>> and the defense of liberty is no fight. [cheers and applause] and let me remind you all that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

>> the air force confirmed this week that the cremated remains of some war veterans been mishandled to defend secretary leon panetta has ordered an independent review of the procedures at dover air force base and another look at the decision not to fire the supervisors involved. the injury chiefs chairman general martin dempsey spoke with reporters at the pentagon for a half an hour. >> good afternoon. this is general dempsey's first press reefing as secretary. certainly now is chairman of the joint chiefs and so i welcome him to this press briefing and just would inform him that there

is a tradition that he could solve the tough questions. getting used to this job. let me begin also by wishing a very happy birthday to the united states marine corps. they have their ballot this saturday. as you know, general dempsey and i have been working with the entire senior leadership of the department, including the service chiefs, the service secretaries, the combatant commanders and the undersecretary of defense. to implement the more than 450 billion in savings that we have been required to do over 10 years. that translates into around 260 over five years as part of the budget that would be submitted in february. this process, and i have

required this from the beginning, has to be driven by strategy. it has to be strategy driven. and it also has to be a team effort. my hope is that as we work through this, that we will put the entire leadership of the department, the military and civilian in the same place said that we can finalize this effort within the coming weeks. so, as we move ahead with this process within the department, all of us are obviously watching closely what happens on capitol hill and with the congressional super committee and we watch it obviously with great concern. as you know come as a super committee fails to reach an agreement with regards to additional budget savings, the penalty for that is sequester ende sequester a roach would

virtually double the size of the cuts that we face here at the defense department. and it would also force us to cut across the board all of these cuts would occur. i think this takes effect in january of 23rd team, said that obviously we would have a year were sequester would hang as a shadow over this department. i have learned by cutting in excess of 20% in every area, sequester will lead to a hollow force. and that may explain just exactly what we're talking about when we talk about hollow force. obviously, that which is hello retains a shell, but? a core. a hollow military has the

organizational structure, but? the people, training and equipment that it needs to actually get the job done. it is a without sailors. it is a prepaid without all the. it is an air wing without enough trained pilots. it is a paper tiger. an army of barracks, building and tom's without enough trained soldiers able to accomplish the mission. it is a force that suffers low morale, poor readiness and is unable to keep up with potential for series. and the fact, it invites to ration. a hollow military doesn't happen by accident. it comes from poor stewardship and poor leadership. i guess my message to the congress is that it might show

the necessary leadership by doing the job that they've been asked to do. that means identifying savings in the two thirds of the federal budget that is still yet to be considered for deficit reduction and matthew along with additional revenues. in my conversations with the members of congress, and with members of the committee, i told them that if this nation has really young men and women who are willing to die and put their lives on the line in order to sacrifice for this country, it really shouldn't be too much to ask for the bears to sacrifice just a little to provide the leadership essential to solving the problems facing this

country. this is a fundamental responsibility we have. it is also an obligation that we owe to our servicemembers and their families and the entire country should reflect.samaras we observe veterans day. on monday, i traveled to new york to meet with leaders in the business arena, to meet with those in government and nonprofit sector and i talk about how important is to help returning veterans find jobs in these very difficult economic times. she also mentioned as we move into these next few years and became a chart on process we are going to be adding to that burden. these are men and women with extraordinary skill, proven leadership. and yet the unemployment rate for veterans since 9/11 now stands at 12.1%. that is done except to vote. we can do better is a country

and we are making it a priority here at the department to ensure that our servicemembers are given the support they need to pursue higher education, find a job and to start a business. these obligations to servicemembers continue at every stage, to include ensuring their recovery and dignified return of our fallen heroes. this is one of the departments the sacred responsibilities. and that is why all americans, including myself are justifiably disturbed by reports of mismanagement, the dover report mortuary that came to light this week. when i came to this office in july in one of the first

meetings on their investigation into dover. they were forthcoming with me. it was clear they took these allegations seriously and they were committed to strengthening the department's handling of the most sacred and solemn task. still, none of us will be satisfied until we have proven to the families of our fallen heroes that we have taken every step possible to protect the honor and dignity that our loved ones richly deserved. that is why i have directed at the request of the air force and independent review of overall current operations at dover to evaluate the changes and the procedures that must be implemented. vice admiral doc or richard carmona, who is the former

surgeon general of the united states, along with the distinguished panel will conduct a review. as you know, the united states produced its own report on this matter, which i received and reviewed in the last 48 hours. in light of the concerns that were raised in that record, the secretary of the air force, mike donnelly that the disciplinary action taken was appropriate and provide me with the results of that review. in addition is the heiress he confirmed that its reporter. it is conduct in an additional investigation to determine whether there are reprisals against the whistleblowers. this is a serious issue. as someone who voted for the whistleblower legislation, i

directed secretary donnelly to report back to me was the osc investigation is completed to ensure that all appropriate action has been taken in mind is that reporters. this department has to be fully accountable in what we intend to deliver on this matter. we have to be fully accountable on how we treated servicemembers full accountability is that we intend to deliver. having been to dover, i consider this a sacred place and responsibility and it is a place that must meet the highest standards for carrying for the remains of our fallen heroes. we can do no less. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

as to begin by wishing to bring cory happy 236th birthday and also veterans around the world. i have been to several very moving veterans day events over the last 48 hours. if you were to go. it couldn't be prouder of their service. just to highlight a couple things the secretary mentioned. we are involved in a strategy review. looking out to 2020 to determine what is our joint force, weren't the armed forces of the united states need to be to ensure we provide the nation with the capabilities that it needs to provide our theaters, our senior leaders options in the environment we anticipate. and part of the environment we anticipate is a resource constraints that we haven't had to deal with here in florida. that's all working. as the secretary said, he has led us through a process and

continues to lead a history process that ensures we have a collaborative effort. this is in two or three folks in the room trying to dream this thing up by themselves. so we're well on our way to answering those questions. i will just and adequate with the secretary said about the events at dover. they are very distressing to u.s. and we intend, as the air force intends, to get to the bottom of it and to ensure that we continue to improve processes that may not have been executed properly and old folks accountable for it's appropriate to accountable. without alternate back to you, sir. >> mr. secretary, the other day you mentioned a statement issued at the air force investigation was thorough and today you're asking to take another look at that. what changed into you think -- was the air force not as upfront with you about some of the general counsel criticisms that

may have been made that you are now aware of? and general dempsey, there's been a lot of discussion about possibly increasing troop strength in kuwait. can you talk about how important you think that maybe for security in the region and what possibly would be to missions and the capabilities you think would be necessary. >> on the first part of the question, i think they did do it are really poor. it was about 216 pages along some additional supplement that were added by the secretary, by the air force and all of that was forwarded to the office of the special counsel. and as a result of that report, they've taken a number of significant status to try to correct procedures that dover to ensure that what happened never happens again. but at the same time, obviously the office of special counsel then issued its report and i

have reviewed that they've they've raised additional questions, which i think got to be worked out. and for that reason, i want to make sure that we have taken every step possible to bring peace of mind to the family members of our fallen heroes. and for that reason, this review commission to look at the processes in features and make sure we are implementing the highest standards in dealing with the remains of our fallen heroes. and in addition to that, i want to make certain that we've taken all all the appropriate disciplinary action. and for that reason, i vastly secretary to review that. >> with cooperative defense agreements with most all of the nations in the counsel. and in other parts of that region. and we routinely reviewed them.

we have been going through process to review our posture. we are reviewing in terms of emerging and emerging threats, opportunities, resources and bob will end up with in kuwait will be something that helps us meet our interest and mayors. >> mr. secretary, given the situation at dover, the office says council and veterans organization were wondering aloud why nobody has been fired essentially. up on the hill today, the chief of staff of the air force, general schwartz in a congressional hearing set, well, there was an inappropriate action, whether it constitutes wrongdoing is another matter. is there some legal impediment to firing anybody over this? and should there be a higher standard of conduct and accountability in dealing with america's wounded.

>> that's exactly why that's for the review to make sure that appropriate actions were taken here. at the disciplinary was taken with regard to the commander thayer and the civilians that were involved. and it obviously for them in their careers has a serious and packed. but nevertheless, based on the seriousness of what to place here, it is my view that we have to look at not only that, but the reprisal issue to determine whether or not all appropriate and 10 steps for making with regards to disciplinary action. you have to send a clear signal that these kinds of actions that took place cannot happen. >> in terms of discipline, is this just a clear black-and-white legal issue, or is there a higher moral standard that should be applied here? >> i think it to demand decision would review these facts.

obviously, it involves what is the nature of the violation, is there a violation? how serious is that? in addition, when it comes to dover as a moral standard that means we have to pay the greatest respect and reverence to the remains of our fallen heroes. that is what i think that to be considered in the situation. >> i want to follow-up on this because what i still don't understand is why is it credible to you to have the air force investigated thoughts on this matter, given that -- given how critical the special counsel report was of the air force, why have they investigate themselves and with respect, why should the american people after this, after walter reid, after arlington, why should they believe the military and the wounded that remains is the appropriate respect?

>> first of all, the independent review is an independent review that i'm requesting take place here. independent review is going to be done by richard cremona, will include trent franks, a former member of the board here, houseboy. worst of cipher was represented the family are involved in the mission there. congressman vic snyder who is a democratic u.s. representative who has led a committee that reviewed this. dale hughley, licensed general direct your who served in the u.s. navy. jacqueline taylor who is executive director of the new england institute and internationally but as. and dr. bruce parks, a forensic pathologist. all will be involved in the independent review. with regards to the secretary repealing it, you know, the secretaries at the top of the chain of command when it comes to the air force. i want him to have that responsibility. i trust my donnelly.

i think he tried to do with this matter, to go after the issues involved here, to correct them into whatever was necessary and i trust he will try to do the same. when i tell him to take a look and make sure your appropriate disciplinary action was taken here, i trust will do that. >> you were told. >> will look into that situation. >> i know that something we should look at. >> they were the special counsel report. i talked to the special counsel and she said her office informed as the air force back in march, whether they inform the families are not. she pressed for that back in arch. air force informed families of those whose remains are mishandled just this past weekend. was that a wise course of

action? should they have told them earlier? >> my impression is families were alluded to that earlier -- let me check that out. the family should have been alluded earlier. >> as you know, the air force is not acknowledged culpability for this. do you think right? >> if i'm not mistaken, general schwartz in testimony today says he accepts full culpability for what to place. >> i wonder if you are general dempsey think that an apology is in order either to the families whose remains were misplaced or less accountability in the report or the ones who prior to 2008 remain in a landfill. is this the sort of thing good department should apologize for her? >> absolutely we should apologize if we haven't handled those remains properly, then it is our responsibility and we do

with his family that apology. >> you haven't indicated that they have not apologized. in fact to the notification process, i am telling you firsthand that there were apologies rendered with that notification and deep expressions of regret as there should be. back to the landfill issue, as another secretary said it does go back to where the procedure was change. by the way, the procedure is not uncommon elsewhere in the medical community outside the military. the disposition of human remains are separated from the principal portion. if you look into how it is handled routinely in civilian life, there are procedures exactly that way. we took a decision in 2008 to do at sea. >> in some ways do you believe that was wrong to put the military remains in a landfill?

can you say unequivocally that was wrong to do so? >> i don't know what great books i cannot regard now that this has manifested itself. i think the review to the secretary has requested will help us learn a lot or that we didn't know before. >> on the issue of iran, there's been a lot of chatter about bombing iranian securities. can you walk us your comments on complexities and the effect is that this kind of campaign? secretary gates and comparable length is set over the last couple of years that i manifest would set back their program by three years at most. do you still agree with that assessment? what complicity is the unanticipated effects of something like that? >> i certainly share the views of secretary gates and general malaise that they've expressed with regards to this in terms of the impact that it would have. i think you got to be careful of unintended consequences here.

