
Governors' homeland security activities plans, similar to those
for the Guard's counter-drug mission; a National Guard
resources plan for training, equipment, aviation supports and
others needs; and, of course, as Senator Bond referred to,
authorization of funds. The legislation would also help ensure
that the Guard always supports, not leads, but supports
civilian agencies and that any change in the Guard's mission
not degrade our warfighting capabilities.
So I look forward to hearing testimony from the witnesses.
It is a distinguished panel.
I would now like to turn to the ranking member, my good
friend, the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein, and
thank you for holding this hearing. The topic is obviously
timely, and I think the logic of the position that the National
Guard has a key role to play in homeland defense is
unassailable. Precisely what that means in terms of how we
proceed obviously is the subject of this hearing, as well as of
additional work that we will have to do.
Rather than read my statement in the record, given the
amount of time that has elapsed here, I think what I will do is
just ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record so
we can immediately hear from the witnesses. I think that will
be a lot more productive than hearing from me.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator, and I
really want to work with you on this because all the
preliminary work that we have done has really indicated a
considerable support for moving in this direction as long as we
protect the primary role and as long as we provide necessary
funds.
I know the chairman of the committee wanted to say
something, if he is here. Well, he will be back in 10 or 15
minutes.
Could I ask the first panel to come forward, then, and I
will quickly introduce them.
Lieutenant General Frank Libutti has assumed the position
as the Special Assistant for Homeland Security.
If all of you would come forward, I will just start
introducing you.
His responsibilities include establishing a long-term
homeland security organizational structure for the Department
of Defense and developing operational solutions to national
security threats. Lieutenant General Libutti also serves as the
Department of Defense liaison with the President's Office on
Homeland Security.
Next on our panel will be Lieutenant General Russell Davis.
He is the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and he serves as
the senior uniformed National Guard officer responsible for
developing and coordinating policies and programs affecting
more than half a million National Guard personnel. We are
delighted to have him and he has been before this committee
before.
The next individual is Major General Richard Alexander. He
is the Executive Director of the United States National Guard
Association. Before taking that position, he served as the 45th
president of the organization from 1996 to 1998. He is also the
former Adjutant General of Ohio and spent over four decades in
uniform, beginning with his enlistment in the Marine Corps in
1954.
The final witness is Major General Paul Monroe, Jr. He was
appointed as Adjutant General of the State of California
Military Department by Governor Davis in April of 1999. He has
been with the California National Guard since he enlisted in
1961, and as Adjutant General he now leads the largest National
Guard force in the United States, with an end strength
numbering more than 16,300 Army and 4,700 Air National Guard
members.
General Libutti, we would begin with you, please.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK G. LIBUTTI (RETIRED),
SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
General Libutti. Madam Chairman, Senator Kyl, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear before you in my role as Special
Assistant to the interim Department of Defense Executive Agent
for Homeland Security.
Madam Chairman, if you will indulge me, I will make a brief
opening statement and then answer any questions the
subcommittee wishes to ask.
The Department of Defense currently views homeland security
as composed of two principal elements: one, homeland defense,
and, two, civil support. Homeland defense is a Department of
Defense-led task to protect the United States from threats and
aggression in every dimension, land, sea and air. The fighter
aircraft flying combat air patrols over Washington, New York
and other major U.S. cities, under the operational control of
NORAD, are a prime example of a homeland defense mission.
Civil support is where the Department of Defense assists a
lead Federal agency, which can include such tasks as supporting
the Federal Bureau of Investigation with domestic counter-
terrorism, the Federal Emergency Management Agency with
consequence management, or Health and Human Services against
biological attacks.
However, we must not forget that quick resolution of such
incidents begins with those on the front line and local and
State first responders, followed by second-echelon State-
controlled National Guard units. Federal assets are the third
echelon, including unique Department of Defense capabilities on
a ``by exception'' basis.
Secretary White, the interim Department of Defense
Executive Agent for Homeland Security, outlined three major
objectives to guide us.
Number one, the Department of Defense must unify its
efforts to enhance the cooperation and coordination of policy,
planning, and resource allocation responsibilities as they
relate to homeland security. Unity of effort will eliminate
gaps and redundancies, while dramatically improving our
responsiveness and our efficiency.
Second, we must develop operational solutions for the
future. Pending revision of the unified command plan, the
military responsibilities for homeland security are assigned to
the unified commanders on an interim basis. The Department of
Defense is exploring operational solutions for the future, but
it is important to emphasize that as we look to the future we
properly balance the apportionment of forces between the needs
of warfighters abroad and the need to defend the Nation at
home. Striking a proper balance is absolutely critical.
Third, we must improve interagency cooperation to guarantee
that the many Federal, State and local authorities with
homeland security responsibilities work together swiftly and
decisively. My staff and I work very closely with Governor
Ridge and the Office of Homeland Security as they engage the
interagency coordination process and press forward on homeland
security improvements.
As we do so, we remain mindful of the broad and critical
responsibilities of the Department of Defense to defend our
Nation against acts of war and terrorism; provide capability
and capacity to respond to chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and high-yield explosive incidents, whether
intentional or unintentional; and support lead Federal agencies
in the event of natural disasters.
The National Guard, whether in State or Federal status, is
an active partner in homeland security. Guardsmen in a State
status are protecting critical infrastructure throughout the
United States, and are supporting our consequence management
efforts as well.
State Governors, in coordination with the White House, the
Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration,
are using Guardsmen to augment security at over 400 commercial
airports throughout the country. Although operating under the
control of the Governors, the Federal Government is paying for
this mission.
In addition, we have plans to support the Governors of
States along our northern and southern borders and other lead
Federal agencies by augmenting the U.S. Border Patrol, the U.S.
Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
with Guardsmen in a Title 10 or Federal status to support
Federal security missions.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. This concludes my statement and
I look forward to the subcommittee's questions. Thank you,
ma'am.
[The prepared statement of General Libutti follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Frank G. Libutti
Madame Chairman, Senator Kyl, and distinguished members of the
Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in my
role as the Special Assistant to the Interim Department of Defense
Executive Agent for Homeland Security. Madame Chairman, if you will
indulge me, I will make a brief opening statement and then answer any
questions the Committee wishes to ask.
The Department of Defense currently views homeland security as
composed of two principal elements: homeland defense and civil support.
Homeland defense is a Department of Defense-led task to protect the
United States from threats and aggression in every dimension--land,
sea, and air. The fighter aircraft flying combat air patrols over
Washington, New York City, and other major U.S. cities under the
operational control of NORAD are a prime example of a homeland defense
mission.
Civil support is where the Department of Defense assists a lead
federal agency, which can include such tasks as supporting the Federal
Bureau of Investigation with domestic counterterrorism, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency with consequence management, or Health and
Human Services against biological attacks. However, we must not forget
that quick resolution of such incidents begins with those on the
``front line,'' the local and state ``first responders,'' followed by
the ``second echelon,'' state-controlled National Guard units. Federal
assets are the ``third echelon''--including unique Department of
Defense capabilities on a ``by exception'' basis.
Secretary White, the Interim Department of Defense Executive Agent
for Homeland Security, outlined three major objectives that guide us:
First, the Department of Defense must unify its efforts to enhance
the coordination of policy, planning, and resource allocation
responsibilities as they relate to homeland security. Unity of effort
will eliminate gaps and redundancies while dramatically improving our
responsiveness and efficiency.
Second, we must develop operational solutions for the future.
Pending revision of the Unified Command Plan, the military
responsibilities for homeland security are assigned to the unified
commanders on an interim basis.
The Department of Defense is exploring operational solutions for
the future, but it is important to emphasize that, as we look to the
future, we properly balance apportionment of forces between the needs
of warfighters abroad and the need to defend the Nation at home.
Striking a proper balance is absolutely critical.
Third, we must improve interagency cooperation to guarantee that
the many federal, state, and local authorities with homeland security
responsibilities work together swiftly and decisively. My staff and I
work very closely with Governor Ridge and the Office of Homeland
Security as they engage the interagency coordination process and press
forward on homeland security improvements. As we do so, we remain
mindful of the broad and critical responsibilities of the Department of
Defense to defend our Nation against acts of war and terrorism; provide
capacity to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and
high-yield explosive incidents, whether intentional or unintentional;
and supporting lead agencies in the event of natural disasters.
The National Guard, whether in State or Federal status, is an
active partner in Homeland Security. Guardsmen in a state status are
protecting critical infrastructures throughout the United States and
supporting in consequence management efforts. State Governors, in
coordination with the White House, the Department of Defense and the
Federal Aviation Administration are using guardsmen to augment security
at over 400 commercial airports throughout the country. Although
operating under the control of the Governors, the Federal government is
paying for this mission. In addition, we have plans to support the
Governors of states along our northern and southern borders and the
lead Federal agencies by augmenting the US Border Patrol, US Customs
Service, and the Immigration Naturalization Service with guardsmen in a
Title 10 or Federal status to support Federal security missions.
Thank you, Madame Chairman. This concludes my statement and I look
forward to the Committee's questions.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thanks, General Libutti.
General Davis, welcome again.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RUSSELL C. DAVIS, CHIEF,
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
General Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Kyl, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thanks again for the
opportunity to come over and talk to you about the National
Guard and our role in homeland security.
On 11 September when the World Trade Towers were attacked,
two aircraft, F-15s, from the Massachusetts Guard were airborne
and headed that way prior to the attack. Unfortunately, they
didn't get there in time. But those militiamen, as did the
militiamen of 1636, served our country and reacted
appropriately when needed. Circumstances dictated that they
come to the aid of the country and they responded.
During the 1950's, the Air National Guard started sitting
runway alert, and they continue that and do it today. In like
manner, the Army National Guard had a role with the Nike
missiles defending our country, defending our shores for almost
two decades.
After that attack, the President asked of our United States
military, ``be ready.'' I am here to tell you our United States
military is ready. My response to him is we are--active Guard,
reserve, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coast Guard. It is
that team that provides readiness to our country.
Within hours after that attack on the World Trade Center,
Guardsmen from New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland were right on the scene. They were
joined by their fellow servicemen from the reserve, as well as
from the active component. The Guardsmen stand shoulder to
shoulder with first responders, and they did that day. In New
York, we still have about 200 Guardsmen who are on duty, in
State duty, paid for by the State of New York.
Today, we have about 45,000 National Guardsmen who are on
duty from all 50 States, the territories, and here in the
District of Columbia, providing support in operation Noble
Eagle and Enduring Freedom.
On 27 September, the President asked the Governors to
provide support at our airports. And as General Libutti said,
we have almost 9,000 people out there serving today, guarding
our airports, providing security and an armed, visible presence
to assure our American citizens that they will be protected.
There is no question that there has been a seismic upheaval
as a result of what happened on 11 September. I would say to
you that the National Guard is ready. We have both a shield,
which we use for homeland defense, and a sword, which we
combine with the other military components to provide that
combat power that we can project anywhere in the world.
