i'm a little disturbed that 80 people. i started bawling. it's not coming out of my nose. have you ever been in a war? it was that sent oil. when you finally got me into censoring control come you said you've got ptsd. have you ever heard of it? ..

>> guest: our number is about 40,000 active members and the coast guard and reserve about 8,000. seven films and civilian employees in the coast guard and then a unique voluntary force which is 30,000 plus folks. >> host: what do they do? >> guest: i have no direct enforcement authority, but they do a wide range of events. they do recreation safety training, they are on the water all the time doing safety inspection recreational boaters, the help in the waterways management program. thankfully they can do different things that are challenges because they bring a tremendous amount of unique talent and we have them and command centers

and retial watch standards and stations. they bring a lot of continuity, expertise and amount of passion. the great force multiplier force. >> host: what is the annual budget? >> guest: it's about $8.7 billion, the total budget would be nondiscretionary about 10.4 in the 2011, 2012. >> host: what is your mission domestically and do you have an international mission? >> guest: what's unique about the coast guard we are locally deployed throughout locations in the united states or nationally with local base deployed and international mission, local mission and are globally connected, so we are doing search and rescue in the coastal waters along the united states we are doing security in the seaports and the nation's three nafisi ports. post 9/11 the maritime security put a bunch of new responsibilities on the coast guard we have a presence in the

sports ensuring the safe waterways, marking aids and navigation systems. we have a 500 coastguard men and women deployed in support of the centcom combatant commander here over in bahrain six to 12 votes and cruce protecting the platforms which are a source of about 90% of the revenue. so we are an international domestic organization and broad range of statutory missions. >> host: drug interdiction. is that one of your authorities and do you share that with other agencies? >> guest: drug interdiction as one of the missions in a decade now and we partner very well with our dod partners and what we call law enforcement navy combatants and allied ships dea, fbi, state and local agencies and the department of homeland security said the drug mission is very collaborative in its

nature and we would lead the maritime agency and the drug war. >> host: at oral schultz off the coast of florida in his order engine and you guys help? who pays for that? >> host: >> guest: it is the recreational boat off the florida is in distress there is a system where they get alerted we are concerned with that recreational boater getting home safely and the voter is in a long perilous situation we have agreements in the policy that dictate what we call the marina assistance broadcast where we put out a broadcast where the commercial system can help the voters if they are available, and generally will attract the case until they have to get home and that is the situation pretend at provider and the recreational boater. if they are further offshore the situation for commercial provider there is a an immediate distress the appropriation will provide the service but we try to find that --

>> host: somebody has to pay for it? >> guest: generally something we've respond to we are appropriated funds try to conflict with commercial interests making a living out there providing the same type of service there is a balance point but the safety is the first and foremost priority. >> host: how many ships and boats? >> guest: ships and boats that is a great question. high endurance cutters, we had to decommission two of those bringing the board the national security covers of the high and part of the ship about 11 ships right now. we've got 27 medium endurance cutters, we've got patrol boats. we've built a glass of the 49 patrol boats. we've got 87 patrol boats numbering of in the high seventies as far as small boats we have small boats stationed throughout the country. we are bringing on line the new response vote which is a 45-foot boat replacing some 40-foot utility boats that have been served for decades now. stationed throughout the united states we have motor lifeboats

the rough water stations pacific northwest, new england, other locations in the situation they we have smaller response votes in the sea ports so hundreds of smaller boats. the total numbers are probably up in the range of 90 covers when you look at the operation on the western ritalin and coastal waters. >> host: we are going to put the phone numbers up on the screen so if you would like to dial in and talk with admiral schultz about the coast guard on the military in the washington journal numbers are on the screen we've reserved the fourth line for the coast guard active and retired to be. (202)628-0184 is the number to call and of course you can also reach admiral schultz on a twitter, twitter/com/c-spanwj or e-mail journal@c-span.org. the coast guard's newest ship is currently stationed here in washington or is it visiting

washington or what? >> guest: the cover stratton which is the newest ship to the security cover was in baltimore harbor this past week. we have her in town. she is now working her way back around and will be based out of california so she is on the return transit doing some work ups and we anticipate commissioning that a around the march time frame on the calendar year. >> host: what is special about this? >> guest: what's special about the stratton is it is the most formidable in a class of ships in the national security cover about 43-years-old on average. when those ships were built using them for the ocean station and they articulate it into the station operations over in vietnam operation marketplace and allow for the management of the fishery all that started the drug war, mass migration evens from cuba and haiti so over the 40 plus life still in service and they've done a lot of