and those consequences could involve not only not really deterring iran from what they want to do, but more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region and could have a serious impact on u.s. forces in the region. i think all of those things need to be carefully considered. having said that, israel in the united states share three common concern with regards to iran. and the concern was reflect that in the ieee report issued this week. and for that reason, it is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions. economic, diplomatic pressures on iran to change their behavior and we are in discussions with allies with regards to additional sanctions that are to be placed on iran.

and when it comes to action against iran, i think it was the prime minister netanyahu himself who said that ought to be a last resort and we would with that. >> into the three years, i want to make sure it said tommy would've most delay two or three years at most. possessed of the current assessment? >> we see no change in the assessments. >> if the sanctions don't reach positive results, do you think the united states or israel can live with the nuclear era? >> we have made very clear that it's unacceptable for iran to accept a nuclear capability. we think that point time and time again and we've taken steps unimplemented sanctions to make it clear to iran. iran is a signatory to the

non-proliferation treaty. they abide by standards and international rules. obviously the report from the iaea just indicate that is not the case. for that reason, it is important that the world come together to apply sanctions against iran and make very clear to them that they are going to pay a heavy price if they continue along this track. as to what happens down the road, i think our hope is that we don't reach that point and matter and decide that it should join the international family. >> secretary general dempsey. >> obviously the national intelligence estimates from the u.s. side said that the weapons program had halted in 2003. the iaea now says that this proceeding -- that iran is closer than ever. do you share the assessment they

are now closer than ever to nuclear weapon? since sanctions, diplomatic sanctions have not yet worked, is it not time to say this strategy has failed a new strategy needs to be put in place? >> well, first of all regards to the i.e. being report, that is the mind that the intelligence assessments certainly that i've seen with regards to iran. we have our always made the point that they continue to try to develop a threshold capability with regards to their nuclear capacity. but at the same time, there continue to be divisions within iran as to whether or not to actually build a bomb itself. so in many ways, the iaea report pretty much indicates that the continue work on that capability and that is pretty much reflect it in our intelligence assessment. nevertheless, the fact that a

respected international organization like iaea has come to this determination, raises serious concern that iran continues to flaunt international rules and standards and as a result of that, it is very clear additional sanctions have to be applied. >> on the national guard becoming a full member of the joint chiefs of staff, that idea is out there, there is a hearing today are generally dempsey expects opposition. president about entering this campaign expressed his support. where do you stand and what is the administration stand? [laughter] >> on this fine i thank the chairman of the joint chiefs have indicated that, you know, that individuals at the table, but at the same time the person really doesn't have the kind of authority is that the service

chiefs have. nevertheless, national guard is important, reserves are important. in turn says being a member of the joint chiefs of staff, joint chiefs of staff, and that he sent a letter to be reserved for those who have direct command and direct budgets they do with their military. >> i was asked as they always will be to give my own personal military advice. in fact, i swear i'm a out that is exactly what i promised to do and i gave my face today in a rather lengthy hearing and you're welcome to go and look at the trees get. >> have you really talk to the president about this particular issue, but if i know this president, i think he would seriously take into consideration recommendations of the chairman of the chiefs. >> referred to a different car

related issue in the budget has committee, referred to in october report on contracting fraud. the reports on conclusions are that the penalties for contractors repeatedly involved in fraud inside these are big guys as well, that it's not clear frenemies are sufficient. more work needs to be done and need to increase size and capability of the acquisition workforce to ensure that the interests of the taxpayers are protected. jubilate the remedies kiernan plays are sufficient to ensure the centrist? particularly at this time anemic the country decide 20% across the board but particularly now what is to speeten to make sure taxpayers and soldiers and sailors are getting in effect what they pay for? >> one thing i made clear as we've gone through this budget process is everything has to be on the table was good to look at everything. this is an area we have to look at when it comes to procurement

reforms, when it comes to the kind of contract problems that you've reflected in your reporting. this is an area we've got to look at cosida make sure that doesn't happen. not only does it impact on the taxpayers funds, but more importantly it impacts on the very weapons and technology that these contractors are involved in. all that concerns me. for that reason, that is part parcel of the areas that we are looking at is to make the budget decisions for the future. >> may be the budget cuts are going to impact the assistance programs to mexico. do you think that would have been? and also, do you have in the interview -- have you scheduled an a for mexico? >> i'm looking forward to doing

that. i'm going to go up to canada i think next week, but my hope is to be able to do the same at mexico in the near future as well. and you know, with regards to the kinds of assistance that we provide mexico at the present time, in order to do with the drug cartels and try to assist them in serious problems that mexico is confronting, we certainly are contemplating any cutbacks in that area because that does involve the kind of assistance that we think is extremely not only to protecting the security of mexico, but protecting our security as well. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we'll talk about the drawdown of u.s. troops and equipment from iraq with major general geoffrey buchanans joining us from baghdad. vfw legislative director ray kelley will focus on federal programs to encourage hiring of veterans. we will discuss military suicides in mental health programs for veterans with margaret harold

>> i started telling this guy about my symptoms, you know, jumping up in the middle of a nighttime running outside without knowing what was going on. cars honk behind me. i'd be out of my own car, and great attacking the car behind me. he said to me, have you ever been in a war? and that hit me so hard. and in the middle of the stream at 80 people. i started following, it's not coming out of my nose. have you ever been in a war? it was that simple.

when he finally got me back in control company said you've got ptsd. have you ever heard of it? >> next, a hearing on a proposal to expand the joint chiefs of staff to include the head of the national guard. the bill has 65 cosponsors in the senate, but is opposed by all current members of the joint chiefs. this is about two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations] good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to receive testimony on whether the chief of the national guard bureau should be a member of the

joint chiefs of staff. i believe that this hearing is a first, the first time we have had every member of the joint chiefs of staff testified a single hearing. each of them has appeared before us individually in different combinations, but never altogether. in addition to other members of the joint chiefs, with the department of defense general counsel and with the chief of the national guard here with us today. we welcome each of the today's hearing. we look forward to your testimony on a very important issue. the role of the national guard as well as the role of the other reserve components has grown significantly since 9/11. substantial numbers of national guardsmen and reservists have deployed to and continue to serve in combat operations in iraq and afghanistan. large numbers have served multiple tours, many of given

their lives in service to a nation and many more have returned with wounds of war. their service has been outstanding and we commend them for their dedication, courage and peachtree kiss him. the national guard is also reason to the challenge by serving in diverse homeland defense and civil support missions. the reserve components have made highly successful trade should from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve. the question of whether to include the chief of the national guard bureau as a member of the joint chiefs of staff is a complex issue with significant policy implications. to properly address this issue requires an understanding of the role of the national guard, the role of the joint chiefs of staff and the role of the chief of the national guard bureau. i believe that we have the right witnesses before us today to help us understand all aspects of this issue.

when individuals unless you accept a commission a state national guard unit, they simultaneously last or a commission and in the army national guard united states or the air national guard of the united states, which are components of the army and air force. these individuals retain their status as state cardmembers, unless and until they are order to activate the federal service and may revert to state status upon being reviewed from federal service. there is a third hybrid status commonly referred to as title 32 status, where the members are in a federally dead state status. i understand that mr. johnson, dod general counsel will express some of the ramifications of these different statuses in

which members of the national guard served. the composition of the joint chiefs of staff is defined by statute and consists of the chairman, vice chairman and the military service chiefs of the army, navy, air force and marine core. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the principal military advisor to the president, national security council, the homeland security council and the secretary of defense. the other members of the joint chiefs may submit to the chairman advice and disagreement with or in addition to the advice presented by the chairman and the chairman must present that advice at the same time that he presents is that advice. additionally, the other members of the joint chiefs provide

military advice when requested by the president, the national security council, homeland security council or the secretary of defense. a member of the joint chiefs may make recommendations to congress come up with it into the department of defense after first informing the secretary of defense and looking for which the testimony at the joint chiefs of staff as they provide more information on the role that the joint chiefs play in the national security, how the interests of the army and air national guard are addressed by the joint chiefs and not the chief of the national guard bureau faces split the joint chiefs of staff. the national guard bureau is a joint at tbd at the department of defense. by statute, it is a channel of communications on all matters

pertaining to the national guard, the army national guard of the united states in the air national guard of the united states between the department of the army and department of the air force in several states. the chief of the national guard or is the principal adviser to the secretary of defense through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on matters involving non-federalist national regard forces and other matters as determined at the secretary of defense. he is also the principal adviser to the secretary of the army and the chief of staff of the army into the secretary of the air force and the chief of staff of the air force on matters relating to the national guard, army national guard of the united states in the air national guard of the united states. beginning in 2009 when the position of the chief of the national guard or was increased

to four-star rank, the chief of the national guard bureau is given a standing invitation to attend meetings of the joint chiefs. i look forward to general mckinley's testimony to further elaborate on the wrong function at the chief of the national guard bureau and how that relates to the role and function of the joint chiefs of staff. in congress' direction, the commission on the national guard reserves address the issues we look at today. they did so in a second report to congress dated march 1, 2007. the commission recommended against making the chief of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs. this is what the commission said quote, the commission does not

recommend that the chief of the national guard bureau be a member of the joint chiefs of staff on the grounds that the duties of the members of the joint chiefs of staff are greater than those of the chief of the national guard hero. for exam will come and this is a long quote from that commission report. for example, and they said the chief of the national guard hero is not responsible for organizing, and man-made, training and equipping the national guard to the same extent as are the service chiefs of staff. the qualifications to be selected as a service chiefs of staff they said also are materially different from and more rigorous with those to be chief of the national guard hero. moreover, they said making the chief of the national guard euro and member of the joint chiefs of staff would run counter to

intra- and inter-service integration and would reverse progress towards joint message interoperability, and making the chief of the national guard. under the joint chiefs of staff would beef uneventfully inconsistent with the status of the army and air national guard as reserve components of the army and air force. finally, the commission concludes that this proposal would be counter to the carefully crafted organizational and advisory principles established in the goldwater-nichols legislation, close quote. i note that congress has implemented many recommendations of that commission in putting the following, increasing the grade of the chief of the national guard bureau from the tenet general to general and making him a principal adviser to the secretary of defense to

the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on matters of dollars in non-federalized guard forces. other of their recommendations implemented by congress was established in the national guard euro as a joint activity of the department of defense, enhancing functions of the national guard bureau to assist in the secretary of defense and coordinating with other federal agencies to adjectives generally the states and combatant command with responsibility for the united states homeland, the u.s. northern command. we require at least one deputy at the u.s. northern command, again the combatant and responsible for the united states to at least one be a national guard officer and the grade of lieutenant general and that increase the number of unified and specified that

command conditions for reserve component officers. we all are grateful to the witnesses, to the men and women with whom they serve for service to our nation. we think the witnesses for being with us today. before calling on senator inhofe, we will note we have two posts today as scheduled at 12:5 with senator inhofe. >> trained to i believe that's right. at the back of the eight years he spent in the house in 17 years in the senate and this is the first time that all members of the joint chiefs are here, so this is kind of a neat deal. i think the greatest trust placed by the american people is to maintain a national security defense. the constitution gives congress pacific national security

authorities to declare war, raise armies, provide for the navy, establish rules and regulations for military forces and armed state. >> i hate to interrupt, senator inhofe. we've got some business speak and attend to. if a quorum now present we were going to go to loose a quorum. but i asked the committee to consider a list of 4022 pending military nominations. all of these nominations have been for third committee. is there a motion to favorably report this? all in favor say aye ko. the motion carries. thank you. anyway, let me just mention that we are all close to militaries, the branches, active, reserve

and i don't think there's a person on this committee who hasn't had close relationships with the active duty that visited quite often in areas where they are stationed and deployed. in my case, we have 3000 members of the oklahoma 45th infantry brigade, national guard. i went down there at camp shelby in mississippi and then left about three weeks later and talked over there. i know that it's one where you're probably a closer relationship because you are sitting your hometown and the visit with general mckinley. i know that happens in a very close friends in oklahoma 45th they weren't deployed until july. we've lost 14 of our people over there. one was his wife worked in my

office. i remember so well during the august recess going into a small town in oklahoma, where she was buried making arrangements. i was getting ready to go to afghanistan so i could meet with chris horton, her husband. in two days before i coming he was killed in action. so these very things that we are all very close to an all services. earlier this week, our oklahoma 45th help in capturing this out we have mid-level and his brother as well as weapons and hand grenades, and cell phones they are. they did without firing a shot. they did great work over there. efforts will lead to a stable afghanistan and prevent insurgents from gaining safe haven. our national guard has transitioned from a strategic to an operational reserve force.