As I said, within minutes after the hijacked aircraft
struck, we went from 14 airplanes which we had on alert to
almost 100 airplanes, providing 24-hour, 7-day coverage over
many of our major cities in the United States. That force was a
combination of Air National Guard, active Air Force, the United
States Air Force Reserve, the United States Navy Reserve, the
United States Marine Corps Reserve, and active Navy, ships as
well as aircraft. Numerous other aircraft were involved,
airlift aircraft and tankers to support the fighters.
We also had set up these weapons of mass destruction civil
support teams and they were brought into play. Team number two
in New York moved down and postured itself to respond to New
York City, and it did, has done so numerous occasions since
then, as have the other teams. We are on an accelerated
schedule to get all of those folks certified, and a very
active, aggressive team with the United States Army. The
Department of Defense has made that happen, working in
partnership with the National Guard.
Key asset protection: key assets throughout the United
States are today being guarded by Guardsmen--bridges, power
plants, nuclear facilities, and key laboratories throughout
this country.
But I think it is important that we maintain that dual
mission of the National Guard, both here at home to perform the
missions required here, to respond to floods and all the other
natural disasters and civil disturbances that occur in the
United States, but also available, and we do have a number of
people deployed overseas, and I will comment on that a little
bit later on.
I want to say we stand with great pride after 365 years
continuing to serve this great country, being of assistance to
protect the life and property of American citizens.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of General Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Russell C. Davis
Good Morning, Madame Chairman and other distinguished members of
this committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify before you
today on role of the National Guard in the important Homeland Security
mission.
On September 11th, 2001, the first military response to the
terrible attack on America was led by members of the 102nd Fighter
Wing, Massachusetts Air National Guard at Otis ANGB. Two F-15 Eagle
jets from Otis were the first to arrive at the World Trade Center, just
minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 sliced into the second tower.
While they were unable to alter the course of history on that morning,
they now stand guard with renewed vigilance.
It is fitting that the Massachusetts National Guard responded that
frightful morning; for it was Massachusetts that formed the first
militia in the colonies in 1636. Homeland security was a critical
priority of the Massachusetts Bay Colony when they formed a militia of
citizen soldiers to defend themselves. For almost 365 years, the
citizen-soldiers and airmen of the National Guard have been the solid
shield that has defended America at home, and the sword that America
has wielded overseas in all her wars since that early period.
In the 1950's, the Air National Guard was sitting runway alert all
over America to ``Defend America's Skies'' against enemy air attack.
The Army National Guard had a similar role during that period manning
Nike missile defense batteries for almost two decades.
As the Cold War threat receded, America chose to reduce its
commitment to Continental Air Defense. America turned to other
priorities, mostly overseas. The National Guard has played a
significant role in every major contingency since the Gulf War in
support of the combatant CINCs.
Now we have been asked to respond once again. President Bush has
asked our armed forces to ``Be ready''. We are. He said the hour will
come when America will act, and ``you will make us proud.''
Your National Guard is responding everywhere in thousands of ways,
to the destiny that has been thrust upon us.
Within hours, National Guardsmen from New York, Massachusetts,
Virginia, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Maryland were among the first
on the scene supporting the responders and civil authorities at the
scenes of the disaster. National Guardsmen responded to the recent
tragic events by supporting our governors, the several states,
territories, and the District of Columbia plus the many other civil
authorities in answering the needs of our nation.
The National Guard stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the civil
responders in this crisis, and remains a vital component of the
recovery process. We are proud to have supported the brave
firefighters, EMS and law enforcement officials at the scene of the
disasters. We provided medical personnel to care for the injured,
military police to assist local law enforcement officials, key asset
protection, transportation, communications, logistics, and a myriad of
other support functions. We are making our resources available as
needed, to restore order, stability, and safety to our fellow citizens.
Our newly certified Civil Support Teams provided WMD support in their
operational debut.
At the latest count, (Dec 11) about 42,000 Guardsmen from 54
states, territories, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had been
called to service in response to Operations ``Noble Eagle''and
``Enduring Freedom''. We are responding as we are designed--``dual-
missioned,''--to both federal and state requirements.
The machinery of accessibility has worked just as it was designed,
and the National Guard has been both prompt and flexible in meeting the
levy of the President and the governors in responding to the needs of
the nation and the individual states. Our dual status (state and
federal) has proved to be a particularly useful feature of our
organization.
On September 27, President Bush asked the governors to call up over
7,000 National Guardsmen to supplement security at the nation's 420
commercial airports for up to six months. The first National Guardsmen
were on duty the very next day. They were joined shortly by others. The
purpose is to restore the faith and confidence of the public in
commercial air travel until more permanent arrangements can be made.
Our commercial airline industry is a key link in the national economy
and vital to our nation's interests. Once again, the governors and the
adjutants general who command the National Guard at the state level
responded very rapidly to these requests.
We were ready and are prepared to ``call out more of the National
Guard'' as needed for these important missions. National Guardsmen add
an armed, comforting presence visible to the traveling public.
Uniformed Guardsmen provide a visible display of American resolve, in
order to reassure the public and to deter our foes. And not just in the
airports.
More will surely follow.
There is no question that we have experienced a seismic upheaval in
the way we think about national defense. How did we respond to the
attack upon us on September 11th? Swiftly, with determination, and
resolve. Swiftly, because we are in a war and that gives us a sense of
urgency regarding the safety and security of our citizens. With
determination and resolve because this war promises to be a long
campaign. Like the Massachusetts militiamen, we face foes on several
flanks. The United States must guard against further attacks at home,
while it prosecutes an expeditionary campaign abroad.
That is precisely the role of today's National Guard. We are part
of the same team that is girding itself to provide both the shield of
homeland defense, and at the same time to wield the sword of combat
power in support of the Combat CINCs to protect America here at home or
far from her shores.
As the president said, our primary task is to ``be ready.'' The
National Guard must continue to be prepared for our responsibility as
the first-line, ready--reserve defense force for America. It is the
combat mission we have always had, at home and abroad, since the first
Regiments of 1636, through the intervening years, and today, remains
one of our fundamental responsibilities to recognize these roles
alongside the combat role.
Review of Activity Since Sept 11, 2001
Prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001 the National Guard had
12,400 personnel on duty performing federal and state missions. Over
450 National Guard members were in state active duty status fighting
forest fires, protecting our communities from natural disasters, such
as floods and storms, providing drinking water or electrical power, and
other domestic missions. Nearly 12,000 National Guard soldiers and
airmen were deployed in support of CINC or Service requirements world-
wide in a variety of combat and combat support missions, Bosnia/Kosovo,
Southern and Northern Watch in Southwest Asia, and the enduring air
sovereignty mission of Air National Guard and 1St Air Force air defense
units.
Within minutes to hours of the hijack notification 34 Air National
Guard fighter units were ``generated'' (prepared for combat
operations), ready or flying over the Nation's skies performing combat
air patrol missions, leveraging critical combat skills and equipment,
including Presidential Aircraft escort. In New York and New Jersey, the
National Guard immediately began what was to become a response
involving over 8,000 soldiers and airmen to provide support to efforts
at the World Trade Center site. Eighteen Air National Guard refueling
wings, multiple strategic and tactical airlift units (C-5, C-141 and C-
130), along with Army National Guard aircraft, provided necessary lift
support to the combat air patrols, consequence management activities
and Enduring Freedom response requirements. National Guard units
provided rescue support, civil engineers, communications and power
generation capability, air traffic control, medical teams, chaplains
and other service support operations, i.e., food and shelter service,
public affairs and command and control entities. New York's WMD Civil
Support Team provided analysis confirming the absence of Chemical,
Biological or Radiological contamination at the scene, thus expediting
efforts of the fire, police and medical support.
Since that disastrous day, because of its unique community-based
structure, the National Guard, significantly increased its ``dual
mission'' (state and federal) responsibilities to meet the requirements
of the nation at home and abroad. As I said earlier, about 42,000
National Guard soldiers and airmen have been called to duty to help
manage the consequences of the attacks and prosecute the resultant war
on terrorism.
The National Guard's unique WMD Civil Support Teams have responded
to more than 300 suspected chemical/biological incidents in which they
put their cuttingedge training and technology to precisely the use
Congress envisioned.
Even National Guard counterdrug equipment and personnel responded
to fill specific gaps in transportation, and to provide photo
reconnaissance and command and control support to Law Enforcement in
the days immediately following the terrorist attacks.
In addition, several thousand National Guardsmen are providing
force protection at military installations and protecting other
critical assets around the country.
Finally, the National Guard responded to the President's request to
provide airport security to more than 400 airports across the nation.
Today the Guard is performing these missions along with providing
combat and support units and personnel deployed in the operations to
defeat terrorism across the globe. As of 26 November 2001, National
Guard personnel deployed are comprised of 3,000 on state active-duty
and over 47,000 soldiers and airmen in support of CINC or Service
requirements worldwide in a variety of combat and combat support
missions. This is a near three-fold increase since the September 11
attacks.
Successes In Executing Our Responsibilities
The mission of the National Guard, like all other military
organizations, is driven by its the roles and capabilities needed to
meet the threat; and the resources that must be allocated to sustain
needed capabilities.
Let me just recap what went well on and after September 11.
We were able to get National Guard troops rapidly into federal
status. Maryland Army National Guard military police units were
dispatched to provide security at the Pentagon in less than 24 hours
after the attack. As I mentioned earlier, Air National Guard fighters
were on the scene within minutes.
We were able to bring even fairly large amounts of military
personnel and equipment rapidly to bear on the mission. Even after the
on-site civilian Incident Command structure was tragically lost during
the collapse of the World Trade Center, the NY National Guard was able
to effectively receive and fill requests for support from the FDNY
``second team'' after they were up and running.
We were able to employ National Guard forces across state lines.
New Jersey National Guard readily joined in support of the recovery
efforts. California-based Cargo Inspection Systems were sent to enhance
border security operations in the state of New York. The ability of
National Guard forces to operate across state lines was also perfectly
demonstrated recently when the state of West Virginia fought floods
using National Guard assets from five states under provisions of the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact.
We were able to integrate requested federal forces into the
response, in this case because of the unique institution of the New
York Naval Militia, the Governor of New York was able to gain access to
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve assets inside his state as they were
needed.
Although the National Guard has a long history of very effectively
responding to domestic emergency situations--every year, in every
state--we recognize that for a more robust level of Homeland Security
to exist, some changes are necessary for the National Guard.
Within 10 days of the attacks, we took steps to establish a NGB
Homeland Security office to acquire, manage, and distribute the
necessary resources and information. This office was an expansion on an
already existing cell and has been the central hub for the nearly
overnight execution of the airport security mission.
We established this office because as the National Guard's roles
and missions in the security of the homeland expands and strengthens,
we at the National Guard Bureau understand that a commensurately
expanded capability to oversee that role will be needed. Fortunately,
the National Guard Bureau has a demonstrated capability and many years
of successful experience in effectively coordinating across 54 states
and territories.