different things. the national security cover very capable. this ship can operate in the chemical biological pretty logical and nuclear environment a sustained program of time. she has what we mccaul facility on board where she can handle the materials of the highest classification. we are part of the national intelligence committee and this ship is also collected and contributes beyond the lifeline of the coast guard missions we are excited has a big flight deck, very fuel efficient and is going to do a lot of great things for the nation. >> host: so it will sail through the panama canal and go back up. >> guest: the new home port in california. >> host: who is or the stratton? >> guest: the namesake for the ship was the first director of the sparse and this forest was the women's reserve that stood up in 1942 in the war effort. we have i believe 20,000 unlisted women, 1,000 female officers, and dorothy strachan

at chollet cornyn the term. it's our model, the latin version in the interpretation is always ready. she has passed on but her legacy remains and it is named after her. >> host: where is the coast guard academy? >> guest: connecticut. >> host: is it a competitive process, congressional? >> guest: it is a merit based application process. the class of 2015 came through the gates the past summer. if i remember correctly, it is about to wondered 91 cadets that enter the class. >> host: how many years have you been in the coast guard? >> guest: i am a 1983 graduate so why should it at the gates in june of 1979. active duty in my 29 year. why? to be frank, i was appointed to the academy by a high school football coach and salles the beaches of rhode island and connecticut, didn't know a lot about it, kind of got involved

in the sports, the academics come this summer programs, kind of caught the bug and i guess 33 years i said i would call it a career and keep going. host red marble schultz is our guest, talking about coastguard. william, delaware ohio, your first up. please, go ahead. >> caller: i was in the coast guard back in 1942 until the end of the war, and i was on lcil 87 in the normandy invasion omaha beach. stood on a platform and sold the whole thing on wind. i had -- the call me up to the bridge, and the navy captain asked me if i would stand on a little platform with a back pack radio to the will to drop on the beach as we went in, and so on

had a lot of time involved about the length of time i was only about three years and seven months or something like that. anyway, the coast guard did get involved like an overseas as ballistic coast, along the coast, and it was exciting the time i spend with the normandy invasion back to england through the panama canal, diego, out in the pacific. we sat off of sight and a few weeks to the b-29s that were landing bombing from japan. one of our duties was to try to save -- >> host: william, think you, sir, for sharing that story with us.

admiral schultz? >> guest: william, let me thank you for your service. it's great to hear from a shipmate and you served in a dynamic time in the country and for the greatest generation. thank you for your service, and i think the work that you did on the lcil 87 was some of the most strenuous work on the coast guard in the history of the organization. thank you for that. it sounds like a remarkable experience. you mentioned about back in the international role and the rule back here with the coastal patrols on the beach and i think the coast guard what you should be proud of is we are still the same kind of organization today. we are highly adaptable. i mentioned being locally based throughout the united states but the nationally deployed and globally connect it is still our role. we are proud of your service. hagee veterans day tomorrow and thanks for the call this morning. >> host: jim tweets why does the coast guard patrol the inland lakes when we have the state sheriffs' patrolling? and harassing us is what he says. but do you do the internal

oblix? >> guest: the coast guard, our jurisdiction extends the federal navigable waterways. so if the waterways are navigable -- >> host: such as chicago -- >> guest: mississippi river, places like that. >> host: how about the tahoe? >> guest: there is a jurisdiction on lake tahoe as well. the internal leaks are of the exclusive to destruction he will not see the coast guard. leaks around those two state boundaries we have jurisdiction there and you will see us there on those occasions. we try to collaborate and partner with the states. we try not to have redundant efforts. obviously there's more demand for the coast guard services and coast guard capability, and we try to position those assets where we get the best return for the taxpayer. we try to harmonize with the states and local folks and we are now there for, you know, the benefit of the taxpayer hopefully to make the waterway safe. if there is a list of activities there can be a range of thing. it depends on the geography and i will leave it at that.