this means the national guard got to be trained and equipped the same as our active unit. and the reserves. it also means that we must fully integrate our reserve components of the day came seamlessly execute any commission. i'm proud of the contributions that is made in the sacrifice and families have made and continue to make. i think general mckinley will probably have this -- i read part of this statement in terms that the relationship between the card and the active units. i have to say i think this might be the first time i can remember coming to a committee hearing. i had dinner the other night with a wire coming to your airport chief and he started talking about this. they said they be allowed. if we're going to have a hearing, let me hear from about the same time. this might be the only time i've ever come to a hearing for a really open on this and i want

to you the answers. we have specific questions. so i think this will be a very hopeful. and i appreciate your testimony. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we are hearing from members of our family. these witnesses are part of our american family and this committee's family we are close to each of you have a difficult policy decisions to deal with. we do that a family or spirit brother may be differences in there obviously are, that is what democracy is all about and we need to consider these as members of one unit to call having the same mission, which is security of this country. you all have that mission and we all have that mission. we are going to call my witnesses today in the following order.

first, will be the general counsel to the department of defense, jay johnson. then the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey. then the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral would've thought. and the chief of staff of the army, general odierno. the chief of naval operations, admiral greener, the commandant of the marine corps, general amos, chief of staff for the air force, general schwartz was chief of the national guard general mckinley. so let us start with you, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator inhofe, members of the committee coming thank you for the opportunity to testify today. you have asked me to discuss the provision of the proposed legislation that would make the chief of the national guard bureau and member of the joint chiefs of staff. at the outset, i will tell you there are no outright legal barriers to enacting this

legislation enacted in the constitution prohibits pitch in the joint chiefs are statutory creation. congress can change the membership of the chiefs by statute if it so desires. i believe it is important however that the committee be aware of some of the legislation's legal and locations and complexities. before you get to those come heroes and generally go back around on the national guard, the chief of the national guard bureau and the joint chiefs of staff. mr. chairman dumais alluded to some of this in your own remarks. the national guard is a unique entity that operates at different times under federal and state authorities. all members of the guard are members of both the state national guard and the federal national guard of the united states. the army and air national guard said the united states are two of the six reserve components of the department of defense.

the army, navy, air force or marine reserves or the other for reserve component. members of the national guard concert in three distinct statuses, each of which has different responsibilities and authorities. first, national guard members may serve in what is known as state act of duty. state law dictates and guard members assume this database. typical state active-duty missions in good first responder responsibilities after a natural disaster. the state pays for and the governor of the state commands the national guard when it is on state act of duty. the department of defense plays no direct role in that status. second, national guard members may be ordered to duty under title 32 of the united states code, which i will call title 30 to duty. when the car performs title 30 to duty, it is performing

federally funded military training subject to federal standards for domestic missions, both which are under the command and control of the state governor. examples of title 32 missions include post-9/11 airport security, southwest border security and counter drug support. third, department of defense may call the national guard to federal surveys, including in times of national emergency is authorized by law. national board members ordered to active duty lose their status as members of the national guard and become members of the reserves of the army are reserves of the air force. for example, this is the status of guard members who have been called to serve in iraq and afghanistan. the department of defense both commands and funds the card when it is in federal service.

this at different times the national guard may act as either a stage for a federal government entity. they are neither command or control as department of defense. rather for much of what the card does come as state governors are rated commandant of the national guard does active federal service, it does so as part of the reserves or the army or the air force. the chief of the national guard bureau does not command the national guard, act to name any of these three statuses. rather they federal statute, chief of the national guard euro acts as advisor on all matters as federalize national guard forces and also has a statutory duty to advise the secretaries and chiefs of staff of the army and the air force on national guard honors. a department of defense direct

or further explains the chief of the national guard bureau authorities and responsibilities consistent with guidance provided by congress. some legal background on the joint chiefs of staff. the joint chiefs of staff served as senior military advisors and the secretary of defense. the joint chiefs are currently composed of six statutory members. the chairman, vice chairman and chief said the four services. the service chief has a broad range of leadership under then responsibilities that extend throughout their services encompassing both the act given reserve components of the service. each of the service chiefs of the respective services. against this drop, i turn to the proposed legislation, which would make the chief of the national guard bureau in member of the joint chiefs of staff. as a matter of pride as, the

chief of the national guard bureau attends meetings of the joint chiefs had says the commandant of the coast guard. the purpose of the proposed legislation is is to make the chief of the guard a statutory entitlement and responsibilities i make two points. first, the goldwater-nichols department of defense or organization that of 1986 track in a carefully crafted balance of the intra- and inter-service equities. the chief of the national guard bureau represents all money on army and our national guard and the proposed legislation would does alter some of goldwater-nichols careful balances by, for example, altering the fact that each services statutorily represented by one service chief in the

joint chiefs and providing only two of the department of defense six statutory reserve components with additional joint chiefs representation. second, elevating chief of the national guard bureau to represent national guard equities to the joint chiefs could create legal conclusion estimate that the army and air force chief of staff continue to rip her sent total force. current lab requires the cheese on the national guard bureau to advise the army and air force chiefs of staff on all national guard matters. finally, i note that you are the received letters from the chairman of the joint chiefs and the service chiefs to detail concerns that the proposed legislation. the chairman, vice chairman of service chiefs are far more conversant than i with respect to the operational and it in a straight of consequences of adding the chief of the national guard. to the joint chiefs.

from my dad, i hope that any legislation does not add ambiguities with respect to authorities in the place where we can tolerate such ambiguity of the least. at the top of the service either of these, especially in a time of war. thank you again for the opportunity to appear today at i look forward to your questions. ..

and an advocate for the national guard. aren't higher reserve component makes an indispensable contribution to our national security. throughout our nation's history and certainly in the decade since 9/11, we've depended on our citizens, soldiers and airmen to help defend us, our allies and interests. at home and abroad, the national guard service with courage, discipline and skill and distinction. i'm proud to be their chairman. the chairman of the total joint force, active and reserve, civilian and a family coming and i take seriously my responsibility to give voice to their achievements and to their needs. i ensure their voice, including the voice of the chief of the national guard bureau is heard. this said, i joined the secretary of defense and the service chiefs and counseling against making the chief of the

national guard a statutory member of the joint chiefs of staff. there is no compelling military need to support this historic change. two primary concerns lead me to this conclusion, representation and accountability. first, our success as a joint force astor in large measure to our ability to integrate the active and reserve components so that they are indistinguishable on the battlefield. i believe this is because -- i believe we have accomplished this because the service chiefs of the army and air force are the single voice for the respect of services. with the service secretaries, they bear the sole responsibility for making the key resource decisions to produce and organized trained and equipped force, and this includes the national guard and reserve components. the proposed change could undermine this effort. as you know, each of our services has a reserve component, but on the army and air force have a national guard. this proposal will also create a

situation among our reserve component forces whereby two of the six, as mr. johnson mentioned would be represented differently, creating what could least be the perception. my second and more important concern there was one of accountability to read each of the joint chiefs is subject to the civilian oversight of a single appointed and confirmed secretary. the chief of the national guard bureau has no such oversight. elevation to the j.c. yes would make an equal to flow service chief without commensurate accountability to read this seems to me to run counter to the carefully crafted organizational and advisory principle established by the goldwater nichols. i don't find the argument can change the composition of the jcs compelling. it's unclear to me what problem we are trying to solve. here's what i do know with certainty. the chief of the national guard bureau has and will continue to attend meetings with the joint chiefs that i chair. i want and need him in this. the chief provides valuable

insight and experience for matters of importance to the national guard and therefore the nation. this advice is also carefully considered when the army and air force chief make decisions that affect their servers. the chief of the national guard bureau has a voice, and it is heard. over the last ten years, the relationship between our active and reserve components has grown into a well integrated fighting force. you really can't spot the difference between active and reserve component soldiers or airmen. we are and will remain one force. again, i would like to thank the committee for its continued support to the men and women in uniform as well as their families and i look forward to answering questions. >> thank you very much, general. admiral winnefeld. >> good morning. distinguished members the armed services committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. let me start by saying how much i honor and have a deep appreciation for the men and women of the nation's entire

reserve component including a fine citizen soldiers and airmen of the national guard for their incredible contributions to the nation's defense and security as well as their considerable sacrifice both at home and abroad. there should be no doubt i am a huge supporter of and a believer in america's national guard, and i have a personal connection to the guard. indeed, when i was nominated to be the commander of north, and norad, my first call was to my friend and soon-to-be partner, general craig mckinley. while he was there, i worked very closely with my guard partners and the council of governors to bring to life the dual status commander concept. we migrated more chemical biological retial to quit nuclear response to the guard while i was at northcom. with the help of the national guard bureau, we brought more guardsmen into the northcom headquarters, including doubling the number of national guard

flag officers in the headquarters. when i walked around my northcom and norad headquarters, i could not have told you who was a guardsman and who was not. and i wouldn't want it any other way. along the way, i've come to count many of the state's generals as my personal friends. it was not by chance my first speaking engagement as the vice-chairman was at the national guard association of the united states annual conference this past august. during my time as vice chairman this far we've been successful in bringing the chief of the national guard bureau in to more senior level dod forums. i have personally advocated the expansion of the state partnership program which i think is so important to the country. i fully advocate elevating the position of the deputy chief of the national guard bureau to the three-star rank and would happily support the future commander being a guardsmen and as well as the key component

commanders been guardsman, the white do not believe that the law should go any further than it already does and specifying which components hold which bullets. i've put my money where my mouth is in support of the guard, and they can count on my continued support. nonetheless, and despite my support for this great institution, i am concerned about the pending national guard and power mac legislation regarding full membership of the chief of the national guard bureau of the trade chiefs of staff. the spirit of the joint kindled by the cold water nichols reform legislation is truly alive and has served our nation well and reflect the wisdom of the converse. i do not believe it needs to be fixed, and we don't need to take a step backward and the unity of effort that legislation did so much to promote. as general dempsey said, the generals who served on the jcs have a great responsibility for

manning, training and equipping of the active and reserve components of their services. the chief of the national guard bureau, despite being my great friend, and for whom i have great respect, does not have the same level of responsibility or command authority, and we should not send a signal that we have two different united states army's or united states air forces. second, while this legislation is in a very positive message to the terrific men and women of the guard, i am concerned that it will send a negative message to the remaining 46% of the nation's reserve component that they are somehow of lesser importance and that future decisions could be taken at their expense. and i hear that from some members of the title x reserve components life asked. third, some may believe that this legislation would provide a tangible benefit by an powering the guard with a vote on the jcs. mr. chairman, i would tell you there is no voting process on the joint chiefs. instead, we all provide our best

military advice to the chairman who then formulates his advice to the secretary of defense and to the president. we already received fantastic military advice from general mckinley who as general dempsey said it is always invited to the table. just as we from the compound of the coast guard, was also always invited to the table, although the coast guard is not asking for similar legislation. in the end, i'm not sure what is broken and we are fixing. but i also would assure you as general dempsey did, mr. chairman, i would assure the members of this committee because we are indeed a family, that my colleagues and i will do everything to prevent this issue from driving a wedge between our fantastic, capable and brave national guard and the rest of the united states military's fantastic, capable and brave active and reserve components. thank you again for the opportunity to appear this morning. thanks again for your continued support and that your staff for

our men and women in uniform come and look for to questions. >> admiral, think you so much. general odierno. >> thank you mr. chairman, senator inhofe, other members of , both in my current position, but in my previous position, to see first hand the power and capability of the whole army. the performance, selfless service and dedication of our active component or army national guard and army reserves all have contributed directly to our successes. and i am proud and humbled that i am currently the chief of staff united states army, the total army. the reserve component connects the army to the american people. the guard and reserve, soldiers that live and work in over 3,000 communities, have shared the burdens of the war with over 900 killed in action, and more than