The Future of the National Guard in Homeland Security
Madame Chairman, the National Guard needs to be empowered for
success on both the homefront and the warfront--precisely where it has
always been oriented. The tremendous cost-effectiveness of the National
Guard over large standing forces is not an advantage to be cast aside
lightly.
In addition to our current Key Asset and Force Protection missions,
we are also evaluating other Homeland Defense roles that the National
Guard could receive as America's homeland security is strengthened.
Dual Mission Orientation is Essential
The magnificent efficiency of the National Guard has always been
its orientation on both protecting the lives and property of Americans
here at home and on going to war to support American interests
globally.
The National Guard has participated with distinction in every major
armed conflict of this nation and this mission should not change. The
special utility for the Nation is that in addition to being a critical
war-fighting asset, the National Guard is also a crucial source of
local and state emergency response support. Both are critically
important to the nation and keeping both missions together is critical
to the future strength of the National Guard. The resources, personnel,
equipment, and training provided to accomplish the war-fighting allow
the National Guard to support their local and state missions.
One specific example of this ``dual-missioned'' capability is found
in the combat capability of National Guard F-16's flying combat air
patrols over America since day one. These same units rely heavily on
precision targeting equipment for visual identification while at the
same time using this same critical equipment in their AEF Air
Superiority role in Operation Southern and Northern Watch. The National
Guard clearly could take on a greater role in performing the Homeland
Security mission, however it is equally or more important than ever
that it maintain its combat and combat support mission capability. All
adversaries and enemies of the United States take note when the
National Guard is deployed in our combat conflicts because they
recognize the National Guard as the grass roots support of the local
people in that conflict.
Summary
In summary, Madame Chairman and Distinguished Members of the
Committee the National Guard has tremendous local and state-based,
quick response capability to support the local, state and federal
agencies in accomplishing the Homeland Security Mission. It has been
performing that role at the local, state and federal level since its
inception 365 years ago today. It will continue in the important effort
to protect and defend our nation against all enemies foreign (as
deployed combat forces) and domestic (as Homeland Security forces.)
It has been my distinct pleasure to be here today, I thank you for
the opportunity to testify on this critically important aspect and
mission of the National Guard. I welcome any questions you may have.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you very much, General Davis.
General Alexander?
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL RICHARD C. ALEXANDER (RETIRED),
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED
STATES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
General Alexander. Madam Chair, thank you so much for this
invitation to appear before this subcommittee and present the
views of the more than 40,000 officers in the National Guard
Association of the United States, and also the 54 adjutants
general of our States and territories.
The National Guard, in accordance with the U.S.
Constitution and longstanding integration with Federal, State
and local authorities, uniquely connects every fire hose to the
Pentagon and every State house to the White House.
Although there is a need for selected units and personnel
to be dedicated primarily or exclusively to homeland security,
the homeland security mission can be most effectively and
efficiently accomplished as a dual mission that complements,
enhances, and draws its essential strength from the National
Guard's continued combat force structure, its training and
experience. This is as referenced in the Hart-Rudman Commission
report for Phase 3.
Specifically, the Adjutants General Association and the
National Guard Association of the United States urge
implementation of the following key tenets for a successful
homeland security strategy.
The statutory charter of the National Guard Bureau should
be amended to reflect its unique role as a channel of
communication between the States and the national security
authorities. The Bureau is the official channel of
communication between the several States and the Department of
the Army and the Department of the Air Force. The charter
should be amended to also make the Bureau the channel of
communication for homeland security between the several States
and the supported CONUS CINC, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security; also, authorize and fund a
program for National Guard execution of a Governor's plan for
homeland security.
Program oversight and resourcing would be primarily
provided by the National Guard Bureau based upon the decade-
long National Guard counter-drug program model, in which each
State Governor adopts and administers a program of full-time
National Guard support, with AGRs, for law enforcement
agencies. Within prescribed national standards and guidelines
enforced by the Bureau, the Governor's plan for each State and
territory marshals Guard resources to best meet the unique
needs of each State and territory.
Provide funding to the National Guard Bureau to complete
the fielding of the National Guard civil support teams in each
State and territory; also, authorize and fund a program for
organizing and training and equipping National Guard units for
homeland security missions. Oversight of the homeland security
mission should be provided by the National Guard Bureau based
upon longstanding garden plot models in which National Guard
units are trained and equipped to support civil authorities in
crowd control and civil disturbances.
The program should also authorize and fund National Guard
training with civil authorities, to include local first
responders to assure a heightened state of collective
preparedness for consequence management of domestic chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive events.
Also, the strategy should embrace the standardized
equipping of State contingency stocks with chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive equipment, and
the equipping of State task forces with modern National Guard
communications and transportation assets. Each State and
territory should have self-contained National Guard aviation
assets capable of air-lifting civilian and military homeland
security personnel and equipment within and outside the State
or territory.
Further, the strategy should include increased full-time
support to the National Guard military support offices in each
State, territory, and the District of Columbia. Increased full-
time National Guard homeland security staffing at the National
Guard Bureau and Joint Forces Command should also be a
consideration in this strategy.
It should also authorize and establish a joint State task
force in each State, territory, and the District of Columbia
that is staffed appropriate to each mission that will be
scalable in organizational structure and personnel in modular
units with a variable command structure dependent upon the size
of the task force, and also staffed by Army and Air National
Guard soldiers and airmen with emergency planning and liaison
officers from the Federal reserve components.
Further, we should have a National Guard officer in Title
10 status, if necessary, to exercise command and control of
Title 10 military personnel who are added to this task force.
The grade of the National Guard task force commander should be
determined by the size and composition of the task force and be
under the tactical control of the adjutant general and, in
turn, the Governor in order to assure unity of command and
unity of purpose. This would occur when Federal forces are
called into a State. Further, it should support the State and
Federal response plans.
One final element needs to be emphasized on behalf of the
Nation's Governors. Use of the National Guard as a primary
fusion agent in executing a balanced, integrated national
domestic security strategy preserves the constitutional role of
the sovereign States, and assures that Governors and other
State and local civil authorities remain responsible and
accountable for public safety and security of their State,
territory, or local jurisdiction.
The use of the National Guard in State active-duty status
and in Federal pay status under Title 32 permits military
forces under the control of the Governor to assist civil
authorities in executing all the laws, Federal, State and
local, without violating Posse Comitatus.
Madam Chair, that completes my remarks. Again, I thank you
for this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee and I
am ready to respond to any questions you might have at your
convenience. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Alexander follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Richard C. Alexander
agaus point paper on homeland security
The National Guard, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and
long-standing integration with federal, state and local civil
authorities, uniquely connects every firehouse to the Pentagon and
every state house to the White House. The Adjutants General Association
of the United States (AGAUS) and the National Guard Association of the
United States (NGAUS) therefore urge the President to direct the
Secretary of Defense, and request the Congress where necessary, to
authorize, support, equip and fund the National Guard to assume a
primary homeland security mission. Although there is a need for
selected units and personnel to be dedicated primarily or even
exclusively to homeland security, the homeland security mission can be
most effectively and efficiently accomplished as a dual mission that
compliments, enhances and draws its essential strength from the
National Guard's continued combat force structure, training, and
experience (see the Hart-Rudman Commission's Phase 3 Report).
Specifically, AGAUS and NGAUS urge implementation of the following
key tenets of a successful homeland security strategy:
1. The statutory charter of the National Guard Bureau should
be amended to reflect its unique role as a channel of
communications between the states and national security
authorities. The Bureau is the official channel of
communications between the several states and the Department of
the Army and Department of the Air Force. (10 USC 10501(b)).
The charter should be amended to also make the Bureau the
channel of communications for homeland security between the
several states and the supported CONUS CINC, the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.
2. Authorize and fund a program for National Guard execution
of a Governor's Plan for Homeland Security. Program oversight
and resourcing would be provided by the National Guard Bureau
based on the decade-long National Guard Counter drug Program
model in which each state's Governor adopts and administers a
program of full-time National Guard support (AGRs) for law
enforcement agencies. Within prescribed national standards and
guidelines enforced by the Bureau, the Governor's Plan for each
state and territory marshals Guard resources to best meet the
unique needs of each state and territory.
3. Provide funding to the National Guard Bureau to complete
the fielding of National Guard Civil Support Teams (CSTs) in
each state and territory. (See NEMA-AGAUS-NGAUS-IAEM White
Paper on Domestic Preparedness)
4. Authorize and fund a program for organizing, training and
equipping National Guard units for Homeland Security missions.
Oversight of the homeland security mission should be provided
by the National Guard Bureau based on the long-standing Garden
Plot model in which National Guard units are trained and
equipped to support civil authorities in crowd control and
civil disturbance missions. The program should also authorize
and fund National Guard training with civil authorities, to
include local first responders, to assure a heightened state of
collective preparedness for consequence management of domestic
CBRNE events. (See NEMA-AGAUS-NGAUS-IAEM White Paper on
Domestic Preparedness)
5. Prioritize standardized equipping of state contingency
stocks with CBRNE equipment, and the equipping of state task
forces with modern National Guard communications and
transportation assets. Each state and territory should have
self-contained National Guard aviation assets capable of
airlifting civilian and military homeland security personnel
and equipment within and outside the state or territory. (See
NEMA-AGAUS-NGAUS-IAEM White Paper on Domestic Preparedness)
6. Increase full-time support to the National Guard military
support offices of each state, territory and the District of
Columbia. Increase full-time National Guard homeland security
staffing at the National Guard Bureau and Joint Forces Command/
CJTF-CS.
7. Authorize and establish a joint state task force in each
state, territory and the District of Columbia that is staffed
appropriate to each mission and which is:
A. Scalable in organizations structure and personnel
in modular units with a variable command structure
dependent upon the size of the task force; and
B. Staffed by Army and Air National Guard soldiers
and airmen with EPLOs from the federal Reserve
Components; and
C. Commanded by a National Guard officer (in Title 10
ADSW status if necessary to exercise command and
control of Title 10 military personnel who are added to
the task force). The grade of the National Guard task
force commander should be determined by the size and
composition of the Task Force; and
D. Under the tactical control (TACON) of the Adjutant
General and, in turn, the Governor in order to assure
unity of command and unity of purpose.
E. Supportive of the state and federal response
plans.
F. The National Guard POMSO Office would provide the
nucleus, planning and exercise functions for the
standing task force element.
8. The Office of Homeland Security should include a National
Crisis Action Center (NCAC) directed by a two-star National
Guard general, with full-time representation from the other
federal agencies involved in homeland security. (see Hart-
Rudman Commission report at p. 17)
One final element needs to be emphasized on behalf of the nation's
governors. Use of the National Guard as a primary fusion agent in
executing a balanced, integrated national domestic security strategy
preserves the constitutional role of the sovereign states and assures
that governors and other state and local civil authorities remain
responsible and accountable for the public safety and security of their
state, territory or local jurisdiction. Use of the National Guard in
state active duty status and in federal pay status under Title 32, USC
permits military forces under the control of the governor to assist
civil authorities in executing all laws, federal, state and local,
without violating the Posse Comitatus Act. Any attempt to repeal or
substantially amend the Posse Comitatus Act would be met by a firestorm
of resistance from the nation's governors and state and local civil
authorities.