>> host: c-span's tweets the commission to guard the coast line is an international work attracting from that? and second question, also, why is the coast guard used in the drug war? >> guest: i think the question about the international versus just the coast guard, i would say they are complementary. when you look at the coast guard as now a member or an agency in the department of homeland security, one of the key components of protecting the homeland is you sort of have to push the border out. so, we like to think we are across the spectrum. we have coastal, the shore based assets and the small stations. we push the boundaries out. if you have an incoming threat in terms of a terrorist threat in the homeland or if it is counter drugs and illegal migration. planning the goal line defense, you were sort of set up for the failure at the onset there. the question sort of about the drug war or the drug situation, you know, we get the drugs when they are hundreds of thousands

from the shore in the large bulk quantities pity if the drugs get through, if they make it say into mexico and get for the distribution and to smaller loads it's a lot tougher of a challenge. since the first of october, we have stopped 60,000 piles of cocaine from coming to the country. that 60,000 pounds and just this month of the fiscal year exceeds the total amount of drugs that were stopped last year by the land-based units. as of that speaks to the effectiveness of pushing the borders out in the relevance and the drug war. >> host: with the deficit reduction committee meeting and secretary leon panetta hinting there may be cuts in the military expenditures has the coast guard targeted where it would make its cuts? >> guest: i think that for an agency like the coast guard, we are always looking at priorities. right now we operate on the known situations. we are waiting for the president's fiscal budget to be legislated from the talk that may be cobbled together by next

week. those are the unknowns we have as stark as the speculation we are steering away from that. we are optimistic that the 12 members are quick to be solid and we will be able to focus and keep momentum on priorities. >> host: texas. albert, a republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i am just an old nom boy and i would like to tell the commander i think that he is a very confident and competent individual. and the gentleman that handled the oil spill from the coast guard was unbelievable. i think you could have asked that buy would face the moon would be ten months from now if he could have given an answer. i think they should double your budget. and i want to thank you. you help me sleep at night. >> guest: robert, thank you for the call and for your service to the coast guard. at the veterans day to you. we are proud of many coastguardsman. i'm not sure if you are speaking about the former thad allen.

he did remarkable work. we've had many great leaders and the coast guard. we are proud of our leaders. we have a great model we put responsibility in a young coast guardsman is lapse early and they grow into the role but obviously the deepwater horizon situation was a tragic event for the gulf region, challenging for the nation. we had about 7,000 coastguardsman involved in the response and upwards of the 45 to 50,000 people who were still challenging in the area a year. we are still fully committed to getting things right in the gulf and getting the gulf back onto a healthy trajectory for the way forward. but i appreciate your call this morning and your service with the coast guard and vietnam. >> host: what is the status of the coast guard and the bp oil spill? >> guest: the status is we are still, you know, very much involved in down there. we are involved with that through the completion. the recent development is the shoreline cleanup completion plan was put out earlier, out

earlier this morning by the coordinator in cooperation with the coordinators here. each cleanup, juneau, is about 90% point of success. what we can get up to the standards before this bill obviously any new skills would be dealt with and we will examine that and send it to the center and do forensics on it and if it is from the macondo well site, we will go back to them to make things right. this next step allows us to move forward with the restoration efforts. there are restoration projects that have been identified and planned and funded and transitioned to the states allowing us to go to the next step on a national resource disaster assessment. we are working forward. this is a next step but we are committed and sympathetic to the situation in the gulf, but the coast guard will stay involved. >> host: at orval schultz, would cost his the bp oil spilled into the coast guard?

has it been net no cost because you sent the bills to bp or what? >> guest: we've passed those to be he that were righteous for bp and some of the costs and allocations or internal costs. i would say at the end of the day that this sort of one of the duties of the coast guard is our agility and multi mission that we can redirect assets. we pulled some of our ocean going from the various locations including out in hawaii and brought them around the gulf. they have the capability built in the wake of the exxon valdez spill, and so at the end of the day the appropriate cost, there are some costs the even internally as our appropriate activities. >> host: next call for the admiral comes from milbourne florida. paul, good morning to you, sir. >> caller: good morning. i serve on the coast guard and a great leaks from 59 to 63 and in the reserve headquarters in d.c. from 73 to 91. i'm reading from the

military.com about the decommissioning of the coast guard polar sea and at this point the white house and congress are at odds with this because the white house doesn't want to lose the icebreaking surface of the two ships. are they going to replace them with anything to keep the ice breaker unit in that area going on? >> guest: paul, great question. like the other couple of calls, thank you for the coast guard service here and was active duty and reserve. i sailed on the great lakes myself in my career and that is a real neat place to be a coast guardsman. a great maritime environment. i think the work of the coast guard is valued at there. the poll were class icebreakers are icebreakers' at large is an interesting situation. there is an observation bill with a provision right now, and i'm not at liberty to talk about the lip pending legislation -- to talk about the icebreakers the ships are built in the 70's. 30 plus-years-old. we plan, we take the polar sea out of service.

