Hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform on Transforming the National Gaurd - Resourcing for Readiness - Transcript

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM SUBJECT: TRANSFORMING THE NATIONAL GUARD: RESOURCING FOR READINESS

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE TOM DAVIS (R-VA)

WITNESSES PANEL II: PAUL MCHALE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; THOMAS F. HALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;

LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU; MAJOR GENERAL JOHN A. LOVE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO COMBATANT COMMANDER FOR NATIONAL GUARD AFFAIRS, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND

LOCATION: 2154 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

TIME: 10:00 A.M.

BODY:

REP. TOM DAVIS (R-VA): We have today the Honorable Paul McHale, assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and a former member of this body. Paul, welcome back in a different role here, but it's good to have you here. The Honorable Thomas F. Hall, the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs; Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, the chief of the National Guard Bureau; and Major General John Love, the special assistant to the combatant commander for National Guard Affairs, United States Northern Command.

It's the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn before you testify, so if you would rise and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much.

Members deferred opening statements. I'm just going to put my statement in the record-I ask unanimous consent members put their statements in the record.

Let me recognize Mr. Schrock. Do you want to wait now or do you want to wait until I start questioning with you? We'll go through panel and then I'll start with Mr. Schrock's question.

Paul-I guess Mr. Secretary now-welcome back. It's good to have you here and I know you've worked hard on this, thanks for being here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. EDWARD L. SCHROCK (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Congressman, Admiral, General, General, thank you for being here today on what is a very difficult subject but a very important one. I think that as a nation we are probably at a crossroads where we must make a choice on what the role of the National Guard is going to be. That choice should be made in the context of the full spectrum of tasks that we expect of the men and women who serve this country in uniform.

I have been to both Iraq and to Afghanistan and I have always returned home and remarked how it was impossible to tell the difference between the Reservists, the Guardsmen, the Guards and the active duty forces. They look the same and they face the same threat. But as leaders charged with funding these troops, with equipping them, with training them and with answering to them and their families when we ask them to go into harms way, we must not fool ourselves that they are the same.

The Marines fighting outside Fallujah right now knew from day one that they were being trained and equipped to some day go in harms way for this country. They represent the finest combat force that this country has ever produced. Before they went to Iraq they were specifically trained and equipped for urban combat. They share a warrior mindset that comes from walking out the door each day in uniform and training for war, and unfortunately we do not always-we are not always able to give our Guardsmen that same level of training before we ask them to deploy to Iraq and other places around the world.

They do not receive that training day in and day out. If they receive the same equipment and training, they receive it at the last minute and often with hand me down equipment previously used by the active component. Their families do not see them walk out of the house each day in uniform and become accustomed to their prolonged absences and the chance that they may someday have to service in an environment such as Iraq.

As a nation we must decide what role the National Guard will be in meeting both our global military commitments and our homeland security needs. I believe that our National Guard is rightfully part of our first responder equation. If we are going to continue to rely on the Guard to comprise 40 percent of our nation's military capability, we have to come to grips with our responsibility to train them, to equip them and to let them know that they are part of the team.

We must ensure that funding levels and that of the authorities in the scope of Title 10 and Title 32, reflect the way that our world has changed in the last three years. We must re-evaluate our own commitment as leaders responsible for this crucial homeland security force, and critical military Reserve force.

That being said, I want to address several questions to you, Secretary McHale, if I might. And I hope the Chair will indulge me because some of it's rather long. The Guard differs from the Reserve components in that it's under the command and control of the states. This positions the Guard for some unique opportunities at the states- Federal nexus. The question, does DOD see the National Guard's unique Title 32 activities such as civil support teams, the counter-drug programs or the airport security missions to be unhelpful distractions, or have these uses of Title 32 been meaningful contributors to the security of the nation?