AGAUS--15 October 2001
Chairperson Feinstein. Thanks, General Alexander.
General Monroe, welcome to Washington.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL PAUL D. MONROE, JR., ADJUTANT
GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
General Monroe. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and good
afternoon to Senator Kyl, too. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to provide insights from a State perspective on the
role of the National Guard in the important homeland security
mission.
While the issue of homeland security is one that has
recently been thrust in the forefront of national awareness, it
is important to recognize that these issues and concerns have
been a central element of readiness, daily planning and
operations at the State level for many years. My remarks today
are a reflection based on the experience gained from State
mobilizations for earthquakes, floods, wildfires, and civil
disturbances. I have been involved in Federal mobilizations to
support national security events during Vietnam, Desert Storm,
and virtually every conflict or peace-keeping activity since.
There are many important reasons for considering the role
of the National Guard in homeland security. Allow me to
describe a few of the most crucial that are key to our success
and ultimately to the success of homeland security of our
Nation.
Specifically, this mission belongs to the National Guard.
The National Guard is uniquely positioned to support homeland
security for three reasons. First, we are the Nation's homeland
force. This is why our Founders established the militia. Our
units are located in over 300 communities across the United
States--
Chairperson Feinstein. Three thousand.
General Monroe. Three thousand. Thank you very much.
The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. More
importantly, we have been the homeland security force since
1636, with the formation of the first unit in Massachusetts.
The National Guard supports civil authorities in a myriad
of missions, from community and national security to natural
disasters and civil disturbances. We have also supported civil
authorities in missions ranging from the war on drugs to
participating in programs to encourage the youth of our Nation
to embrace the value of education and the social skills that
define the fabric of our Nation.
Finally, the National Guard is an integral element within
each State government, fully integrated into the States'
emergency response systems, even serving in many cases as the
Governor's executive agent for emergency management, and in all
cases the Governor's trained, equipped and deployable force to
meet immediate emergency situations.
Homeland security is not the single mission of the National
Guard, but one that should be codified in law and resourced in
conjunction with identified requirements. Current National
Guard force structure is designated by the active services to
support their warfighting requirements, and that resource
should be maintained as the most cost-effective method to meet
the needs of the active services.
Adding force structure to the National Guard makes strong
fiscal and operational sense for two reasons. First, adding
homeland security capabilities to the National Guard, as
opposed to other components, increases both Federal and State
response capabilities. This is because a full spectrum of
assets are available to both the Governor and for Federal
mobilization.
Migrating current combat and combat support capabilities
away from the National Guard to other components would reduce
the available support to the active component until the same
capabilities could be generated elsewhere.
Secondly, current capabilities of the National Guard
provide the capacity currently required by each Governor in
exercising military support for civil authorities within their
State. Any capabilities that are migrated out of the National
Guard become unavailable to the Governor, except under Federal
mobilization.
Homeland security is a function that requires national
authorization and coordination. However, planning and execution
is best accomplished at the State and local level. In all
cases, military support activities under homeland security will
be subsequent to and in concert with local first responders,
such as police, sheriff, firefighters, medical personnel, and
emergency management offices.
This support role necessitates close coordination and
planning well in advance of any development and response to any
specific incident. This planning is best accomplished between
the primary first responders and the National Guard, who are
the military first responders. In virtually every State, this
planning and coordination is routinely accomplished between the
first responders and the National Guard as part of the current
incident response system.
The appropriate response for supporting homeland security
is to balance the current capabilities of the National Guard
with the increased needs for this most recent mission. To meet
these requirements in the most cost-efficient manner, the
National Guard needs to establish a core of dedicated units and
capabilities for homeland security.
It is not necessary to have 100 percent of the requirements
in dedicated structure. The likelihood is slight that all
National Guard units within a State would be federally
mobilized in support of the Army and Air Force concurrent with
requirements for homeland security. But it is possible that
relying solely on federally-deployable units to plan,
coordinate, exercise and conduct homeland security missions
could result in the need for two critical missions being
simultaneously required.
For example, currently the majority of the military police
units in California have been federally mobilized to support
Army and Air Force Federal missions. Yet, many of the missions
currently underway in California could best be accomplished
with these types of units. It is certainly reasonable to
anticipate that assets that are in demand for homeland security
could also be in demand for Federal activation at times of
crisis, so some redundant capabilities may be necessary.
To facilitate economy of scale, career management, training
efficiencies, and to protect current Federal mobilization
requirements, establishing a limited dedicated force for
homeland security, sized to meet the unique requirements of
each State, should be authorized.
There has been demonstrated a recurring need for a national
method of connecting responsible agencies across local and
State, as well as agency boundaries. After-action reviews of
recent events show that this significantly impacts the
efficiency of homeland security missions. The National Guard is
in the process of fielding a nationwide network called GUARDNET
that, if extended to all National Guard facilities, would
provide low-cost access to first responders nationally.
Extending GUARDNET to all National Guard facilities and
first responders could resolve the issue of the lack of an
integrated warning information system such as that identified
by authors Colonel Randall J. Lawson and Dr. Ruth A. David in
their article.
Chairperson Feinstein. General Monroe, I neglected to tell
you about the red light. We are asking people generally to be
confined to 5 minutes. If you could possibly sum up briefly,
then we will get to questions.
General Monroe. Indeed.
Chairperson Feinstein. Senator Kyl and I both have an
Intelligence Committee hearing in about a half hour and I think
we need to go to that.
General Monroe. And I probably would have gone that long if
you hadn't stopped me.
In summary, then, the National Guard is the logical source
for first military responders for homeland security. That need
can best be met through limited increases to the National Guard
force structure capability dedicated to this mission.
The national command authority must establish overall
policy and maintain oversight of the development and training
of these new responsibilities. However, each State must develop
its own plan, based on Federal policy, that best meets the
unique needs of each State. Success will be achieved through
proper organization, equipping and training those National
Guard units to meet critical shortfalls in accordance with the
Governors' State plans and ensuring connectivity and
coordination between the civilian and military first
responders.
Homeland security requirements are an extension of the
current military support-civil authority mission continuum that
has been the hallmark of National Guard operations for over 350
years. With proper authorization and resources, the National
Guard will accomplish this mission requirement with
distinction, with no degradation to the support we have
committed to the Army and the Air Force.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Monroe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
Good Morning, Madam Chairwoman and other distinguished members of
this committee. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to provide
insights from the states perspective, on the role of the National Guard
in the important Homeland Security mission
While the issue of homeland security is one that has recently been
thrust to the forefront of national awareness, it is important to
recognize that these issues and concerns have been a central element of
readiness, daily planning and operations at the state level for many
years. My remarks today are a reflection, based on the experience
gained from state mobilizations for earthquakes, floods, wildfires, and
civil disturbances. I have been involved in federal mobilizations to
support national security events dating to Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and
virtually every conflict or peacekeeping activity since.
There are many important reasons for considering the role of the
National Guard in homeland security. Allow me to describe a few of the
most crucial that are key to our success, and ultimately to the success
of homeland security for our nation. Specifically:
1. The Mission Belongs to the National Guard
The National Guard is uniquely positioned to support Homeland
Security for three reasons.
a. First, we are The Nation's homeland force. This is why our
founders established the Militia. Our units are located in over
3000 communities across the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territories
of Guam and The US Virgin Islands.
b. More importantly, we have been the homeland security force
since 1636 with the formation of the first unit in
Massachusetts. The National Guard supports civil authorities in
a myriad of missions, from community and national security to
natural disasters and civil disturbances. We have also
supported civil authorities in missions ranging from the war on
drugs to participating in programs to encourage the youth of
our nation to embrace the values, education, and social skills
that define the fabric of our nation.
c. Finally, the National Guard is an integral element within
each state government, fully integrated into state emergency
response systems, even serving in many cases as the governor's
executive agent for emergency management, and in all cases as
the governor's trained, equipped, and deployable force to meet
immediate emergency situations.
2. Increase the Capability of the National Guard, without
transferring existing capabilities to other components of the Armed
Services.
Homeland Security is not the single mission of the National Guard
but one that should be codified in law and resourced in conjunction
with identified requirements. Current National Guard force structure is
designated by the active services to support their war fighting
requirements, and that resource should be maintained as the most cost-
effective method to meet the needs of the active services.
Adding force structure to the National Guard makes strong fiscal
and operational sense for two reasons. First, adding Homeland Security
capabilities to the National Guard, as opposed to other components,
increases both the federal and the state response capabilities. This,
because the full spectrum of assets are available to both the Governor
and for Federal Mobilization. Migrating current combat and combat
support capabilities away from the National Guard to other components
would reduce the available support to the active component, until the
same capabilities could be generated elsewhere. Secondly, current
capabilities of the National Guard provide the capacity currently
required by each governor in exercising military support to the civil
authorities within their state. Any capabilities that are migrated out
of the National Guard become unavailable to the governor, except under
federal mobilization.
3. The need for Local Control
Homeland Security is a function that requires national
authorization and coordination, however, planning and execution is best
accomplished at the state and local level. In all cases, military
support activities under homeland security will be subsequent to, and
in concert with, local first responders such as; police, sheriff,
firefighters, medical personnel, and emergency management offices. This
support role necessitates close coordination and planning well in
advance of any deployment in response to any specific incident. This
planning is best accomplished between the primary first responders and
the National Guard, who are the military first responders. In virtually
every state, this planning and coordination is routinely accomplished
between the first responders and the National Guard as part of the
current incident response system.
4. The Need for Limited Dedicated, Scaleable Force Structure.
The appropriate response for supporting Homeland Security, is to
balance the current capabilities in the National Guard with the
increased needs for this most recent mission. To meet these
requirements in the most cost efficient manner, the National Guard
needs to establish a core of dedicated units and capabilities for
Homeland Security. It is not necessary to have 100% of the requirements
in dedicated structure. The likelihood is slight that all National
Guard units within a state would be federally mobilized in support of
the Army and Air Force, concurrent with requirements for Homeland
Security.
But, it is possible that relying solely on federally deployable
units to plan, coordinate, exercise, and conduct homeland security
missions could result in the need for two critical missions being
simultaneously required. For example, currently, the majority of the
military police units in California have been federally mobilized to
support Army and Air Force federal missions, yet many of the missions
currently underway in California could best be accomplished with these
types of units. It is certainly reasonable to anticipate that assets
that are in demand for Homeland Security could also be in demand for
federal activation in times of crisis, so some redundant capabilities
may be necessary. To facilitate economy of scale, career management,
training efficiencies, and to protect current federal mobilization
requirements, establishing a limited dedicated force for homeland
security, sized to meet the unique requirements of each state, should
be authorized.