she was -- we were going to run her to initially 2014 when she comes down for a major maintenance. we have engineering casualties in the last year or two that to occur down. there's a limited amount of funding as we operate the icebreakers those are the to the polar sea and the star and then we have a medium icebreaker that is a ship. to work within the existing budget framework we have, we just couldn't afford to try to meet both of those large polers in the service. what we've done is the polar sea is not lead up. there is debate as you mentioned. we are focused on bringing it back to the surface here in 2013 with the help of the congress. we have about $60 million going into fixing the critical systems and i think that it's really going to be bridging gap. this is a broad discussion in just the coast guard. what are our needs and responsibilities as a cybernation here where we believe that this is a national level discussion and the polar

star will provide a bridging strategy to the longer term, long term plan. bring the news icebreaker on board is an 8-tenure venture and you're probably talking upwards of 900 million to $0 billion for the type of ship you need to go up there. so that is a big number, and there's not really the trade and the coast guard budget to take that on with other things we're doing that are urgent and the priorities for the nation. i appreciate the question and it's an interesting topic. >> host: do you have your own or to contract out? >> guest: both. we have a shipyard in baltimore at the coast guard yard, and we do repair work there actually built ships and there are some boats there as well. right now that george is fully employed with what we call mission effectiveness program. taking the medium endurance cutters, 210 or 275 ships and they are actually doing the critical system replacement and agreed on those to keep those in service. i talk to the national security covers before. we are looking to build a class of eight of those.

we had a good run here. we just a word of the production contract award in november on the national security cover. backing off through november, 2010. we awarded and we are trying to get the next three ships done and then go to the replacement for the insurance covers on the 270 that i mentioned, and to kind of get there we have to spend some money on the existing clause because this plays out. they are -- it is going to take a while. right now we try to get the national security in the budget and the offshore patrol cutters we are hoping there is a budget trace in the future years but when you try to replace those ships you are still at that space that will for 13 year program. investing in using it as a bridging strategy for the older ships as we move forward to get the new ships and the replacement of the 40 or 50-years-old ships as well. >> host: what does the cutter cost? what did the stratton cost? >> guest: that is a cover.

a national security covered. 419 feet. and i mentioned just the production on the fifth. the average cost across those ships, which is the same class as the stratton, $630 million. that is the average over the five ships that we've delivered. >> host: all right. admiral schultz, the coast guard has about 500 service members in iraq and afghanistan. iraq shoreline, afghanistan. >> guest: we have 500 folks over in the centcom, central combatant commander theater operations. i mentioned in the earlier six island class patrol boats, 100 patrol boats, 22 manned cruise and have a sure site maintenance. they are protecting the iraqi oil platform, a critical source for the iraqi government. we have folks over their looking for the navy central command that are also doing the interception operations for privacy on the commander task

force in the 150 and the 151. we have the maritime security advisor team that is working with the embassy if i46 person team in baghdad. we have almost 30 members of what we call the free deployment assistance and inspection detachment. they are working in support of the transportation command and the help move hazardous materials back stateside with equipment, and we have the port security over there it's about 120 person team closely coast guard reserve that provide security for the of lewd activities, security for the high value u.s. allied assets. i think that gets you pretty close to the mark, and we also have some critical logical specialists supporting the intelligence needs as well. >> host: key largo, florida. you've been very patient. you are on with coast guard admiral karl schultz. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking the call, c-span. i'm in the coast guard auxiliary

1308 in the florida keys. i'm calling about the stratton. it looks phenomenal. it is a good ship. it's good to hear they are planning more of them. do you see the use of it primarily necessarily at this point on the west coast? >> guest: well, first off, good morning to you and thanks for your service in the oxalate. i spent a lot of my time in the keys and miami, so i know how hard you are working. we appreciate the efforts of our volunteer coast guard auxiliary. the stratton is a tremendous shift, and i spent a couple of days on her last week and i think -- i think that we are putting stratton on the west coast and eventually she will be the final home port decision on the entire class of the ships are not done yet. we have the chairman of joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey and admiral pap hopefully being able to position a couple of them on the east coast as well.