7,500 wounded. they are critical components of the joint force and connect us to mainstream america. we have built a strong relationship between all of our army components, and i would argue probably the strongest we've ever had. and it is our goal to sustain and increase this momentum as we move forward. with all due respect to the chief of the national guard my friend greg mckinley with whom i've had the utmost respect for and have worked closely with on numerous critical issues, i am bound to communicate my opposition to this post as a member of the joint chiefs of staff. first representing two of the six, the army and air national guard the joint chief of staff level will create confusion, in balance and potentially challenge interoperability. it would encounter the service

and intra service integration and negatively impact the progress we've made towards triteness. second, the proposed legislation would complicate the central principal of civilian control of the nation's military. this proposal risk training the bifurcated force when focused internally and another focused abroad. it is important that we have clear authority and responsibility to ensure effective employment of the total force. third, this could lead to the divided or the redundant force management funding modernization and training and doctrine creating a high level of competition and friction. the reserve component forces will continue to play a critical role in the national security strategy and the advice of the chief of the national guard bureau will always be, as it has become extremely valuable within the context of the total army in a balanced and joint portfolio. the integration of the regular army, the army national guard

and the army reserve has proven over the last decade to be unbeatable on the battlefield, and irreplaceable at home and abroad. now more than ever we are truly one army and we cannot sacrifice the fact that we are one army as we face many critical challenges ahead. mr. chairman, members of the committee, think again for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you and your support and i look for rich your questions. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you free much congenital odierno. admiral greenert. >> thank you mr. chairman and chairman leaven and inhofe members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to comment on and to testify on the matter including the chief of the national guard bureau as a member of the joint chiefs of staff. i fully support continued participation by the chief of the national guard bureau and joint chiefs deliberations, particularly regarding the issues the deal with or affect the national guard.

our national guard chief as general mckinley, we consider a brother, has made notable input and provided valuable contributions to issues of importance to those of us serving in the tank and the departments of defense. i think this relationship should continue. however, in my opinion, making the chief of the national guard bureau a member of the trend chiefs of staff adds unnecessary complexities to the principal of the minetti of command. unlike the service chiefs, the chief of the national guard bureau does not represent a branch of service, nor is he responsible for organizing, manning, training and equipping the national guard to the extent of the service rigs. and their respective services. making the chief of the national guard bureau member of the joint chiefs may also insert an ambiguity regarding the status of the army national guard, the air national guard, as reserve components of the army and air force respectively. this could create a perception that the national guard is a

separate service and that perception could instigate and inequality since among the national guard and its army, marine corps, navy and air force reserve counterparts. i appreciate committee's longstanding support for the men and women of the navy, and i look forward to continue working with the committee as we address the challenges we face both in the nation and for the navy. thank you very much. >> thank you so much, admiral. next, general amos. >> jarman 11, senator inhofe, fellow committee members, thank you for the devotee to provide my advice on whether the chief of the national guard bureau should become a voting member of the joint chiefs of staff. in my view, there should be no change to the status quo. let me first to acknowledge my colleague, general craig mckinley, the chief of the national guard bureau and the many men and women who have faithfully served in the states, national guard units. they have served the nation and

the state's well for many decades. for this and much more, we owe them a great debt of gratitude. by virtue of the limited role in the department of defense and the supporting role in the army and air force affairs, the chief of the national guard bureau has the requisite blog insight into all levels of strategic planning for jcs membership. additionally, the chief of the national guard bureau's toole mission and stayed focus creates an unavoidable conflict of interest and consistent with voting membership. in this sense, voting membership would introduce the irrevocably state interest and to the inherently federal activity process. chief of the national guard bureau membership and jcs could complicate the unity of command for both the army and the united states air force. congress intended the current structure and insurers the chiefs are singularly accountable to the executive and legislative branches of the government for the combat

readiness of their respective services. to include reserve components it's critical that we safeguard the unity of command. last, the chiefs of staff of the army and air force are best suited to advise on the most effective employment of their supporting elements. under law, the national guard has the supporting relationship with the army and air force one federalized as a reserve component to write an jcs membership to the chief of the national guard bureau creates unnecessary leadership, duplication and the jcs country to the contras's longstanding policy. this duplication could unfairly imply army and air force concerns and create a representational imbalance for the reserve components other than the national guard. the chief of the national guard bureau of's advisory board from the jcs is appropriate and adequate as it currently stands. thank you for the opportunity to offer this statement and i look forward to questions. >> thank you, general amos.

general schwartz. >> mr. chairman, senator inhofe and members i'm grateful for the opportunity to offer my views today and on behalf of the men and women of the united states air force, i thank you for your ongoing support of our service members and importantly, their families. i join my colleagues in the definitively stating that the chief of the national guard bureau is a very important senior leader under our total force contract. though the role in advising the secretary of the air force directly in the secretary of defense through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the national guard bureau chief has a daily contributor to many of the consequential decisions that are made by the total force leadership. title x of the united states code provides the bureau chief advisory role and preserves unified surface leadership. this advisory role and the drew chief's relationship to each service continues to be

important and is currently appropriate in the performance of organizing, training and equipping functions for which the service secretaries and service chiefs are singularly responsible but because the national guard bureau chief does not represent a single or separate branch of service, making him or her a statutory member of the joint chiefs would reach beyond the appropriate role for the bureau chief. and because the bureau chief's and advisory role to the service secretaries and chiefs is for all national guard matters including notably those that are related to the federal service of the national guard, providing statutory joint chiefs membership to the national guard bureau chief would disrupt the lines of authority in the representation that are already in place for the chief of the army and the air force. therefore, the current

arrangement should not be altered. the joint chiefs exist in large part to provide military advice on the employment of federal forces. a total force and a plant considerations are best served by those who possess supervisory and moral authority over field forces who organize, train and equip the personnel of all components of each service and who are responsible as force providers to the combat commanders. consequently the national guard bureau chief membership on the joint chiefs present issues concerning his or her appropriate role in offering advice on the upon of the armed forces and a designated title tunnell rule. moreover, beyond the established relationship among of the military services interaction with the interagency and

international partners also could be confused. existing small and policy provides appropriate role in requirements for the chief of the national guard bureau. his or her authority is augmented by the jcs's chairman standing invitation to the bureau chief to attend meetings of the joint chiefs and surf that the chief of the bureau will continue to have a strong voice and will remain and a central and highly valued partner from all air force chief of staff were joined chief steam but for the foregoing reasons should not be included as a statutory full voting member of the joint chiefs of staff independent of service leadership. mr. chairman, senator, members of the committee, thank you for your time we look forward to your questions and if i may, sir, i would like to publicly

recognize and states the admiration and respect for the teammates from the united states marine corps his celebrity to hundred 36th birthday today. thank you, sir. >> birthday, general amos. [laughter] >> thank you. >> i didn't know you were that old, but -- >> we congratulate you and all the marines. >> thank you congenital. general mckinley. >> good morning. let me take personal pride in thank you for posting the pbs special the will be seen tonight. where the soldiers come from honoring the aid of your soldiers from the upper peninsula of michigan. senator inhofe for your support of the 45th, your relationship with the oklahoma national guard is one to be emulated as all the other members of the committee and all the distinguished members of this committee it's an honor to be sitting before you today to provide my opening comments on the matter at hand.

i added my ear of the chiefs, the vice chairman and the chairman very, very much. i can tell you that our relationship will not be broken by the testimony given here today, and i think them for the honor of letting me be a part of this date as today. mr. chairman, for me to be here today to provide my personal views on whether the chief of the national guard bureau should be a member of the joint chiefs of staff, i'm sitting here be leaving now in the 21st century after three years in the job is the chief of the national guard bureau, and 11 total years serving in the pentagon that it is now in the best interest of the american people for the chief of the national guard to be made a full member of the joint chiefs of staff. while the 2008 national defense authorization act and resulting dod initiatives made important fundamental changes in the role

of the chief of the national guard bureau, and the bureau only full joint chiefs of staff membership were the chief of the national guard bureau will ensure that their responsibilities and capabilities of the non-federalist national guard are considered in a planned and deliberate manner that is not based upon l. hoch or personal relationships, but is instead, firmly rooted in block and the national strategy. the domestic mission of the national guard must be taken into account, when making military contingency plans, when allocating the scarce readiness resources, and when advising the president and secretary of defense the national security council and the homeland security council on strategies and contingency response options. homeland defense and civil support must be at the core of our national strategy deutsch to the changing threat environment one that is asymmetrical one and

more dangerous than our homeland and in any time in history. it is for those reasons now but i believe the chief of the national guard bureau should be a member of the joint chiefs of staff to read our nation's military planning in the resource in would be vastly improved in my opinion. more comprehensive, more effective, and more efficient. i do not personally support a change in the title x relationships among the services, and the army and the air guard nor do i support the national guard becoming a separate service. we in the national guard are all very proud members of the united states army and the united states your force. the issue at hand, in my opinion, does not in any way impact unity of command, which will remain unchanged, or fragment the reserve component. as only the national guard has a dual federal/state mission, or create uncertainty, in my opinion, with respect to national guard leadership, which clearly resides in our governors

and generals. when the guard is non-federalized. and with the federal commanders when it is. nor does it increase the risk, in my opinion, of over representation of any service at the highest levels of our military. rather, this would add to the jcs in an enduring matter, the expertise and knowledge of the chief of the national guard bureau as it pertains to the national guard and its non-federalized role in the defense and safety of the homeland. indeed, the chief of the national guard bureau believe the title x officer under the law and the dot director pertaining to the national guard should be counted on as the federal officer best postured to advise the jcs and other clients on the capability of dimond federal national guard. i read the letters of the service chief submitted to the committee and i provided the chairman a copy of the dod directive, chairman of the trade chiefs on monday. these letters and other comments focussed whether directly or indirectly primarily on five

discrete themes: budget authority, the chief of the national guard bureau statutory advisory role, as it currently exists, that it sufficient, that the national guard could become a separate service, or will be somehow advantage over the of the reserve components, maintaining title x command authority and finally come civilian oversight. in the area of budget authority, the chief of the national guard bureau plans, programs and administers the budgets of the army and the international court. and i directly responsible for nearly $20 billion annually. i am the appropriation sponsor for the army national guard military personnel account omn and the international guard personal account. by law the chief of the national guard bureau is responsible for the entire planning, budgeting, execution and accounting of these appropriations. the chief of the national guard bureau competes for, defense and

validates the requirements for the and submit its budget materials for the services to the department of defense. the chief of the national guard bureau is required to provide an annual financial report to congress the states how the specific national guard appropriations funding was spent. in my regard as the statutory advisor, there is sufficient and significant difference between the chief of the national guard bureau's principal advisory authorities, and the jcs's members military advisory authorities. of the jcs members advise the president, national security council, homeland security council, and the secretary of defense. the jcs members may also submit advice or an opinion in addition to the advice presented by the chairman. additionally, the president, nsc and secretary defense may request advice directly from the jcs members and jcs members may make recommendations to

congress. after first informing the secretary defense. in contrast, the chief of the national guard bureau advises the secretary defense to the jcs on matters on the non-federalized national guard forces. the chief of the national guard bureau must declare an interest in order to have a voice on these limited matters. without statutory jcs membership, the chief of the national guard bureau's role in the jcs is ad hoc as determined by the success of chairman. in regards to separate service or advantage over of the reserve components, the national guard is unique, thanks to article 1, section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the united states constitution and title xlii of the u.s. code. it is unlike the of the reserve components which can perform title tan duties under the title x authority. the national guard performs the same title x dubious one federalist plus nonfederal duties and as the duties under