5. The Need for Connectivity
There has been demonstrated a reoccurring need for a national
method of connecting responsible agencies across local and state as
well as agency boundaries. After action reviews of recent events show
that this need significantly impacts the efficiency of homeland
security missions. The National Guard is in the process of fielding a
nationwide network called GUARDNET that, if extended to all National
Guard facilities, could provide low cost access to first responders
nationally. Extending GUARDNET to all National Guard facilities and
first responders could resolve the issue of the lack of an integrated
warning/information/coordination system, such as that identified in
Homeland Defense: State of the Union, May 2001 (Col Randall J Larson &
Dr. Ruth A. David)
6. The need for coordinated training
One need look no farther than the recent events of 9-11 to
recognize the need for a standardized and coordinated training effort
that ties together all of the various elements that respond to homeland
security and Military Support to Civil Authorities. The greater the
event, the more critical coordinated training in advance of the
incident becomes. When a military organization responds in direct
support of a single agency, on-site coordination and training can be
effective. When an event reaches the proportions of the events of
September 11, the criticality of immediate response can quickly
overcome the availability of training time.
Deploying first responders, be they civil authorities or soldiers
as first military responders, with inadequate or ad hoc training
diminishes the effectiveness of the response and increases the
potential for error. The National Guard has developed and is deploying
a Distributed Training Technology Program that provides two way audio-
visual and data capabilities.
Today in the United States, approximately 74% of the 30,000 fire
departments are staffed primarily by volunteer fire fighters. The
785,000 volunteer fire fighters would benefit tremendously by having
state-of-the-art training available through their local National Guard
armory, and the Guard's Distributed Training Technology Program can
provide that capability.
Another example of the complexity and breadth of the training
requirement is the law enforcement community in California. California
has 525 different local law enforcement agencies. These include 58
county sheriffs and 5 county marshals, 349 police departments, 10
police departments of the University of California, 23 State College
police departments, 19 police departments at the public school level,
and 31 community college police departments; plus the California
Highway Patrol and various transit police departments as well as
federal agencies that could respond to major events within the state.
Accelerating and extending the fielding of the Distributed Training
Technology Program (DTTP) would serve three purposes.
First, the military readiness of the National Guard to respond to
both Homeland Security and National Defense missions would be greatly
enhanced.
Second, the DTTP classrooms would provide first responders access
to state of the art training, provided locally, on a schedule that
meets the requirements of the local volunteer. This training can
include incident response training, initial and refresher training, and
coordinating activities across functional and departmental lines.
Finally, the capability of two way voice & data communications
(Video-Tele Conferencing) at the local level provides the capability
for continued governmental operations during crisis situations by
enabling each armory to serve as a local incident command center or
alternate government office.
7. The need for a state specific plan
The need for a plan that is specific to each state's requirements
cannot be over-stated. No two states will have the same homeland
security needs. To begin with, the potential mission requirements will
vary from state to state. While some states, such as California, may
have requirements to plan for supporting seaport activities, others
will not. Some states coordinate with federal agencies to address
international borders. Additionally, each state has their own unique
mix of first responders and existing National Guard capabilities. Most
critically, the governor of each respective state is individual who
bears the responsibility for planning and conducting emergency
operations. Whether these incidents are natural disasters or acts of
terrorism, the governor is responsible for the public safety of the
citizens of each state.
The final program adopted by this Congress must provide to the
governor the means to develop (within reason of course) a capability
and resource mix that balances needs of the state with existing
capabilities and allocates new resources to those requirements that
mitigate the greatest risk. Additionally, states need to be able to use
commercial off-the-shelf technologies to meet specialized requirements,
whenever this method is proven to be most effective.
It is anticipated that the majority of requirements in state
specific plans will center on six major functions to strengthen
capabilities within the state. These are:
a. Command, Control, and Liaison Capabilities to plan,
practice, and perform the integration of military assets and
civilian first responders to best meet the needs of the state.
b. Fill critical transportation requirements for both ground
transportation and aviation shortfalls. We recognize from
recent operations that timeliness is critical in responding to
homeland security requirements, and in most states the
available transportation assets are woefully inadequate to
support projected needs.
<bullet> The aviation posture of the National Guard on 9/11 was that
over 54% of our fleet of aircraft was obsolete and targeted for
retirement with no replacements in the pipeline. The current
proposal is to retire the current Viet Nam era airframes and to
re-allocate the remaining airframes, (dating to 1977) across
the entire force. The net impact will be a reduction from the
current 1100 Utility & Cargo airframes (CH47, UH1, UH60 only)
to an end state of 799, an overall reduction of nearly 28% The
relative impacts on representative states is as follows:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<bullet> In California, we are short 440 HUMMV vehicles (nationally
the shortfall to meet current requirements is in excess of 6000
vehicles), we are short 185 line haul tractors, and our cargo
truck fleet includes over 1100 trucks that date to 19531973.
While this represents the current situation in California, I
suspect a similar situation exists throughout the National
Guard.
<bullet> Furthermore, these trucks are specifically designed for off-
road applications, which limits their speed, their cargo
hauling capabilities, and their fuel efficiency. Anyone stuck
behind a National Guard Convoy on a two-lane road
understandsthe limitations of applying tactical vehicles to
over-the-road applications.
c. Chemical-Biological Reconnaissance and Decontamination.
Some states, such as California have been assigned Civil
Support teams, but the majority of states are still short this
capability, and in large states additional teams may well be
required. In the three months following 9/11, the 9th Civil
Support Team, stationed in California, has already responded to
eight different deployments, including deploying across state
lines for a national event.
d. Medical Response Capabilities. Virtually all medical
capabilities, in excess of basic first aid medics, have been
removed from the Army National Guard. This has severely reduced
the Governor's homeland security medical response capability.
The US Air Force Surgeon General and the Air National Guard
have developed a low cost solution that will provide an
excellent medical response for both natural disasters and
homeland security events.
e. Law Enforcement Capabilities. The value of additional law
enforcement resources for homeland security assets cannot be
overstated. Most of the current deployments both in California
and nationally could be best accomplished with trained,
equipped law enforcement units, but most of our law enforcement
trained units have already been deployed to federal missions,
in many cases outside the state.
f. Engineer Capabilities. As with medical capabilities, much
of the engineering capabilities in excess of battlefield
engineering have been migrated outside the National Guard. In
California, we have lost our vertical construction
capabilities, our earthmoving and infrastructure repair
capabilities, and most critically, our bridging assets. While
it would appear that there is little call for emergency
bridging in homeland security, every year while we still had
the capability, our bridge unit was deployed to rescue people
stranded by floods or bridge failures, and to capture and
recover structures and items that were creating safety and
navigation hazards. Additionally many states may need to
develop Explosive Ordinance Disposal or Urban Search and Rescue
capabilities.
8. The need for dedicated resources.
It is critical that in developing America's response to preparing
for homeland security we stand ready to provide the resources required
by the individual plans of each state. This will not be inexpensive,
but it is critical to the success of homeland preparedness.
Based on the critical shortfall in aviation, one should anticipate
that many states require additional aviation to accomplish homeland
security requirements. The current cost of an 8 helicopter Blackhawk
company, critical for rapid transportation of personnel and supplies,
search and rescue, medivac operations, command and control, and other
transportation support can easily exceed 100 million dollars each.
The cost of equipping a nuclear, chemical, biological
decontamination unit is between 7 and 8 million dollars, depending on
the equipment mix.
The cost of establishing regional training capabilities to
facilitate integration of civil and military operations is estimated 55
million dollars.
9. Homeland Security: a mission continuum not a conversion
From my experience, the most effective way to meet evolving needs
is to adapt the proven system currently in place rather than develop a
new bureaucracy. By tradition and by law, during normal peacetime
operations the National Guard provides first, and usually all, Military
Support to Civil Authorities. Processes and procedures are already in
place and utilized for the National Guard to respond to the needs of
civil authorities, whatever those needs are and however large they are.
The system was tragically exercised by the terrorist attacks of 9-
11, and the system worked. Even under the most dire conditions, faced
with circumstances no one could envision beforehand, emergency response
managers adapted the processes of the current system to bring into
place all the required capabilities of the National Guard.
The New York National Guard initially responded to the exigent
needs of the situation, then adapted its response to meet the needs
identified by civil authority, which it is still doing today. The
response of the New York National Guard, assisted by the National
Guards of New Jersey, Connecticut, the National Guard Bureau, and, if
only in a small way, the California National Guard, was in keeping with
the best traditions of the National Guard. The heroic response of all
the emergency responders is an affirmation of the proficiency of the
emergency response system.
10. The need for early and frequent dedicated coordination
An adage we use in the military is that we fight as we train. More
correctly in this context is that those actions and activities that
have been pre-coordinated and rehearsed in peace, become routine and
fluid during crisis periods. It is absolutely critical to recognize
that unlike most military operations, 100% of homeland security
operations will be in response to unfriendly acts accomplished in
friendly environments.
The effectiveness of the integration of military support into a
local situation will be dependent on the extent of pre-coordination and
cooperation that exists at the outset. It is for this reason that we in
California feel so strongly that in establishing the structure
necessary for homeland security, it not be an ad-hoc organization, but
rather one that is dedicated to the coordination, liaison, planning and
execution of Homeland Security as a primary mission focus.
Additionally, the design of the structure must be flexible enough
to accommodate the unique needs of each state. It is unlikely that few
other states will face the same breadth of coordination with law
enforcement personnel that we have in California. Conversely, it is
likely that more rural states will have a greater need for coordination
with volunteer firefighting agencies, and all states will face ongoing
challenges to balance legal and environmental concerns, coordination
challenges, and training shortfalls. Only through ongoing liaison and
coordination with local, state, and federal government, first
responders, and the general public, can these concerns be best
satisfied.
Summary
In summary, the National Guard is the logical source of first
military responders for homeland security. That need can best be met
through limited increases to the National Guard force structure
capability, dedicated to this mission. The National Command Authority
must establish overall policy, and maintain oversight of the
development and training of these new responsibilities. However, each
state must develop its own plan, based on federal policy, that best
meets the unique needs of each state Success will be achieved through
proper organization, equipping, and training those National Guard units
to meet critical shortfalls (in accordance with the Governors State
Plans) and ensuring connectivity and coordination between the civilian
and military first responders.
Homeland Security requirements are an extension of the current
Military Support to Civil Authority mission continuum that has been a
hallmark of National Guard operations for over 350 years. With proper
authorization and resources, your National Guard will accomplish this
mission requirement with distinction and with no degradation to the
support we have committed to the Army and Air Force.
It has been my distinct pleasure to be here today, I thank you for
the opportunity to testify on this critically important aspect and
mission of the National Guard.
I welcome any questions you may have.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you, General Monroe.
I will begin the questions.
The first question is for General Libutti. Attorney General
Ashcroft and Canadian Cabinet members recently entered into
agreements to tighten security along the U.S.-Canadian border.