we talk of the functionality of the national security covered -- and i mentioned earlier how that could steam and if you had a natural or man-made attack in a major port area that infrastructure was crumbled and the cannon occasions were down, you could say on the national security environment with that sensitive compartmentalized support on board in the contaminated space for a period of time with the ability to interact at the national level, the national command level, the highest level of classification, that cover could be very capable. we think there's a need for that on the east coast and west coast. right now the plans are we are going to get stratton out there, number three, in the home port and we are building the fourth and fifth and the sites are on keeping the momentum for six and seven. >> host: admiral schultz is the government and public affairs director for the u.s. coast guard. he has served as the chief of congressional affairs for the coast guard. he served as the commander in miami for a couple of years,

congressional liaison, several different positions within the coast guard where he graduated from the academy. he has a master's from the university of connecticut and a national-security fellowship at harvard university's kennedy school of government. he has won several awards including the legion of merit. for what were you a word that? >> guest: well, peter, i think any personal award when you are a service man is a function of the team around you. i think one of those was recognized in my time in miami. we had a good opportunity had the honor to lead about 600 active duty coastguardsman. a large reserve list. we had 1100 odd summary going back to the last call. that is agreed erie with a lot of responsibility and challenges. least talk about the southport and really just about all coast guard mission areas. generally a 60 or 70 hour workweek. good mission. i work around tremendous coast

guard and women. we have great kids coming into the organization. those are words that represent -- >> host: do you arrest a drunken boaters? >> guest: we polled voters of the water. we generally report of local authorities. we will detain them. the action as turnover to a local sheriff or police unit. >> host: is that a problem as much as drunk driving? >> guest: boating while intoxicating is a term that we use and is a problem on the water. it creates a risk for other recreational boaters and commercial builders and when we see the activity we are pretty aggressive about getting them off of the auxiliary to do great outreach and education. we stop, we do the random boardings and we take that seriously. we want the folks operating off of the water and the partners are committed to that. >> host: and his military week on the washington journal we're focusing on the coast guard. here are some numbers we went over to the beginning and we want to repeat them for you.

budget for the coast guard, $10.3 billion or so. 8.7 of that is in discretionary funding. about 1.4 billion for acquisition construction and improvements. 642 million for vessels. 289 million for the air assets. 187 million for a major acquisition systems. those are some of the figures that we have. on the coast guard budget and as colonel schultz told us about 42,000 active duty at this point; correct? >> guest: yes, sir. >> host: next call, dayton, nevada. please go ahead. >> caller: yes, thank you. i want to ask the admiral, i've been involved in the coast guard auxiliary now for a number of years, and i'm a retired military. the pleasure i had starting in nevada on the coast guard auxiliary and then the last

three years [inaudible] i noticed some times when these talks go on like this very little was mentioned that the coast guard auxiliary as itself. i wonder if maybe you can enlighten the public a little bit. thank you. >> host: if you could you started with the coast guard and accelerate in reno nevada. were you on lake tahoe? >> caller: i've been on lake tahoe a couple times with the local coast guard station. there's great people there. >> host: would you do as part of the oxalate? >> caller: i'm basically a vessel examiner. that is one of the things i did in the coast guard auxiliary. i've done a boat and nevada. >> host: thank you. >> guest: thank you. for your service with the coast guard. as i mentioned earlier it is a tremendous grifo x. 30,000 plus strong and we brought range of things. we have those that fly their own aircraft and have their own

needs and missions. we have those out on the waterways looking at the navigation position checking them. we have auxillarists on the communications arms in the stations. i know the recreational boaters really are excited we tend to sometimes get more continuity with auxillarists in the location than the men and women that come from and rotate and get a chance to go off to an advanced school but those auxillarists stay for many years and they become very much experts about the local area and the local waterways and stuff like that. we have had auxillarists come and work in the command centers back when life was in miami. we had what we called the hawkeye system, which integrated the radar and cameras, and we used the auxillarists to run that. so the auxillarists, there are very few limits outside of the legal limitation on what auxillarists can do. they are not in power with local law enforcement authority. but they are just a great force multiplier. i mentioned earlier about

education and training. the when the voting safety course. they are out there on the campaigns every year and the national safe boating week. auxillarists will be out there talking to the american public about the criticality of wearing a life jacket during the week safety they will be doing volunteer examinations at the boat ramps and out in the water. so, tremendous folks, dedicated americans, really excited about supporting the coast guard and our missions, and we couldn't do a lot of the things we do without their support. so thank you very much for your involvement in the auxiliary. it's a great part of the country out there and it's fun being a auxillarists. >> host: we talked about this earlier, but linda tweets and the coast guard rescues private boaters in distress at sea do they get a bill like people do in the fire department response to a call? >> guest: just to reiterate that, if we rescue them they do not get a bill. what we will do if it is a non-urgent situation and there is commercial assets available we will refer the commercial assets available and allow them to assist those people.