the state command authority. the command chains or on in the disputed the of the reserve components have no analogy to the national guard's number federalized duties and command authorities. dimond federal national guard's missions include but are not limited to air defense, ballistic missile defense, weapons of mass destruction response, disaster response to counter drug support, border security, airport security and national special security evens. on regards to the unclear title x command for the, this issue discussed today in my opinion and would not alter title x command of vallese or accountability over federalized national guard forces. there would be no change to the title ten authorities of the service secretaries or the service chiefs. conversely, they would take on five title foot the charlatan chain of command for title x

national guard forces. when federalized national guard forces are and will remain under the command of the federal commanders. a total force integration would not be compromised. if anything, it would be enhanced by greater situation awareness of title 32 national guard missions, capabilities and leadership on which the chief of the national guard bureau is uniquely qualified to advise. total force integration also benefit from enhanced understanding of the homeland defense and social support missions that are performed by a bomb federalized national guard forces. in regards to the civilian oversight, since 2008 under the provisions of the dod directive, the chief of the national guard bureau is under the authority, the direction and control of the secretary of defense. the secretary normally exercises authority, direction and control to the secretary of the army and of the air force for matters

pertaining to their responsibilities in the law or the dod policy to read to conclude, much has changed since 2008. the national guard bureau is now a joint activity at the department of defense. and if the chief of the national guard bureau has enhanced authority short of jcs membership. and for those, we are very appreciative. yet, the chief of the national guard bureau still does not have an institutional position from which i can advise the president, the nsc, the homeland security council and congress on dimond federalized national guard forces that are critical to homeland defense and civil support missions. adding the chief of the national guard bureau to the jcs in my opinion would ensure that, in the post 9/11 security environment, the national guard's not federalist role in homeland defense and civil support missions will be fully represented in all jcs deliberations. this would not detract in my opinion in any way from its

other critical jcs functions. without statutory membership on the jcs, the chief of the national guard bureau ability to participate in the deliberations is determined solely by the discretion of the chairman. i believe its role should be established in law. this is also shared by former assistant secretary of defense for homeland security, paul mchale has consented to let me inform you that he, like me, did not have this opinion several years ago, but now agrees that the chief of the national guard bureau should be made a full member of the jcs. in my role as the channel of communication for the states, the territories of guam virgin islands and puerto rico, and the district of columbia, i would be remiss without speaking on behalf of the 54 adjective generals. in the letter i would like to submit for the record, mr. chairman, the general have provided their unqualified support, replacing the chief of the national guard bureau on the jcs. i appreciate very much, again,

sitting with of these distinguished gentlemen on this bias. we have the opportunity to discuss this issue with you today, and i look for which your questions. >> thank you very much, general mckinley. the letter will be made part of the record as a was a statement of senator rockefeller who also asked that his demand be part of the record. let's have a six minute round so that we can perhaps all we get a round in. there's a lot of this year and then if we need a second round, we can take that. mr. johnson, let me ask you first about a statement in your prepared statement where you say the proposed legislation would alter some of the goldwater nichols careful balance by altering the fact that each service is still charlie represented by one service chief in the joint chiefs and

providing only two of the department of defense's six statutory reserve components with additional joint chiefs for presentation. i also said that elevating of the chief of the national guard bureau to represent the national guard equities to the joint chiefs of staff, in your words, could create legal confusion as to whether the army and the air force chief of staff continue to represent the total force. now, can you tell us what potential legal confusion could result that you are referring to? >> ten usc-10502 spells out the role of the national guard bureau and the chief of the national guard bureau.

the chief of the national guard bureau in its advisory capacity is principally to functions. one is to advise the secretary of defense through the chairman on matters involving long federalized guard. the second component of that is to be the adviser to the surface leadership of the army and air force on matters concerning the federal guard. so the way this statute breaks about, ten usc-10502 when we are talking about the guard and federal status, the law contemplates that the chief of the national guard bureau to will represent those interests to the service leadership and to the chiefs of staff of the army and air force. when we are talking about the state guard and thus the guard will -- the chief of the

national guard bureau in devices the secretary of defense, and this legislation that you have before you will not change any of that. and so, if the chief of the national guard bureau is now also a member of the joint chiefs, he is, on the one hand, an adviser to general schwartz, and general odierno on matters concerning the federal guard. but he also now has an independent seat on the joint chiefs as an adviser to the president and the secretary and the national security council on the very same matters, so it creates an issue of the dual representation. second, as i think the chairman he alluded to, when the chief of the national guard bureau is advising with respect to the non-federalized national guard

he's representing the interests of the state national guard who are commanded by the governor of each of those states, so it creates a dynamic which i not saying is necessarily wrong or right, but it creates a dynamic where the interests of the state guard, the governor's, has a seat at the joint chiefs of advising the president and the national security and the secretary defense. >> let me just perhaps as a related question to you, general mckinley, under title ten, the chief of the national guard bureau is the principal at pfizer among others, to the chief of staff of the army, the chief of staff of the air force. on the matters related to the national guard, the army national guard and the states of the national guard united states. my question is this: is there not an inconsistency with an

adviser participating as an equal with the principals whom he is advising him? as you would be as a member of the jcs, along with of the chief of staff and the army in the chief of staff. >> thank you mr. chairman. the rest best way to answer that is to get the empowerment act of 2008, which established the dod directive that secretary gates signed in 2008 directing the conduct of my job. if i could read from the organization management peace which you referred to it says the chief of the national guard bureau is under the authority to the direction and control of the secretary defense. the secretory normally exercises his authority and direction to the control of the army and air force. for matters pertaining to their responsibility and the law. and the second section i would like to refer to is that as a principal with advisor to the secretary defense, to the chairman of detroit chiefs of staff, it allows the and directs

me to advise on matters involving on federalized national guard forces, so i think the answer to your question in my opinion, my personal opinion, it doesn't raise consistencies wearing that hat, and that this dod directive following the act of 2008 gave me the authority to do just what i addressed in my opening statement. >> general dempsey, you made reference to the fact the services have never been closer to the reserve components and separating them by titles, risks unnecessary -- creating unnecessary creation in the ranks. can you tell us why it is what you meant when you said that separating the reserve component from the services create unnecessary friction in the

ranks. >> thank you, senator. the issue for me is let's call it one of branding. does a soldier see himself as a soldier? does a guardsman see himself as a soldier first or guardsman first? and it seems to me that where we are today as a force, where we are is because we have all seen ourselves as branded by a simple service chief and his support of leaders and soldiers, sailors and airmen, marines and coast guardsman has mentioned. and i am just not sure that establishing the caution notwithstanding i think the way this would present a threat of force, for develop the leadership a you see before you book the way this could visit the the force is the weekend of separated ourselves and our brand is no longer as clear and

defined as we would like it and need it to be. >> thank you. senator inhofe? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recall, general mckinley, back when we were working on the zero naim nda issue at that time was a three-star verses of four-star and i was trying to remember talking to my staff about what the arguments were. i do recall the perception of the argument that those in the field and i've heard that firsthand but also recall a got the impression that if we made that change and that was an 09 ndaa that would resolve a lot of the problems. i didn't hear that we would want to come along with another change in the relationship. do you remember that or would you like to comment that has to what bate can with a three or

four star? >> thank you, senator, and i obviously took this position and november of 2008. i was a beneficiary of the legislation of the past before i became the chief of the national guard bureau. much has improved and much has been given to me in terms of my access to the chairman, and to participate in the major meetings affecting the services, the national guard, the army and the air guard. i do remember the discussion of the grade, and i do work very closely with the of the reserve component chiefs in the navy reserve. steve in the marine corps reserves. it's important in the air force reserve it's important not to get in balance. i would just suggest the 460

members of the international guard the resigned in the states and the territories look to me as the representatives and their channel of communications to the department of defense, but the willingness of the man sitting before you to allow me to communicate and to conduct this with them and interact with them had significantly improved since i became the head of the chief in 2008. >> general odierno, going back to your place fort sill where if you started in the mid-1970s and had several tours i will be participating in the veterans celebration tomorrow morning. i know the they will be discussing this at that time. the question that i would have a few, because after asking you i would ask the general schwartz of the same thing. have you seen in terms of the army you had the guard coming side by side with any difference

in the equipment or capability or resources between the guard and the active duty army. >> senator, i would tell you we made great strides the last seven to ten years in improving the capability more importantly than equipping of the national guard and in our assessment by october of 2012, the national guard would have achieved about 92% of the total will equipping necessary and in the active proponent of the 92.5%, and so i think that says a strong message about how we've been able to equip, and i think i would just comment that understanding little army is incredibly important as you walk away through this. we have to have these different components. we have to have an active component is ready to respond immediately to the surgeon level. we need our national guard prepared and capable of responding and they have to be able to work together tall

times. and we've been able to work that over the last several years. i feel we've gotten the right solution as our army has been taxed with many deployment, and i worry that we will lose the one single voice that has driven us here if we move forward. >> i just want to ask a question on the equipment, the quality and resources used, are they the same? >> they are. >> general schwartz, i would ask the same thing because i remember, i guess it is because in the aviation i can remember back some time ago when they were going to the block to and the f-16 and the had the two engines were the 220 and the 229i believe having the greater threats. when the deployments were necessary, as i recall, it was my, the state of oklahoma and the state of ohio, where they were not able to get for their deployment the 229 engine which provided a greater threat. as a result of that, going from

memory now, i believe they deployed together as a unit and took only the 229 from ohio and from oklahoma which was a disparity in how they are treated in terms of equipment. i would say no. one, is my memory correct and number two, has that been corrected? >> senator inhofe, generally speaking, a clipping of the active duty, the guard and the reserve is common. there are some anomalies with regard to the aircraft configuration based on their maturity and so on and so forth. we have not corrected or normalized every single configuration and every one of the aircraft, but i think the point is the air guard and the united states air force has always been an operational reserve. it has always shared the same readiness with the active duty

and air force reserve counterparts that is still the case and certainly is the conviction going forward. >> but there was a disparity at that time in that particular aircraft. >> there was a difference in engines, there is a difference in the configuration of airplanes as they are produced. certainly it is the intent of the air force to equip the national guard so that they remain in operation. >> we are in better shape than we were back then. >> absolutely. >> do you agree with that, general mckinley? >> we've worked as the director of the air guard trying to achieve the proper balance and equipping of the national guard. i can attest over my 38 years in the air force and the air guard today has the oldest legacy fleet in its history, and i am concerned as i'm sure the chief staff of the air force is over a future modernization plan so

that we can have the balance force that has made the air force and the international guard so close throughout its history. i am concerned about the future capitalization of the air national guard. >> my time is up, but i would like for the record in writing for a leader time if he would respond to the three of the witnesses talked about the confusion, the word confusion. i would like to have you respond for the record on that particular issue. >> thank you, senator. >> senator lieberman. >> thanks to all of you for being here. i guess i would say that on this interesting and important question i am a member of the open-minded caucus as i am undecided. so this discussion has been helpful. i want to get on the record just some basics and maybe i will start with you, general mckinley. what is the personnel in the army and the air national guard?