Under these agreements, it is my understanding that 600 United
States National Guard troops will augment overworked Customs
and Immigration agents at the border, and also help speed up
commerce. I believe the mission is supposed to last 6 to 12
months.
I am informed that the Defense Department decided last
Friday that the National Guard will be federalized--that is,
mobilized under Title 10 of the U.S. Code--rather than remain
under the control of the relevant State Governors; that is,
mobilized under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. However, I am also
told that the Justice Department believes that this is an issue
still ``under discussion.''
My question is this: has this administration decided yet
whether the National Guardsmen, given this border security
mission, will be federalized?
General Libutti. Yes, ma'am. In response to, I think, what
I discern as the two primary questions--one is what is the
status in terms of whether they are federalized or not, and
then how indeed do we see them in support of other lead Federal
agencies--the answer is, number one, they will be federalized,
and the decision taken to do that under Title 10 is correct,
yes, ma'am.
The second piece is that these forces, and I would add
parenthetically the identification of individuals who will
support that effort, is underway and we hope that we will have
boots on the ground, so to speak, within the next 2 weeks.
But that effort will indeed appear in what we believe is
the smartest, wisest way to do business; that is, those forces
will be working--that is, take their duty or task--from the
lead Federal agency for whom they will work, whether it is
Border Patrol, Customs, or INS, which legally in terms of legal
authority permits us to exercise our law enforcement
capabilities and responsibilities in support of security at the
border.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I would like to hand you a letter which is signed by
Chairman Leahy, Senator Murray, Senator Jeffords, and Senator
Cantwell on this subject, if I might.
General Libutti. Yes, ma'am.
Chairperson Feinstein. Let me go to the next question. In a
September 20, 2001, report GAO noted confusion between the
National Guard's Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
Teams and the FBI as far as who would have the lead role in
providing guidance to first responders.
In that report, GAO recommended that the Secretary of
Defense reach a written agreement with the Director of the FBI
that clarifies the roles of the National Guard teams in
relation to the FBI. DOD, it is my understanding, concurred
with that recommendation.
Has such an agreement been reached, and if not, why not?
General Libutti. Ma'am, I don't know whether an agreement
has been reached. I have no personal knowledge of that and I
will do my homework and follow up and provide a response. What
I can tell you is that under the circumstances for employment
and support by our CSTs, the FBI does have lead in that and we
support the FBI, were our teams called upon to support that
event, whatever that event or situation might be.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you.
General Libutti. That is, ma'am, what we would call the
standard procedure in terms of employment of those forces.
Chairperson Feinstein. The FBI would be the first
responder?
General Libutti. First responders would be those first on
the scene. The FBI would have authority as they moved on to the
scene and we would take our lead from the FBI.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you very much.
General Davis, in 1999 Congress authorized the creation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, each
consisting of 22 National Guardsmen. These teams were created
with the purpose of responding to attacks involving weapons of
mass destruction. The authorizing legislation required that
none of the teams be used to respond to an emergency unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that the team has the requisite
skills, training, and equipment to be proficient in all mission
requirements.
Although the first ten teams were originally scheduled to
be fully operational by January of 2000, none of them were
certified until July 2001. Congress has now authorized a total
of 32 teams.
My question is how many of the 32 teams Congress has
authorized have been certified by the Department of Defense?
General Davis. Well, we still have just those original ten
teams that have been certified. It is done in three phases,
ma'am, 10 in the first phase, 17 in the second phase, and 5
which were recently announced in the third phase.
Those teams that are in the phase two portion of it have
completed--about 60 percent of them have completed their
training and the remaining few are in training now, with 3 or 4
to complete their training in January. We hope that if things
go as well as they have up to this point with the successful
training and the equipment flow, we hope to have those teams
certified sometime in the late winter, anticipating that some
will be certified not long after.
Those that have completed their training are doing a little
follow-on training, following what we call an external
evaluation which is done just to standardize it and make sure
they meet all the quality performance standards at Ford Leonard
Wood, and that is a consolidated program, so we do it across
the Nation, the same standards. As we complete that program, a
few weeks after that their paperwork will be submitted, and I
think some of the paperwork is flowing through now, ma'am, on
those teams.
Chairperson Feinstein. Now, when did you say they would all
be certified?
General Davis. The final 32 teams--the last 5 which were
just recently announced in October, we are working now to staff
those teams and to get equipment for them. We would hope that
we could do that in about 15 to 16 months, ma'am.
Chairperson Feinstein. Allow me one parochial question.
When will the 95th Civil Support Team, headquartered in the San
Francisco Bay area, be certified?
General Davis. Paul?
General Monroe. We think by the end of January.
Chairperson Feinstein. Of next year?
General Davis. Yes. That is the final team. That will be
the second team in California, ma'am, as you are aware.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Kyl?
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
General Libutti. Ma'am, may I add to a point that you
raised with me just for clarification in terms of an incident
site or a situation that would require employment of the CSTs?
Chairperson Feinstein. Yes.
General Libutti. Oftentimes, it simply wouldn't be first
responders and FBI. There would most likely be Department of
Energy folks, as well, on scene. So, again, just to clarify the
situation, we would normally be in support of either the
Department of Energy or the FBI. It would depend on the
situation and the timing in terms of how this incident was
unfolding.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thanks, General. That is helpful.
Thank you.
Senator?
Senator Kyl. Along that same line, General Libutti, let me
just give you this hypothetical. Tomorrow morning, a bioattack
is discovered in the nature of some kind of dispensing of
smallpox in the New York City area and there is a mass exodus
of people, or attempted mass exodus of people out of that area.
It is highly contagious, of course, and you would want to do
some kind of a quarantine.
Would the National Guard be ordered to preclude New Yorkers
from leaving the area and spreading the disease around the
country?
General Libutti. Sir, if I can respond by addressing it in
the following way, what we would hope would happen both at the
national level and State and local would be an effort that
would be one in concert with the other. We would hope that we
would get initial assessment from first responders and a second
assessment and request for support from the mayor or the
Governor, and at that point, and I am talking minutes, not
hours, an appropriate response or a call made to either
Governor Ridge--and I am playing out your hypothetical if you
will permit me--or to the President assessing the situation,
identifying what the immediate need appears to be, and a
decision therefore made in concert with the Department of
Defense and other Federal agencies on how we might respond
immediately--that is, with Federal response forces--if, again,
requested and if we assess it as appropriate.
So I mean the point is that certainly in an emergency all
hands, all Federal agencies, including the Guard, reserve,
active forces, if you will, would be prepared to support.
Again, I am playing through this hypothetical with you.
Senator Kyl. Sure, and the question is intended as purely
hypothetical and with all the normal caveats that we don't have
all of the facts, and so on.
General Libutti. Yes, sir.
Senator Kyl. But it is a helpful answer. I am going to
extrapolate a little bit. I gather the answer is, yes, that
could be and, in fact, might well be part of the response
quickly to such an event if the proper call were made.
General Libutti. Now, you have pushed the right button for
me and I am thinking as a former operator. The concerns I would
have would be, of course, with the health issue, the
contamination issue, the isolation of the area, protection of
key facilities, et cetera, et cetera.
Certainly, the police, fire department and health agencies
within New York City would be on-scene and doing their very
best, and then it is a matter of what other Federal or local or
State assets could you bring to bear very quickly.
Senator Kyl. I guess there are two things that I wanted to
get out of this, and purely hypothetical. The first is that it
is quite possible that the homeland defense office would order,
through the appropriate channels, in an appropriate way, nearly
immediately upon request the Guard to help resolve that kind of
a situation.
General Libutti. Certainly a viable option, absolutely,
sir.
Senator Kyl. By the way, I am not advocating anything here.
I am trying to illustrate a point here, and this is the second
point that within the Office of Homeland Defense there is, as
you say, an exploration of operational solutions for the
future, which I would presume include a lot of at least
tentative notions as to what you would do tomorrow if it
happened.
General Libutti. That specific point supports your point,
as well as our sense that it is critical that we very carefully
review the unified command plan that is underway now and we
hope to close fairly soon, the Secretary does, because part of
that will examine the wisdom and efficacy of standing up a CINC
for homeland security.
I won't go down that road in terms of options you are, I am
sure, aware of, but that is key critical to decisions relative
to, in my view, the future role of the Guard, the reserve, and
those active forces that might be called upon to support the
CINC for homeland security and then the national or regional
situation that may present itself. So I am agreeing with you,
sir.
Senator Kyl. Right, and with due regard for, as you
describe in your statement, a proper balance between the needs
of warfighters abroad and the need to defend the Nation at
home.
I think, General Alexander, you made the same point at the
beginning of your testimony and I am sure all of you would
agree with that.
So that is the point that I wanted to make here, and I
think what we are most interested in here on the committee is--
and our role as the Judiciary Committee relates to terrorism
and any legal things that would have to be done here.
Obviously, the Armed Services Committee has a larger role in
terms of the unified command issues and the like.
We want to make sure that there is a process in place for
anticipating what might happen and having the most appropriate
forces prepared and ready to go so that there is no hesitancy
at the time of a tragedy about what the options are and who has
the authority to do what and the like.
General Libutti. I think it is altogether fitting and
proper, as my colleagues here on the panel have indicated, that
we take a hard and proper review of the role of the Guard and
reserve, for that matter, in the future, in the 21st century,
relative to homeland security. It is absolutely critical we do
that.
Back to the point we have all made, the balance piece is
also key critical, as well as understanding the apportionment
of forces in this one pot called Department of Defense assets.
If there were to be a change, and it is smart after an
appropriate review, we need to be very careful how we deal with
that so that we don't eviscerate or destroy the current
standard, which is fight the fight at home and fight the fight
abroad.
Senator Kyl. Thank you. That is very helpful.
General Davis. If I might, please, the Department of
Defense in their reserve affairs office has just kicked off a
study which will look at that. Is that the right mix? Do we
have the right people in the National Guard and the reserve and
in the active component? That study has kicked off and it will
be completed sometime in the late spring, I believe.
Chairperson Feinstein. I suppose an argument can be made,
well, just leave things the way they are and the right things
are going to happen, depending upon the situation, and it
protects the primary mission of the Guard. I am not sure that
is the case.
I mean, I think we are into a very unusual time. Who would
have thought that the events of the anthrax incidents, looking
at cropdusters, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the fear
that something else is going to happen--we have never been in
that arena before and the longer I am around, the more I think
the kind of primary military response is really the protection
of the homeland.
I don't know another entity to do it and I have been
somewhat puzzled by Defense not wanting to take a position here
because I think we need to very aggressively define it. If you
need more money, say so, but really get these teams certified--
I mean, it has been slow going--and move ahead.
Of all the witnesses today in terms of what I would like to
see accomplished, General Monroe was the most forthcoming with
opinion, and I think maybe General Alexander. My understanding
is that the Guard Association is in favor of moving in this
direction.
Is that correct?