under those circumstances, there is a finance. some folks carry insurance for that situation or others offer that. if we make a rescue we do not bill the tax payer for that service. >> host: oakland california. patrick, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning, admiral. my part, i would like to think you for keeping a safe along the coast. and also registered for selective surfers, but then became disabled, and i support the troops and wanted to let you know i feel good about the ones that will be coming back from afghanistan, and the other part when i was looking into the military about which 1i should join, i thought the military of the marines all the way back to the military of the coast guard is the coast guard the easiest one on the soldier?

can you guess? >> guest: good morning and thanks for your support of the men and women that wear the uniform. as far as what is the easiest like to thank all the services are pretty selective about who we take into the current situation in the economic times. recruiting is down a little bit. because the retention is a very high, the attrition as low as we have men and women that want to stay and served and continue another 20 years. we are getting really remarkable young men and women entering the service. i would say for the coast guard it's very competitive and the other services find themselves in a similar situation as far as one and the other i really don't have an informed opinion on that so i'm going to leave that one alone but i can tell you about the quality of the recruits just first rate and our challenges to get them out there while training and get them on the operations units the work sells itself and again, like i said, the problem that we have is retention. it's not such a bad problem. the last couple of years we had

we called the detention selection panel where we actually have to weed the ranks of a little bit, make rooms of these young bright people we bring into the service have mobility operations to keep them and keep them excited about what you're doing. >> host: what identifies you as an admiral? >> guest: on the service uniform it is here on the sleeve so it is destroying on the sleeve. >> host: detroit. mark. good morning. >> caller: good morning. a family of coastal guards. my father-in-law and my boy just went down to the program this summer. i'm wondering if i gave him a bad direction. i had him take to languages, three of linguistics in the languages and ban at the same time from the sports, the ban was a much greater draw and time

consuming denied direct them incorrectly? >> guest: i tell you, mark, first thing to for the broad coast guard family that you come from. first, for your son that you sent him to the program that is a great program for him to get admiral made. i can't use your him very well. if you look at the folks we bring to the service which i mentioned earlier is merit based applications we're looking for the well-rounded individuals, leadership potential. i think the fact that he's interested in music and you mentioned sports and he is a well-rounded individual but probably serves him very well. my sense is he probably gave him very good advice and again, the program is a great gateway for folks to get visibility about life out of service particularly of the coast guard academy. >> host: we have about and a

minute left with admiral schultz. >> caller: first of all i want to thank you for your service to the country and how much we appreciate you and your organization. my daughter has been in the coast guard for 16 years. she and her husband who is also in the coast guard are stationed in juneau alaska. i cannot express enough about the confidence and the pride i have seen this woman growing =to by her association with the coast guard. also, i just finished reading deadliest see and sometimes we see the headlines and we all realize the lives that go behind the rescues and i will never take for granted again the work and the service that our military does. also i was very honored to grow up in a church with a woman that was a spar and the dow realize will was until i got older apply feel honored to have even known her.

>> guest: thanks for the call this morning. it sounds like a coast guard family there with your daughter and son-in-law. i'm not sure if you cut the weather channel called coast guard alaska that premiered at 9:00 and there are six episodes coming on. we talk about the deadliest see. it is an arduous environment and we got some great men and women that they're doing things for the nation and the communities of there. a lot of challenges. you look north to the arctic increasing the coast guard responsibilities, we are really focused on the work of the district which is the alaska district. great distances supported the folks if you take the state of alaska and overly it on the lower 48 it runs the east coast to the west coast and stays there. so they work some really tough cases and i thought it was ironic last night to the new series aired and was a storm of epic proportions that it alaska, one of the last in the four or five decades and the weather up there and the distances and the

long periods of darkness and get challenging for the mariners and it is an arduous and fire met for the responders and you get the coast guard men and women doing a tremendous things out there and your daughter and your son served. >> host: what is the website if people want to contact you or get more information about the coast guard? >> guest: www.usg.mil can take you to a lot of different places and you can probably do will search coast guard compass blog. it's fresh with content on a daily basis and we are telling a story about what the men and women are doing every day to try to keep that going in the nation's coastguard. >> host: admiral karl schultz is the government and public interest but for the u.s. coast guard. thank you for being on the washington journal for military week. >> guest: thank you.