>> we have approximately 260,000 combined between the army and the air. >> i don't know how about in the of the reserve components, what is the number? >> the only 1i have committed to the memory is the army reserve and it's about 250. >> for the air force, 71,000 on the air force we serve 106,000 on the air national guard. >> about the navy reserve? >> 65,000. >> general? >> 39,000 reserves. >> that's a definitive answer right there. >> thank you. okay. so there is the author clearly there is a larger number in the army guard, but there is not inconsequential numbers the of the reserve components as well.

obviously some of us think about the coast guard reserve which is another part of the reserve component. let me ask this question, and i think i am probably focused on it here because the other half of the thierer on the homeland security getting in this discussion with you, general mckinley, i take that we would start with the understanding that the of third reserve components don't have not federal responsibilities correct? >> yes, sir. >> this is an interesting issue as i assure you all know because from our home states we are getting tremendous support for putting what the national guard bureau commander in chief on the joint chiefs of staff and there is a lot of support here in congress but there is a lot of

opposition in the military. one of the unique functions here and i want to ask you to talk more about it than you did in your opening statement is what i would call homeland defense missions that are a part of the brard responsibility and disaster response, border security etc, and some of the discussions i've had with the folks at home about this, i think involved a concern that the homeland defense missions, which are obviously critical to the national security are not receiving sufficient attention from the joint chiefs now and that if what you're on the trade chief, they would receive more attention. so i want you to respond to that or go on that function and then ask general dempsey if you would speak on the perspective of the jcs. general mckinley?

>> i am not critical of the other service components come army or air force in representing homeland security. i just think it's the unique capability with its relationship to the 54 generals who work for the governor's that intricate and delicate relationship that allow me to provide the best and that i should be a focal point. our in our government relationship with fema come i.c.e., those kind of relationships at the community level are significant, and i wouldn't expect but wouldn't be surprised if the chief of the service is no all lot about it. i just think we are uniquely qualified with our role in title xxxii and stayed active duty to operate in the statices and the several states the we represent. >> so, would you say that that's one of the major reasons why you

support putting the chief of the national guard and the bureau chief? >> as i sit in my opening statement, that is where i am zeroing in is to institutionalize the role of the national guard bureau chief in becoming that spokesperson through the joint chiefs of staff through the chairman to the secretary of defense to give my best military advice when asked so that we do not miss a beat in this very new age of asymmetric -- i got it right this time -- asymmetric challenges that face the nation. >> general dempsey? >> the joint chiefs are statutory leave responsible for the federalist portion of our defense. and the chiefs -- the jcs would normally get its advice on the homeland security matters through northern command. some you may want to ask -- >> no, no, that's a good point. >> the point there is northcom would then be an impact statement, if you will, that craig is talking about, right now would come through as the

service chiefs, the joint chiefs would compare the impact on the services with a demand the would be articulated by northcom, and we would figure out what to do. this ads another voice into the mix that frankly i don't believe we need. >> admiral, i would invite you into both on the correct point and also just to oppose a second kind of question for you. it's true that as general dempsey said of the joint chiefs of staff obviously have focused responsibility for i would say the overseas responsibility to protect the national security. on the other hand, the very reconstitution of northern command involved post 9/11 and the assumption of some responsibility for homeland defense and the pentagon that was different than before. would you agree and how does that reflect on this matter that we are discussing this morning?

>> senator, i think 9/11 certainly was a wake-up call that was the genesis of northern command and of course norad existed all along. and he does represent them as to the other from the various regions of the world represent his theater in terms of what the title ten needs are, whether it is intelligence or action on the ground or readiness or what have you. and he does a good job of that. in the current commander. i can't speak for the last commander. >> we can. >> in the partnership with the dickerman of homeland security there is an essential partnership there that does have the ability to respond in the disaster were security issue as you know from your position as the chairman of that committee. we also have a number of robust relationships i would point out. the wisdom of the congress and encouraging the department to work with the governors and the council of governors. we give very good advice and guidance frankly from the council of the governors.

and i also would tell you get great advice on matters that have to do with title xxxii stayed active duty and the like and how the guard, like of the reserve components and other components of the military can contribute to the homeland security issue. i think we have a pretty good situation where we are getting the advice we need, we have a good commander on the field who works closely with civilian counterparts at dhs. as i point out i'm not sure what's broken that we need to fix. we have a good system going now. >> thank you. mai tais up minister german. >> thank you, senator lieberman. senator brown? >> we will be able to submit questions for the record because six minutes isn't -- >> we also can have a second round if you need it, but as you suggest, questions will be submitted. >> thank you peery i'm looking in a letter from general amos and chief greenert. the paragraph three of the letter says that cn gb does not

represent a branch of service nor is it responsible for organizing, manning, training and equipping the national guard to the extent of the service chiefs and a half to respectfully disagree pursuant to the obviously the dod directive has the responsibility of the guardsmen in fact does. they are responsible for the entire cradle to ackley grave pg and execution of the budget to provide the president's budget submission for each of the appm goes to congress and validates the requirements and provides the annual financial reports to congress. in fact the service chiefs don't have that responsibility. is there in a statement in your letter there? >> well, senator, the point that i was making in the letter -- we, the service chiefs, testify to and are held accountable to the congress for the execution of those budgets as well. we have budgets submitting offices -- pardon me -- in the

navy that do similarly that you just listed there. >> specifically they have not been responsible at all, and in fact that's not correct. that being said, i would like to shift gears a little bit. mr. johnson, you indicated that you felt maybe it could create confusion as to who represents the army and air force, and i referenced letters in the general odierno's confusion and in balance obviously general schwartz confusing the lines of authority and you, sir, general greenert, the complicated unit of command. is there any question as to what the chain of command is with the joint chiefs? obviously general mckinley would go to general odierno, and obviously general schwartz to general dempsey. there is no chain of command preach at all. i think it is very clear, and in addition to that, i don't think

that there is any question that the command authority of the title ten command authority wants to change. i don't believe the guard or the general mckinley in his capacity is seeking a seat or wants to change that at all. he wants, and i believe -- i don't want to speak for him but i guess i will just ask -- you don't want to change the title ten command authority at all, do you? was the ..

is there anyone else better qualified than you and your capacity to do that? >> these are all talented gentleman in front of you, sir. i think it is my role and responsibility to be that person. >> i would agree with you. just to follow-up on what senator cannot said, general shores, on the fighter aircraft issue, is that a fair statement that do to the effort to save money with the air force, the guard units are going to be eviscerated when it comes to aircraft. especially i have heard and others have commented that the tags can't gain access to the plan as to what wings will be dated and how many aircraft are going to be lost.

isn't that another reason to have someone like general mckinley at the table that can advise those tags and others estimate the plan is for the air force? >> senator brown, that is not a role of richard cheese. but beyond that, the reality of is that if the air national guard is going to be eviscerated , so will the active-duty and reserve. we are getting smaller together. that is what is under way here. and i would emphasize the point that we are now the smallest air force we've ever been. and because of that, dose reduction is that occur because of the diminishing resources, which we all face, will be shared by all but the pundits. >> that's another reason why we need to get back to the table and get the select committee to work to sequestration doesn't have a bit dramatically affect

atmore appeared you know what this reminds me of interim history and obviously been in the military understanding the relationship between the marines and the navy. i mean, that may be basically -- it is very come november 8th have general amos here, who have tremendous respect for a separate table and yet there's always budgeting for the navy and everything basically flows through the navy to have been somebody's back. >> i'm an equal service cheap along with cheap naval operations, secretary of the navy controls the budget. >> how is that different than general mckinley won in the same type of opportunity you have been working through the card. how would that be a different? >> i can't speak to the budgeting of the guard asked back, but we have bid a service for 236 years. when the very court that his seat in 1978, we've been

fighting our nation's bottles as a service for over 200 years. that is different. the guard is not the service. >> well, my tennis. i have questions that i have to get to another meeting. i look forward to senator graham as well. thank you, mr. chairman. general mckinley, your reputation for professionalism and skill and dedication procedure comes to thank you for your service. and having two weeks ago visited the 43rd ella terry preece brigade in the 143rd air lift wing in afghanistan from the service of the national guard army and air is not only commendable to the nation's security. as i look 210502, is that correct? >> the process by which they respected chiefs gives the

nomination. that's correct. >> so looking i'm effectively, some governor is going to have to be either the nominee -- nominator of a member of the joint chiefs of staff. is that correct? >> the initial submission of the name goes to departments of the army and air force for venting and may submit to the secretary of defense said that they can recommend to the president. that is my understanding of the process, sir. >> as the lower coast, the governor will essentially recommend the national guard bureau chief, who will if this statute passed, some to be announced governor will be selecting a member of the joint chiefs of staff and effects. >> it is correct, sir, that we hold dual status in the national guard and we must be confirmed

as a federal officer and member of the state. ura. >> would you be at first eliminating the gubernatorial recommend nation this statute would create a position on the joint chiefs of staff, which i don't see a gubernatorial, particularly since it is kind of a random process to which governor would be doing it. but you object to those changes? >> senator, i thank the chairman can establish the process to pick my successor. i will finish my term in 2012 so we are on the verge of doing that. i have no objections to doing that. >> said he would not care to eliminate the a gubernatorial recommendation for the chief of the national guard bureau? >> i personally would not come and no, sir. >> to what extent do you have authority over the actual budgets of the nonfederal units in the actual policies that do not do to units you apply for the joint chiefs on?

>> as they work within the service lines with our stats here in washington to the army national guard readiness center, which work with the army and the air force as we prepare the budget, went those budgets are approved, we are giving fans an push this out this state. >> c. talk about federal funds which we appropriate. i am talking about the nonfederal activities of the guard. can you direct a tag or governor to increase their spending or to change the configuration of their forces? >> no commissary. that is their responsibility. >> so you advise the joint chiefs of staff on non-functions which you have no authority to affect on the ground? >> the constitutionality of my role would be they decide which percentage of the budget are given to the state. it is the on the funds come in eight plus% into the guard.

>> there are federal funds by dissipation of the units being federalized and i don't think he does speak to us within of command of the service chiefs and ultimately general dempsey and the secretary of defense. >> certainly as you stated, the state commissions are under command and control of the governor. >> as i understand this whole procedure is to give you access to talk about state mission, which you don't have control of because you cannot force them to urge the budget. you cannot force them to take the people -- you have no say who is running the show. in fact, when state in which the tag is the lack that by popular vote. one state elected by the assembly. just to raise a serious question about what you are going to do on the joint chiefs that you cannot do effectively or perhaps more effectively now.

let me conclude simply by saying once again, you have done a superb job and your colleagues on the guard and reserves. i was out with general nick ride in rhode island and i was asking what units he was commanding the 43rd ella terry police brigade. when he mentioned my old battalion, i knew this was one on me. and one air force. we want to get this right and i think they're serious questions here. thank you very much. >> senator ayotte. >> trained to i just want to follow-up, general amos on what senator brown had asked you about. isn't it true in 1978 the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff proposed having the commandant of the variance be a member of the joint chiefs of staff? >> senator, i don't know whether he did or not.

i just know it became law in 1978. >> if i would represent to you, certainly admiral greenert, that admiral holloway and adderall hayward at the time opposed having the commandant of the berries before the chairman and joint chiefs of staff. i assume you disagree with that position now. >> i certainly would, senator. >> a semi-or not is incredibly valuable in the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and that it has not resulted in any confusion on the role of the neatly with respect to the marine corps and advising the chairman quite tonight no, ma'am, it is not. >> g of any reason to believe they general mckinley or his successors would not be able to draw any distinctions clearly as to what the appropriate role he would have if a member of the chairman of the joint chiefs of

staff? >> general mckinley may not. most of my concern as stated is really what is in the forest. how do foresee a clarity of again the unity of command. who is ultimately accountable for the budgeting, source of the budget to the congress, to the secretary of defense. he's really what chairman dempsey stated before. now we can work out because we were kind of the taint. it's very clear how we work together. what is the perception out there and perhaps confusion. >> i certainly have great confidence in all of you in the tremendous service you have, that whatever decision the congress makes, it will be very clear to our servicemen and women as to the chain of command and i know all of you will work very well together as you do now on behalf of our country and we deeply appreciate it. general dempsey, i wanted to

follow up on something admiral winnefeld had stated. do you support the potential of making the next commander of north, guard off to serve? >> i do. i also would add that i would rather not that be legislated because it is my job to find the best athlete available and it's my job to grow the athletes who are competitive to do those jobs. >> it would be appropriate to have an officer as a candidate for that position? >> yes. >> general dempsey, do you think you would be right not to bring forward the national defense authorization act for the first time in 50 years in the history of our country this year? >> no, senator, i think we should have been national defense authorization act as authorization act as soon as possible. >> is that very important to our military and what you need to accomplish? >> it is, senator. >> thank you, sir.