MR. McHALE: Congressman Schrock, let me emphasize in the strongest possible terms that Title 32 has been of enormous benefit, not only to the department of defense but to the nation. There are three categories in which the Guard may be employed, in state status where at state expense, under command and control of the governor, the Guard executes the missions that are assigned to it by the governor. At the other end of the spectrum you've got Title 10, where the National Guard is brought to federal service, paid for as federal expense and under command and control of the president of the United States and the secretary of Defense.

Title 32 is an excellent very flexible middle ground which produces tremendous utility. The expense of Title 32 is paid for by the Department of Defense by the federal government, but in Title 32 status, National Guardsmen are exempt from posse comitatus, so they can engage in missions that are very close to law enforcement activities, missions that would be precluded for Title 10 forces. The expense as I said is carried by the federal government, but we have flexibility in terms of command and control by the governor.

If anything, where we are at, at this point, is the Department of Defense is actively reviewing the tremendous benefit of Title 32 to determine whether or not that training status needs to be expanded in the context of the global war on terrorism for an increased number of missions in that Title 32 status, because it has proven to be so beneficial.

REP. SCHROCK: Okay, then we go to the last question because you talked about Title 32 -- how soon might we expect the DOD to send to Congress a proposal to revise Title 32 and particularly the language about training this in section 502F I think this is.

MR. McHALE: As you point out, Title 32 status involves National Guardsmen who are on active duty, performing specific missions that often have been statutorily assigned. We have 32 civil support teams, we'll have 12 more this year, and presumably 11 more after that, based upon the assumptions the Congress will provide the funding for the final 11.

In Title 32 status, we have those forces immediately available at federal expense, exempt from posse comitatus, under command and control by the governor. I mentioned earlier in response to Congresswoman Norton that we are preparing a comprehensive, really I think a historic, homeland defense strategy that will be completed by June 30th, 2004. I don't want to assume that we will necessarily ask for a statutory revision of Title 32, but by the end of June we will know whether or not such a revision would be appropriate, and frankly because Title 32 is a training status, in the context of the global war on terrorism, we need to take a very serious look at expanding Title 32, to cover additional operational missions.

REP. SCHROCK: So some time around --

MR McHALE: I would think by the middle of summer, if in fact we request a change in Title 32, we would know by the middle of summer whether such a change would be required. I don't want to preclude an ongoing review, but certainly at this point it appears to me as if Title 32 would be appropriate review, to include in the future not only training missions, but operational missions and specifically the mission that I envision as being central to the future of the National Guard and homeland defense missions, and that is critical infrastructure protection.

REP. SCHROCK: Right.

MR McHALE: The use of National Guard potentially in Title 32 to defend the critical infrastructure in an operational role within our own country.

REP. SCHROCK: Mr. Chairman do you mind if I continue for a minute?

REP. DAVIS: I ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman two additional minutes.

REP. SCHROCK: Thank you.

Paul, this question is about the possibility of similar operations in the future. The airport security mission was performed under Title 32, the federal government provided the money, the states executed the mission. This seems to have been a success, but subsequently there was a need to use the Guard for border security and of course for that mission the Guard was taken out of the state control under Title 32 and mobilized to Federal duty under Title 10.

Does this reflect an intent by DOD to tend towards federal mobilization as the best way to use the Guard for domestic requirements or might such future requirements be evaluated on a case by case basis for execution under Title 32 or Title 10 as this situation would demand at the time?

MR McHALE: The secretary of Defense has in the past indicated a preference for the use of National Guard forces including in Title 32 status, rather than the necessary used because of a lack of an alternative, Title 10 forces for the same missions. In short, if there is a clear mission requirement and we have the choice between using Title 10 forces or National Guard forces, particularly for those missions that are related to counter-narcotics and the support that we provide to civilian law enforcement along the borders, the preferred course of action is to use the National Guard while preserving our Title 10 capabilities for overseas warfighting.

And that's why as we look at the emerging mission requirements in the context of the global war on terrorism, there will be more, not less, for the Guard to do including mission assignments and Title 32 status.

REP. SCHROCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I'd like to submit two other questions to Secretary McHale for the record.

END