General Alexander. The associations are in favor of
homeland security being a primary mission for the National
Guard. They advocate resourcing the structures that exist now
to the extent that they can perform effectively the homeland
security mission, while in dual status it can accomplish
missions abroad.
When the Guard was born, our military was not an
expeditionary force. The sole intention was to protect the
homeland. But this has evolved, as you mentioned, since 1903 to
date, so we have an obligation to not only protect at home, but
to protect abroad. Some would say the first responders are
those that are on the ground in Afghanistan protecting the
homeland.
So there has to be a conscious mix of modifying our force
to the extent that we can satisfy the homeland while satisfying
our obligations abroad because there is no separate and
distinct--we are no longer isolated anymore.
Chairperson Feinstein. That is correct.
General Monroe, do you want to comment on that?
General Monroe. Yes. I think it is important that we
develop a force within each State that is a Governor's asset
that they can respond to these things with because the military
on the ground at the World Trade Center was the New York
National Guard, and the New Jersey National Guard supported
them. But that is what is going to happen.
If there is an event that occurs in a particular State, the
firefighters and the police officers are going to respond to
it, and then the National Guard. And if it is more than the
National Guard can handle, then there has to be Federal
support. But if there was a force that could rapidly react to
that, it could minimize the damage that was done during the
incident.
General Libutti. Ma'am, if I might add, just hitchhiking on
a point you made about the DOD position, as I tried to
articulate the concept or approach that we are looking at now--
and I would add I have been on the job about five-and-a-half
weeks now, and am proud and pleased to be where I am.
As I discuss this in great detail with Secretary White and
other leadership in the Department, our concept, as I tried to
again express, is when we think of homeland security, we think
of the elements of that being homeland defense, unique
capabilities and actions performed and led by the Department of
Defense, and then the rest under the block called support for
civil authority. That is the way we are trying to define now,
currently, how we support our Governors, how we support our
National situation in terms of terrorism, and how we intend to
do it in the future.
I applaud the initiative to pull the veneer back and look
very carefully at the role of the Guard. Again, my point is
that we should be very circumspect; we should not be premature
in making judgments to change things until we see the results
of reviews that are already underway and should be closed by
the spring in terms of what DOD is doing to look holistically
at the role of the Guard and reserve, what we are doing inside
DOD, and that is to stand up what we hope will be an under
secretary of defense, coupled with what Governor Ridge is
doing, and that is organizing his team and also developing a
national strategy for homeland security.
Chairperson Feinstein. Well, wait one second. So this
wouldn't necessarily be under Governor Ridge. It would be under
an assistant secretary. Is that correct?
General Libutti. I work, again, for Secretary White. He is
the Executive Agent for Homeland Security for the Department of
Defense and I am his special assistant. My charter is to work
the day-to-day issues that come to the Defense Department
relative to homeland security and to stand up, without new
structure, but stand up an organization that combines current
assets that work with homeland security but not under one
leadership or one organization within DOD. So what we have
started is something within the last 4 to 5 weeks to create an
Office of Homeland Security within DOD.
General Monroe. Madam Chair, one other point, too. As you
have pointed out, I have been around a long time and the Guard
used to be involved in a similar way that we are talking about
now. We had these air defense sites, where most of the people
that manned these sites were full-time. They were along both
coasts and they were operated by the National Guard as air
defense for the United States against Soviet bombers. Well,
when they developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, then
those sites went away.
We also have something called the counter-drug program that
we have been working for the last 10 years, and we are doing
similar missions to this new mission that has come up along the
border and we are doing it in Title 32, working for the same
agencies that have requested this support. I can't think of a
State that didn't advocate that this be done under Title 32
because it is just, as we see it, a continuation of what we are
already doing.
Chairperson Feinstein. I am a little puzzled that they used
Title 10 myself.
I would like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the
committee. Mr. Chairman, if you have some comments, we would be
delighted to hear them.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. I do, Senator, and I thank you for doing
this and I apologize for popping in and out. I am trying to
juggle two other committees.
General Davis, it is good to see you again. I know you were
well received in Vermont. I talked with General Rainville
earlier about this hearing, and she sends her best.
General Alexander, it is always good to see you.
I think Senator Feinstein deserves an enormous amount of
credit for doing this at a far busier time of the Senate
session than I think either she or I ever thought it would be.
So I applaud her for doing it.
I was glad to see Senator Bond come here. He and I co-chair
the 85-member Senate Guard Caucus, something that we both think
of with pride.
In Vermont, it is easy to talk about those kinds of things.
We led the Nation in the per capita number of our reserves and
Guard who were called up in the fight against terrorism. Within
hours of the terrible events of the 11th, we had the Green
Mountain Boys, our Air Guard, flying F-16s over New York City,
the F-16 Fighting Falcons. I must admit they make it from
Burlington, Vermont, to New York City a lot quicker than I have
ever been able to go, and they don't lose your luggage along
the way. So I applaud that.
But you know how difficult that is when you are trying to
coordinate, and be able to do it almost immediately, to
coordinate the turnaround, just as you can imagine, General
Monroe, the logistics of somebody saying, okay, we are going
from this to suddenly being down there.
General Libutti, you know in the Department of the Air
Force when you are trying to mesh all those things, it looks
great on paper, but you want to make sure it works when you
actually do it.
So I think that they deserve a great deal of credit,
obviously not only the Vermont Guard, but throughout the
country, because they are the premier homeland defense force,
and they have been proving it.
I have some concerns, and I understand Senator Feinstein
has already put in the record a letter on this, but my concern
about the administration considering establishing a central
military homeland security command. I worry about how it might
impact on the Federal-State balance, especially as the Guard is
concerned.
Would Guard forces, for example, be called up continually
under Federal active-duty status? Do they become
indistinguishable from their active counterparts? Do the 50
Governors of our States and the adjutants general have control
over the forces that serve within their States? If we go on the
border, for example, do we suddenly have Guard units from
California in the Burlington, Vermont, airport or along our
borders? Are Vermont Guard people along the border in the State
of Washington and Canada, or Michigan, and so on?
Do you bring them under Title 10, placing them on Federal
active duty under an out-of-state command? That is what kind of
worries me, especially when we talk about along the northern
border, 4,000 miles of it.
I worry about the Governors and the adjutants general
losing control of their own forces. On the other hand, under
Title 32, as I understand it, Guard troops are federalized for
pay and allowances, but the Governors and the State adjutants
general maintain command and control. That is why the
Washington State delegation and those of us from Vermont sent a
letter to Governor Ridge on this basis.
Every single Governor is making homeland security and
emergency response a priority. I mean, there is not a Governor
in the country that is not looking at everything from
bioterrorism to every other kind. Here in the Congress, we have
been wrestling with this. Some of us, I must admit, have
probably focused a little bit more in recent days on the
question of anthrax, but we all have an interest in this.
I just don't want to take the Guard, which has performed so
well in all the States--I know it has in California and every
other State--I don't want to start reinventing the wheel here
and take what is a well-working organization and turn it into
something else.
So those are just some ruminations of mine. Again, I can't
emphasize enough how important it is that the Senator from
California is holding this hearing.
I must say, Madam Chair, that you couldn't have four better
people to be here to discuss it with you. Any questions I have
I will submit for the record, but I just wanted to come over
and make those comments. I know you have put our letter in the
record, and I thank you for doing this at a very busy time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:]
Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her work in organizing this
important hearing.
As the co-chair of the 85-member U.S. Senate National Guard Caucus,
I am intensely interested in the emerging role that is being taken by
the National Guard in homeland defense. In Vermont we take particular
pride in our National Guard--the fabled Green Mountain Boys. In fact,
Vermont leads the nation in the per capita number of reserves called up
to fight in the war on terrorism. If you have visited Ground Zero, you
have probably run across citizen-soldiers from the Green Mountain Boys
protecting the site or have seen the contrails overhead of the Vermont
Air National Guard F-16 Fighting Falcons that have flown continuous air
patrols over New York City since September 11. They have handled these
difficult and unprecedented assignments with grace and, while doing so,
they and their families and their employers have made sacrifices for
which the nation is grateful.
I welcome all of our witnesses to the Senate. Senator Bond, I
appreciate your taking the time to be with us to introduce this
subject. I value our partnership in working on National Guard Caucus
issues, and I look forward to facing next session's challenges
together. General Davis, I have enjoyed working with you over this past
year, and I want to congratulate you on your approaching retirement.
General Libutti, I appreciate your giving us a broader Army perspective
on the emerging role of the Guard in Homeland Defense. I am especially
glad we have an Adjutant General of the United States, General Paul D.
Monroe of California, and the executive director of the National Guard
Association of the United States, retired Major General Richard
Alexander. Your insights will be critical to our deliberations. As
always, I also value highly the counsel I receive from General Martha
Rainville of Vermont.
On all fronts, the National Guard is performing incredibly well
with the assignments given Guard units in the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks. They are proving every day that they are the
nation's premier homeland defense force. Guard Interceptors from New
Jersey, North Dakota, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts, in
addition to Vermont, have flown continuous air patrols over New York
City and Washington since September 11. Thousands of troops from the
Guard are standing watch at our airports and, soon, at our immigration
posts. What makes these contributions all the more impressive is that
all of it has been done under longstanding authorities with little
question about chains of command and local control.
While I am glad that we are convening today, I have to admit that I
am concerned that--despite these real accomplishments since September
11--the Administration is actively considering establishing a central,
military homeland security command. Such a command has serious
implications since it could have a negative impact on the Guard and the
balance of powers between the federal and state government.
Basically, this approach does with the military domestically what
the Goldwater-Nichols legislation did for structuring how we fight wars
abroad. The Goldwater-Nichols law created a Unified Command Plan that
invested responsibility for operational control in wartime with various
regional commands. That legislation in the mid-1980s left homeland
defense operations within the borders of the United States untouched
because it raised too many objections about involving the military
excessively in civilian affairs.
While we have seen the fruits of this landmark legislation in our
ongoing fight against terrorism abroad, I wonder if we have really
thought through the implications of extending the command plan to the
United States. We need to ask what it would gain us and what it would
cost us to impose such a change on the National Guard. Would Guard
forces be called up continually under federal active duty status,
becoming indistinguishable from the their active counterparts? How
would the nation's Governors and Adjutants General have control over
the forces serving in their states?
Several of the concerns about creating a central homeland security
command that uses the Guard mirror some of the issues raised by the
recent discussions about bringing forces to supplement the INS along
the porous 4000-mile Northern Border. There is question about whether
to bring these force on under Title 10 status, which places Guard
forces on federal active duty under an out-of-state command, and could
conceivably result in bringing federal troops from distant locations to
serve in place of state National Guard members. This action completely
removes the Governor and the Adjutant General from any command and
control over their own troops. Under Title 32 status, which is
federalized for pay and allowances but with command and control
maintained by the governors and states adjutant general, this would not
be the case.
My own view on that question is that forces should be brought up
under Title 32 duty because they have more flexibility to do the job.