>> general schwartz, on a different topic and i just feel the need to ask about those. i am deeply troubled by the reports about what is happening at the mortuary at dover air force base and i'm sure you would agree with that this is outrageous. the remains of our soldiers would be put in a landfill and not treated with the appropriate dignity and honor which they deserve. can you tell me where we are with us and now we are going to sure that this never happens again? the most import like, those who have participated in this outreach are going to be held accountable? >> senator i got -- ayotte, let me clarify if the allegations of putting remains in a landfill. these were portions. prior to two dozen eight, which were sent away from the dover

mortuary to a funeral home for cremation, which is an authorized method of dealing with remains. particularly those that are separated from the larger portion of remains returned to the family. after that, the results of the cremation came back to the mortuary, were sent to a medical support come to me for consideration. so you had cremation, then the incineration and it was at that point that this medical support organization placed the residuals from non-effort to the landfill. in 2008, the air force came to the conclusion that that was not

the best way to deal with those remains and so it is now done in the traditional fashion of aerial lcd. it has been not way since 2008. it will continue to feed out when the future. and not just conclude by saying the secretary of the air force, mike donnelly and i.t. personal responsibility for this. our obligation is to treat our fallen with reference intake i.d. and respect and to provide the best possible support and care for their families. that is our mission. the people who do not the seller expectations were disciplined and there is no doubt what our

affectations are today. >> well, general schwartz, i appreciate your update on that. when i think about the fact that we have had states while, it is just so important that we obviously treat the remains of our fallen with dignity and respect and i know you share that it has filed. and please note that members of this committee will be chaired to support you in any way to make sure that their families know that we certainly won't allow this to happen again. thank you. >> thank you, senator ayotte. senator akaka. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to add my welcome to a very distinguished panel of witnesses that we have here today on the eve of veterans day. i thank you and the men and

women you meet in serving our country and defending our freedoms. i've read that most of you are opposed to needing to the jcs. i want you to know that while i disagree on this issue, i have complete respect for you and opinions that all of you hold. let me take a moment to say that understandably change is not always a welcome concept to peer evolution of joint chiefs of staff has been significant opposition to structural changes. however, there is precedent and changing composition of jcs to account for readiness, policy and budgetary issues. for example, in 1853, president truman signed the law as the

commandant at the very core to discuss issues related to the marine. it was controversial but at that time several years later the commandant with elevated to full voting member status. today, i think we would all agree that making a commandant a voting member was the correct decision. while the national guard is not a separate service, it does have a complex set of needs based on dual missions it must be prepared to execute. guard members are every state in for the last decade has been heavily involved in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. no one better understands

requirements than the chief of the national guard bureau. future force structure adjustments will have a direct impact on a task and missions the card will be asked to perform. i'm sure they will be asked to to do more. i mention the chief of the national guard bureau full-fledged member will operate structure to reflect the operational reality overseas as well as in homeland defense and security missions. it would also enhance effect mess of the total force. no one knows exactly what the conflict will impale, but we can be confident that we will again call upon the 460,000 men and women of the national guard to do their part. i believe elevating the chief of

national guard to the joint chiefs of staff is something overdue double shower guardsmen and their families that they are a trooper her. it would also let them know that their voices and views be represented as the highest levels of government. general dempsey, you have stated that the chief of the national guard will be invited to attend gcs meanings as long as you are chairman. they think it great for the overall effectiveness of the group. however, i am concerned that if a future chairman is not as inclusive as you, the mgp chief would be left out in a pentagon were all the relevant discussions take place in the

tank. do you think, general.c. the mgp chief's advice to the secretary of defense would be different if you were a full-fledged member purses and invited nonmember? if so, how different is that? >> first, senator, inc. swearingen during today's the day before veterans day and i was hopeful to get a chance to mention that at the end, the thanks very much. i don't know whether he survives the the change. i also want to make clear that i am not the first chairman to include the chief national guard hero. their predecessor suit he did that as well. it seems to me to be a reasonable assumption that we would continue to do that to matter to the chairman is. i don't know what additional influences might be brought to bear. i just can't answer the question

hypothetically. >> thank you, general. general mckinley, the guard has cared a tremendous load for this country to include their efforts in iraq and afghanistan. in the future, i insert the national guard will again be called to serve abroad while continuing its required domestic missions. can you say some thing about how things would improve for both the guard and the total force should chief of mgp be given a seat at the table? >> i can assure you, senator akaka and congratulations to you for being the recipient of the harry s. truman awards lately. we've make you forget process over the last eight years in terms of the transparent the integration. i will not dispute the fact that

this chairman and the former chairman have opened their doors willingly. i am concerned that continue and i believe it needs to be institutionalized to ensure the service continues. i also believe lakewood is going on in your home state right now in hawaii, the apex summit is going on. you're national guard is heavily used in security and in ministry duties and i need to be able to circus that issue unfettered to the top and i think this seat will give me the advantages my fellow service chiefs who sit before you have two go in an unfettered fashion and give those types of homeland security issues to the chairman and if requested by the secretary of defense. those are very important things.

we have about seven more in the upcoming eight months that i feel the chief of the national guard bureau should be fully integrated with so that we can dedicate the forces as you have 5000 members of the national guard in hawaii to the task. i think elevating and institutionalizing the position will give me a better opportunity for me to fulfill my responsibilities. >> thank you very much, general mckinley. >> thank you, senator akaka. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this has been very informative and i appreciate all the comments you've made in the advice you're getting. this is ultimately up to the congress for them to decide what to do. general and mouse, pound for pound you believe that marine corps is the best fighting force in the world? >> yes, sir. we celebrate that today. >> okay good. i agree with you.

the only thing the older thing it is older is the citizen soldier. >> i believe that's true. >> i'm here to tell everybody i appreciate it, but you're going to get a seat at the table if i have anything to say about it. the first shot was fired by the citizen soldier. it's time for the citizen soldier to sit at the table, not just for political reasons come but substantive reason. so let's talk about substance. general dempsey, do you agree one of the great threats america faces is not attack from a foreign enemy, but is natural disasters? >> yes, senator. when it comes to frontline service against national disasters, do you agree the national guard is the front-line force? >> generally law enforcement the national guard. >> when it comes to uniformed personnel? >> yes, i do.

>> general mckinley, hurricane aiming, was that the name of the last? >> that is their latest, yes, sir. >> tell me who talk to you about hurricane irene. >> i was contacted by paul stock to a met with the accent in my discussion. >> did anyone at the chairman of the joint chiefs call you and ask what's going on? >> no. nobody made that call. >> okay. did anyone from the white house call you? >> no, sir. >> so if you believe the nation is threatened by natural disasters and the frontline uniformed forces the national guard, i would like a heavy city mayor, not an invitation by the way. general dempsey, your assignment, but if you got mad, could you tone to get out of the room? >> yes, i could. >> at the end of the community to be in the room with some weight behind you. not just a limitation.

let's talk about the structure of the state federal responsibility. who talks were to the adjutant general city state? you were general mckinley? general dempsey, who is in or contact? >> i don't have any contact. >> okay, if you believe the ad took generals lead responsibilities of the national guard come you don't have any contact, how much contact you, general mckinley? >> daily. >> if you can't tell them how to spend the money come you can tell the joint chairman what's going on. targeting could be important institutionally beyond the life of the u.n. general dempsey to have somebody in that room advising chairman of the joints chiefs exactly what's going on in the states? >> in a post-9/11 world, it is essential. >> i couldn't agree with you more appear with spoke about the history of the joint chiefs and it comes to supporting

legislation that we now all agree is important. do you agree that the marine corps being a voting member of the chairman of the joint chiefs hasn't given an 82 votes. you agree with that, general amos? >> it has not given the navy. >> senator webb was your biggest advocate. those who will fight to make 78 day you put the coming months and all will break loose. when that didn't work. and i don't think the national guard unit of them will change the world as we know it. only for the better. now mr. johnson, headlines are needed every hearing. is the headline for this hearing obama administration opposes putting the match will work cheer on the point country joint chiefs? >> senator, you've heard the best military advice. >> go to the vice president eyton said in 2008 when he spoke

to the national guard conference in baltimore. it's time for change. change begins with giving the courtesy to the table. the table of the pentagon or the joint chiefs said kerry president obama's campaign document, blueprint for change, page 55 if you want to read it. i read it. discarded you like. obama will restore readiness of the national guard reserve. he will permit them adequate time to change it must provide national guard with equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies and will also give the guard a seat the table by making the chief of the national guard and member of the joint chiefs of staff. has he changed his mind? >> that's my knowledge. >> don't you think when he said that he long and hard and came to the clip is a good is to be a good idea? and you're not? and you're not here to tell a few strong, are you? >> the president and vice president are above my pay

grade. >> i think they're wrong a lot, but they are right on this. >> let's talk about goldwater-nichols. how many of you believe that were? who believes that doesn't wear? speak out. nobody. may give you a little history. there's an article i read called the campaign for goldwater-nichols by john jarrell. i will read a pretext. the bill was being prepared and had been written in final draft and senators nunn and goldwater goes to have a meeting with the joint chiefs. an admiral corral was the chairman -- the new chairman. he supported it, but during that meeting, everyone else opposed and said in no uncertain language, the hot tempered old letter took their criticism as an attack on their efforts to make improvements in word, if you think you can bullies fan in me, you're mistaken if the next day he got a letter to the

pentagon talking about how bad of an idea this would be and senator goldwater said, i will not be deflected or sidetracked in the center, even if i get a letter a day from akron at the pentagon. the only reason i mention that is that the institution in recent goldwater-nichols. the institution resisted having the commandant of the marine corps and i think we should consider the time has calm, given post-9/11 duties of the national guard, to have a seat at the table. it doesn't change command authority, doesn't turn the world upside down. but if any group ever deserved recognition now, if members of the national guard and their voices to be heard, not by invitation, but by a saying you have a seat. >> thank you senator graham. senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

you can all relax. i'm not going to try to top senator graham. but as former governor and i know there are two other former governor seated here, we have had that special unique relationship with the guard and now we have a relationship with the entire military, the total force. i suppose having called out the guard on occasions, that it gives me a special feeling of relationship with the guard, going back to my adjunct general common failing of mine who is not ending military officer and an outstanding tag. in addition since i've been in the united states senate, have had a relationship with former tag, jean but key and a kurd adjunct general, general lyons. the relationship is clearly a unique one from the standpoint that has been described by everyone so far from having the

federal and state component to the relationship. it is not like any other branch of the service or any branch of the service in particular. it is unique to the guard. it would be unique if it applied to one of the other branches. not just the air guard or the army guard, but if there was another card, it would be the same situation. so you know, general mckinley, he said in your letter, it is uniquely positioned to provide situational awareness of state military forces operating in unity of effort in the homeland. in researching decisions fully consider the domestic mission. now i think you're right about that and as for the acquiescing

at times the guard has not been adequately resourced. i am not going to suggest that will go on indefinitely in the future because we are seeing the change to an operational reserve will have to be adequately resourced. but i can tell you as a governor, i would feel much better that the resourcing would occur if i need ahead of the guard was seated at the table. it doesn't take anything away if any of you, distinguished as the liar and committed to the total force them to the total security of our country, both at the homeland and internationally as well. so i understand the change is difficult. it is not easy to come by. and whether or not funding occurred 20 years ago or not, probably doesn't necessarily mean that we cannot look at it today in light of the changes

that the guard has gone through as we have seen it throughout these last 10 to 12 years. a general schwartz, i do have a question because i know part of the requirement for adding chief of the national guard bureau is at least a recognition that advice be more critical than ever heading into a period of a just dirty. i know is you are looking toward your future requirements for the air force, how are you going to work with general mckim he to have a total force approach in terms of resources and readiness? >> senator nelson, i think it is important to say at the outset that the joint chiefs is not a research for a period it is a strategic foreign playmate of the armed forces and for

providing the best military base in that context. there are other resource in the department, with a sheep of the national guard bureau clearly has a seat at the table. but with guard to the air force specifically, craig mckinley's deputy, lieutenant general from the great state of oklahoma is our principal staff officer, regarding national guard batters. and he and his people have complete access to all of our internal dvds with regard to the headquarters, whether it's resourcing, making decisions on equipment and so on and so forth. additionally, we have offered in the adjunct general will take us up on this to have a presence of what we call our air force

counsel, which is the seniormost resourcing activity within her borders. and the bottom line is that the air national guard has a consistency at the table for internal deliberations. we certainly interact with craig as i think he will verify, on all members, it clean management a senior officers. this is a partnership between us. but i would go back to first principles and that the joint chiefs is not a resourcing. >> i understand. but the recommendations you make are based on the resources you would require and are necessary for carrying out your mission. whether it is establishing resources to making recommendations, you still have to discuss what resources are necessary in your opinion for you to the will to carry out your message or your mission and

general mckinley obviously has a role there. i was not the true, general odierno, with the army guard as well. >> senator, as we develop the army budget every year, it is complete transparency, the guard is a critical role in developing our budget. that happens today and this change does not impact that at all. i will have been taddeo always have been a matter whether it becomes itchy joint chiefs of staff or not. >> well, i commend you all and your ability to sit at a table disagree, but not be disagreeable and i appreciate very much your input. obviously it is a challenge to try to decide how to best take care of our national defense. you do it every day and we appreciate it. thank you for your service, particularly as we have this eve of veterans day go home and speech were veterans at home. thank you all.

>> thank you, senator nelson. senator webb. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. it's been very healthy for this discussion. general dempsey, as any former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff supported this legislation? >> not to my knowledge, no. >> i have no knowledge of that, senator. >> to have knowledge of anyone supporting it? >> i don't have for the contrary either. >> i would like to start by saying i think anyone who is saying that the citizen soldiers are not at the table right now is being unnecessarily divisive and unfair to the stewardship and leadership of the army and air force. citizen soldiers are at the table. the event respected throughout the entire history of this

country only talk about operational changes since 9/11, with great appreciation for that, but at the same time, we need to recognize throughout history the national guard has frequently answered the call. if you look at the number of forces that came from the national guard world war i, world war ii, 100,000 national guardsmen went to korea. this has always been the case and i think particularly since the total force concept was announced tonight the privilege of being the assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs at a time that we really work in these matters out, the national guard has really been able to have an input in a very measurable way. i believe the legislation is unnecessary. i would like to respond to some of the comments made about the very core and my role, which i'm very proud of in terms of articulating the legitimacy of

the marines corps roll in joint chiefs. i wrote an article in 1972. hard to believe that this article has circulated by proponents of this legislation. as a 25 your caption in the marine corps. i'm flattered that someone remembered this article from 39 years ago. but at the same time, the most important aspect of that article was that the marine corps is a separate service. if you take a look on the state the obvious, but it general amos. the army national guard has a history of being trained and equipped as part of the united states army. the air national guard has been trained and equipped as part of the united states air force. it is conceptually an entirely different matter. i don't believe that the joint chiefs of staff have been failing to represent the interests of the army guard in

the army or the air guard in the air force. general dempsey, would you say there's been any indication of that? >> absolutely no indication. not only is there no indication, it just is inaccurate. they are represented by the two service use. >> would you also agree that the guard is as well represented as the air force reserve and the army reserve? >> i do, senator. >> would there be any justification for adding the reserve chiefs as members of the joint chiefs of staff? >> i would recommend against it are the same reason i recommend against adding the guard. >> with regard to non-title x obligations, as an observation from having three years been secretary weinberger's principal advisor of guard and reserve matters. there are a number of other

jurisdictions in which non-title x obligations of the national guard or tittered and some of them, to be quite frank are jealously guarded by the political processes of the governors. they certainly don't think. anyway disregarded. and to make a further point on this, we do have an assistant secretary of defense who is responsible for homeland security matters and is a direct advisor to the secretary of defense. mr. chairman, i have to say i oppose this legislation and i believe it is unnecessary. i don't see value and they do understand complications. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator webb here's claire mccaskill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is obviously have more respect they i can never describe for the guy sitting to my immediate left remarried the reasons including his incredible service to our country as a

member of our armed service and as a marine and i also appreciate incredibly effective cross examination center granted. you can tell he spent time in the courtroom. i do think this is a difficult question and the only thing i want to point out with mr. johnson is a fight that your testimony carefully and it appears to me that you have not said whether or not you support or oppose this legislation, but is rather asked to make sure that it is not legally ambiguous. is that a correct characterization of your testimony? >> yeah. i am not here to state a policy position one way or the other. i was asked to attend to point out the potential ambiguities of this becoming law. and i think as you've noted, i've laid that out in my prepared marks.

>> i just wanted to put that on the record because i was a little surprised you're going to campaign materials as part of this hearing. seems like we have enough politics around this building and that doesn't seem likely to bring it into this hearing also. i want to specifically, for a minute, general schwartz, going to the situation at dover. i don't want to join how hard this has to be for you and the leadership of the air force. no one needs to convince me that you want to get this right at dover. i will tell you what i do want to bring to your attention i've done so today and that is defining at the office of special counsel. people understand what it is. it is an investigatory and prosecution oriented agents the his primary responsibility under our law is to be independent of all the agencies and protect whistleblowers. what i am concerned about their investigation into what the air force did in response to

whistleblowers and specifically the fact that the ig of the air force failed to admit wrongdoing in their report. and while i understand people have been moved around as a result of problems that have occurred because of the mishandling of the sacred remains of the fallen, i am not sure they been held as accountable for example is what we saw in arlington with that heartbreaking incompetence. i want to make sure there is an independent investigation as to whether or not the ig shaded it a little bit because everyone is feeling protective of the institution for the right reasons. the vast majority for people who serve at dover and do this work do with a heavy heart, but with a passion for getting it right.

but when we have a circumstance like this arise, i want to make sure the inspector general's are not so busy looking after the institution that they fail to point out wrongdoing, which was not ever acknowledged and that there is accountability for people involved. so i want you to address the special counsel's report as it relates to the air force investigation. >> senator mccaskill, there clearly were unacceptable mistakes made. whether they constitute wrongdoing is another matter tiredly. and when you look at a situation like this, you look at the facts of the case as an attorney might say. you look at the context in which the event or mistakes occurred

and you also consider the demands that are placed on individuals and organizations. with respect to accountability, we also had an obligation to ensure that the statutory requirements for due process were followed. we did that precisely. i can only speak for the case of the uniformed op there, but the uniformed officer received a letter of reprimand with unfavorable recommendation file. we removed him from the command list and his anticipated job as a group commander at shaw air force base was redlined. this is not a trivial sanction.

>> will i understand that is not a trivial sanction, but i am worried that there was a conclusion that there is not an obligation to notify the families in these instances and obviously this deals with more of the uniformed personnel and on this day the secretary is copied on the letter i sent calling for this investigation. what happened in arlington is nobody was miss american grades. there are mistakes, too. i want to make sure that we have really clear eyes while we have full hearts about the right aggressive need for investigation by inspect your generals in circumstances like this. thank you very much and i thank you offered being here today. >> thank you, senator cassel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. me first about thank each and everyone of you. it's impressive to have the

leaders and i appreciate it. the respect you all have for each other is evident and i appreciate that also. i must say that my experience as a governor, which is the greatest honor that i could never have pursued upon me as a citizen of the great state of west virginia is to be governor and also having a close relationship with my card. that close relationship his title as governor with his commander-in-chief, which is a little bit much if you will. but i can assure you that watching the performance of my card and the guardsmen of metal over this country sent parallel to anything i've been witness to. had the chance also to travel with other governors. you all would be so kind as to take us a visit and afghanistan, iraq would go when they thank you to our troops for the services they gave in to a t. i

will this. every one of the commanders of every base we attended and visited make a point to come up and say i want to tell you that the expertise, professionalism, commitment to check guardsmen have been what assets they are to our command. so with that, i would say that i didn't see the difference. i really didn't. i never really thought about why it hadn't looked upon equally at the pentagon with the joint chiefs. i thought about this quite a bit since then. and i know change is tired. being positions on a note comes very, very high. the thing i would ask and whoever would want to answer this. general dempsey, it want to start with yourself. when if you believe and i think you can tell is in some

wonderful questions and wonderful testimonies and senator graham to such an expert job of holding his emotions back in his feelings, but with that being said, do any of you believe that this legislation and i believe it will be passed, that you would have a hard time cycling and been able to do the job you are charged with doing at the level that needs to be done for the defense of our country? >> i will start, senator. thank you for the opportunity. also, you're the second to imply that we are averse to change. we are, i promise you, one of the most change oriented organizations ulysse appear before you at any time and that change will be clear to you as you see the affected some of the budget decisions being made. so we are not averse to change, nor be resisting. as you know this but he charges us to give you her personal best

military advice and that is what you get today. you are getting it because they've assisted in system in place that works remarkably well. we have a one army. we have one air force. i do not know what impact this will have and therefore, you are sensing some of the things on our part to embrace him then. it could be that nothing changes. to be the best possible outcome. then one might say if nothing is going to change, why are we changing? i would say the decision before you is one of context. the context of adding craig mckinley to the joint chiefs, which in some ways would be a powerful symbol to our citizen soldiers. i've got that. but the other context is for me the more compelling argument about turning to rate zero dear no say in iowa soldiers from you and i don't care if they are active guard or reserve. so i don't know the answer to

your question, senator, but i am concerned. let me just say the utmost confidence in all of you i know you would be in a position you are if the workers evaluated an unexpected didn't feel fulfilled and i don't expect anything different from that. the thing that i observed was truly the guard is the only visible part of our defense department right now that the citizens of this great country can connect to. it wasn't for the guard, we wouldn't even know there is a conflict. but it's the moms in the paths and uncles and aunts and brothers and sisters to get redeployed and that we are out there standing up on her tongue cannot did come out. they come home and we welcome them home. we cry with them, mourn with them, how the last one of loved one. so they are the fabric of our whole defense system. i think that is why some investors so passionate about

this piece of legislation to have an equal footing. and i will finally say this. you have to be as frustrated myself and maybe others are in this country as they look at the functions of congress right now. we cannot come to an agreement on anything. this is one thing we are agreed on. please don't deny us the chance to come together as democrats and republicans for the sake of this great country but america first. that is what we are asking. with that, we respectfully disagree, but we sure do respect and hopefully you know we respect you at the highest levels. dr. thank you and hope you consider this legislation and i want to encourage the chairman to make sure that our leader, majority leader knows how important is for this piece of legislation and i'm sure this will be an amendment, but for this bill to move forward. i'm even working diligently and i support you 100%. i support the guard read the

full skinny member. thank you so much. >> thank you, center mansion. this has been a very important hearing. we obviously have very divided views on this committee and i hope we get the bill to the floor. i hope we get into the foyer before we get to thanksgiving. in any event the bill will be coming to the floor and i'm sure there'll be an amendment in a very vitreous debate on this particular issue. i think the fact that you have all appeared here today with such dignity, such character in such directness, which we welcome. and it is important that we hear the views unfurnished and we got them from all of you. we got the legal opinion, which is what we saw, a legal opinion. we did not take policy from you

nor do you appropriately give policy. we are very grateful to you for your service. we think our vets on the eve of veterans day and we will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> extremist on in the defense of liberty is no bias. [cheers and applause] and let me remind you also, that

moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> i started telling this guy about my sent times, you know, jumping in the middle of the night, raining outside without knowing what was going on coming in now, kara taught the high knee and i'd be out of my own car angry, attacking the car behind me. it is said to me, have you ever been in a