Additionally homeland security performed by state National Guard troops
under the control of their own Governor and their own Adjutant General
is much more acceptable to the citizens of each state. These are
friends and neighbors of the citizen soldiers and they have come to
expect and depend on Guard troops to perform these types of missions
within their borders. These are missions the Guard was created for and
trains for on a continuing basis. Under Title 32--state-controlled
troops ensure Governors and Adjutants General remain in command and
control of their own troops. Senator Feinstein, I would like to ask
that a letter that the Vermont and Washington State Senate delegations
sent to Governor Ridge on this subject be included in the record.
It seems to me that we may not need to make radical changes in the
structure of the military and the Guard to carry out the homeland
defense mission. All of our nation's governors are making homeland
security and emergency response a priority. If there are skills in
dealing with contingencies that they lack, then they can train to
respond more effectively. Meanwhile, the National Guard has shown that
its units can perform superbly when called upon. I question whether we
are trying to find a solution for a problem that does not exist. Let's
not reinvent the wheel here.
For the benefit of this committee, the Senate, the House and the
Administration, I hope our witnesses will frankly address these issues
in their testimony. I look forward to their testimony. Thank you again,
Senator Feinstein.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate it very much that you would take the time to be
here.
I would like to add to the record the statement of Bernard
Rostker, from the RAND Corporation, on this subject.
Unfortunately, he was ill and couldn't be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rostker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bernard Rostker, Senior Researcher, RAND
Washington Office, Washington, D.C.
Madam Chairman and members of the committee it is my pleasure and
honor to be here today to discuss the important topic of the National
Guard and homeland security. While my remarks are based upon
observations made during my tenure as a senior official of the
Department of Defense, and as a senior researcher at RAND, they are my
own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of
Defense or RAND.
During 1994, I was a member of a team at RAND that carried out a
congressionally mandated study concerning the ability of the National
Guard ``to fulfill both its State and Federal missions.'' The study was
mandated under Public law 103-160, 107 Stat. 1655, November 30, 1993.
As part of that study we visited a number of states that had recently
employed their National Guard in support of ``consequence management''
activities resulting from domestic emergencies and disasters, as well
as civic action activities ranging from work with at risk youths to
drug interdiction. During our field work we met with State Adjutants
General and emergency coordinators. We interviewed until commanders and
ordinary Guardsmen. We met with officials of the Army, the Air Force,
and the National Guard Bureau and visited their readiness centers in
Arlington, Virginia and at Andrews Air Force Base. In one State we even
met with the Governor. RAND published the results of this study as a
report, MR-557-OSD, Assessing the State and Federal Missions of the
National Guard.
I came away from this project with a deeper understanding and
appreciation of the value of the National Guard, and for the dedication
of the men and women who serve their State and Nation. The National
Guard is an asset in both war and peace.
Several years later I found myself serving as the Under Secretary
of the Army. In that capacity I assisted the Secretary of the Army with
his responsibilities as the Defense Department's executive agent for
military support to civil authorities. My field visits in 1994 served
me well, giving me a much better appreciation for the use of the
National Guard and the Federal Reserves in support of operations other
than war in the United States.
As I noted the National Guard is a valuable asset in both war and
peace. Today's missions for homeland security, while supporting our
world wide effort to combat terrorism are more like traditional State
missions under Title 32, than they are like combat missions under Title
10. Based upon my experience here are a number of points that I can
recommend to you and the Committee as you consider the role of the
National Guard and the need for any new legislation.
<bullet> The best solutions are local. My best advice is solve the
problem at the lowest possible level. Federal authorities must
remember that the National Guard is not the regular Army or Air
Force. Guardsmen have chosen to be part-time soldiers and
airmen, respect their decision.
<bullet> The National Guard is federalism at work, make the most of
it. Don't cut the Governors or their State Adjutants General
out of the action, use them. The National Guard is a unique
asset, particularly when it remains in State status under Title
32. As agents of their State they are not subject to the
provisions of the federal posse comitatus statute, and can be
granted police powers by their Governors.
<bullet> The mission should be given to the State Adjutant General.
He or she is in the best position to determine how to use
effectively and efficiently the manpower of his or her State
National Guard. In my field visits I was impressed by how well
the State Adjutants General moved Guardsmen in and out of
active service to facilitate the mission and meet the other
responsibilities of their part time soldiers and airmen.
<bullet> The commanders of the National Guard are experts in working
with State and local government and organizations. They know
the people and can relate to local conditions better than a
federal force.
<bullet> The National Guard organizations of the states have learned
to work together in mutual aid compacts. This could be
strengthened with national compacts, rather than just regional
compacts. However, the system of compacts makes the whole
greater than the sum of its parts.
<bullet> Coordination and standardization can and should be
accomplished through the National Guard Bureau and it's
readiness centers.
<bullet> Individual Guardsmen called to State active duty should have
the full protection of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act.
However, the best way to protect a Guardsman is to give the
State Adjutant General the flexibility to employ his personnel
as he sees fit. He is in the best position to protect his
troops. Relying on statute will, in the long run only
antagonize employers. Flexibility is the answer. The State
Adjutants General are the key.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I am
ready to answer any questions you may have.
Chairperson Feinstein. Also, we will include the letter to
Tom Ridge from Senators Leahy, Murray, Jeffords, and Cantwell
on the Title 10 versus Title 32 issue.
[The letter referred to follows:]
Chairperson Feinstein. General Libutti, I would like to
give you, if I might, a summary and a draft of a bill. You
know, it is sort of an interesting thing. On the homeland
security issue, we began a year-and-a-half ago in this
subcommittee, Senator Kyl and I, urging that we move on
homeland security, after we had the commission reports from
everybody, and we couldn't get the administration to move.
And then, boom, the administration moved, I think, sort of
in a partial way because I believe very strongly the Director
of Homeland Security should have both statutory and budgetary
authority. We have got 40 departments. The GAO says 25 percent
of the $13 billion we spend on terrorism isn't as well spent as
it might be. We ought to take a look at that.
I believe whoever is Director of Homeland Security has to
be able to move the chessmen on the board, not just give
television interviews, but have real statutory authority. So I
am going to introduce a bill. I would love to have the Defense
Department's input. I would love to have your imprimatur on it.
I don't know whether that is possible or not, but I would like
to give you a copy of the statement and the drafted bill, and
ask you if you would get back to Senator Kyl, to myself, to
Senator Leahy if you care to, or Senator Hatch, who is very
interested in this. It would be very good if we could all put
something together prior to the time it is introduced.
Would you do that?
General Libutti. Yes, ma'am. I would be honored. Thank you.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you.
General Davis, I know you are under strictures not to be
able to say anything, but if you have any personal views that
you would care to offer, I would like to give you that
opportunity.
General Davis. Just between us.
Chairperson Feinstein. Just between us.
[Laughter.]
General Davis. No, ma'am. Thank you very much.
[Laughter.]
General Davis. One thing I would like to add, though, is we
are doing a lot of training in the National Guard, and we do it
through some systems that we have put together over the past 8
years of communication and classrooms, that kind of thing,
distance training programs. We are using some of that to train
and work with our first responders.
It also has the capability as a back-up communications
network, and that is kind of part of what we see as our role in
homeland security is to look for opportunities to use
capabilities that are currently in existence. These programs,
we think, are very, very key to be continued and perpetuated
and funded.
So thank you for the opportunity to represent those 450,000
folks on our birthday, and we look forward to working with you
in like manner with respect to your bill.
Chairperson Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I am happy, General Monroe, General Alexander and General
Davis, to make copies available to you. It has not been
introduced. It is a draft. We would like input, but I think
there really is an issue that we need to resolve, particularly
since the Defense Department has decided to move on Title 10.
That creates an issue, I think, that we need to be cognizant of
as well.
General Libutti. The bottom line, too, ma'am, if I may, on
that was really in great measure based on a review of the
mission in terms of is that a Federal mission. And I am happy
for any forum or opportunity I have to lay out greater detail
in terms of the rationale in support of that decision to you or
other distinguished members of your subcommittee.
Chairperson Feinstein. Are you saying, General, because it
is a border issue that is going to involve more than one State
and it involves people outside of the State--which makes some
sense, incidentally--that you felt it was necessary?
General Libutti. Yes, ma'am. I think at the heart of the
debate will always be two things: one, the funding piece, and
who is in control of the assets--funding and who is in control
of the assets. It is not a matter of whether the Guard ought to
be employed and whether the Guard forces or reserves are
appropriate. I think everybody at the table would agree that is
the right answer, given the circumstances.
The issue, again, is what statute do you apply, given the
criteria and support of what is appropriate and what is legal
in terms of legal authority, to execute a mission under those
conditions, not to get wrapped around the legal aspect of that.
Again, I would be very happy and honored to come and discuss
that in greater detail.
Chairperson Feinstein. That is excellent. Thank you.
The record will be kept open until Thursday, December 20,
until five o'clock.
We will give General Alexander the last word.
General Alexander. I would like to applaud the effort at
controlling our southern border and the Southwest, and the
merging of Title 10 and Title 32, where the States in Title 32
status are complementing the security of those borders. It is a
very large border, it is a very porous border, but for years
that kind of combination has made a significant contribution to
the control of that border.
Chairperson Feinstein. I agree with you, General. Thank you
very much. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A submission for the record follows.]
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
December 12, 2001
The Hon. Tom Ridge
Director, Office of Homeland Security
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Tom,
Recently, the Justice Department announced its request that troops
from the National Guard supplement agents from the Immigration and
Naturalization Service along the porous 4000-mile northern border. We
understand that the Department of Defense is considering calling up
these troops on a federal, Title 10 status. As representatives of two
border states, we would like the administration to reconsider the idea
and call up the forces under Title 32 instead.
Title 32 would allow more flexibility to accomplish this critical
mission. Unlike forces called up under Title 10, Title 32 forces are
not subject to posse comitatus restrictions. They can assist local and
federal law enforcement organizations with its full range of
activities, including arrests. Also in contract to Title 10, Title 32
forces can continue to train for other missions. As the National Guard
remains the nation's primary military reserve, this status allows our
nation's adjutants general the ability to cycle forces through training
and remain ready for other contingencies.
Title 32 also ensures that members of the Guard called up stay
generally within their home state. Our nation's governors will remain
in control, while Guard forces serving in their home state can bring
unparalleled familiarity with the problems and challenges facing their
communities. That understanding raises the comfort level of the
country's citizens who might otherwise be concerned to hear that active
duty troops from far away are serving in their community.
There are certainly occasions where members of the National Guard
should be called up under a Title 10 status. But in this case, it seems
apparent that Title 32 is the more sensible approach. We would
appreciate your considering this question and responding as soon as
possible with your views. We are impressed with your contributions in
the months immediately after the awful events of September 11, and we
look forward to continuing our work together.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy
United States Senator
Patty Murray
United States Senator
James Jeffords
United States Senator
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
<greek-d>