the air force confirmed this week that the crew needed remain of some war veterans were mishandled. defense secretary leon panetta has ordered an independent review of the procedures at the dover air force base and another look at the decision not to fire the supervisors and fault. he and a trend chief chairman dempsey spoke to the pentagon for a half-hour.ternoon >> good afternoon. p this is general dempsey's firstn press briefing as the secretary serving on was the chairman ofhe the joint chiefs. and so i welcome him to this hi presspres briefing 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 thiat to b consed in the situation. .. 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]

next hearing on a proposal to expand the joint chiefs of staff to include the head of the national guard. the bill has 65 co-sponsors in the senate that is opposed by all the 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 euro 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 at a single hearing. each of them has appeared before us individually and in different combinations but never altogether. in addition to all the members of the joint chiefs, we have the department of defense general counsel and we have the chief of the national guard hero with us today. we welcome each of you to this

hearing and 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 two and continued to serve in combat operations in iraq and afghanistan. large numbers have served multiple tours. many have given their lives in service to our nation and many more have returned with wounds of war. their service has been outstanding and we commend them for their dedication, courage and patriotism. the national guard has also risen to the challenge by serving and diverse to homeland defense and civil support missions. the reserve components have made a highly successful transition 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 enlist or accept a commission in a and a state national guard unit, they simultaneously enlist or are commissioned in the army national guard of the united states or the air national guard of the united states. united states. which are components of the army and the air force. these individuals retain their status as they guard members unless and until they are ordered to act as federal

service and they referred to state status upon being relieved from federal service. there is a third hybrid status, commonly referred to as title xxxii status, where the members are in a federally funded state status. i understand that mr. johnson, the dod general counsel, will discuss some of the ramifications of these different statuses in which members of the national guard serve. the composition of the joint chiefs of staff is the defined by statute and consists of the chairman, the vice chairman, and the military service chiefs of the army, navy, air force and marine corps. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the principle military adviser to the president, the national security council, the homeland security

council and the secretary of defense. the other members of the joint chiefs may submit to the chairman advised in 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 his own advice. additionally, the other members of the joint chiefs provide military advice when requested by the president, the national security council, the homeland security council or the secretary of defense. a member of the joint chiefs may make recommendations to congress relating to the department of defense after first informing the secretary of defense. i am looking forward to the testimony of the members of the joint chiefs of staff as they provide more information on the role that the joint chiefs play

in our national security, how the interest of the army and air national guard are dressed by the joint chiefs, and how the chief of the national guard bureau interfaces with the joint chiefs of staff. the national guard bureau is a joint activity of the department of defense. by statute it is the channel of communications on all matters -- pertaining to the national guard, the army national guard of the united states and air national guard of the united states between the department of the army and the department of the air force and the several states. the chief of the national guard bureau is a principle adviser for the secretary of defense through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on matters involving non-that relies national guard forces and on other matters determined by the secretary of defense.

he is also the principle adviser, the secretary of the army and the chief of staff of the army and the secretary of the air force and the chief of staff of the air force on matters relating to the national guard, the army national guard of the united states and air national guard of the united states. beginning in 2009, when the position of the chief of the national guard bureau was increased to a four-star rank, the chief of the national guard euro was given a standing invitation to attend meetings of the joint chiefs. i look forward to general mckinley's testimony to further elaborate on the role and function of the chief of the national guard bureau and how that relates to the role and function of the joint chiefs of staff. that congress' direction the

commission on the national guard and reserves address the issue we are looking at today and they did so in a second report to congress dated march 1, 2007. the commission recommended against making the chief of the national guard euro a member of the joint chiefs and 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 bureau. for example, and this is a long quote from that commission report. for example they said the chief of the national guard euro is not responsible for organizing, manning, 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 chief of staff they said also are materially different from and more rigorous than those for selection to be chief of the national guard bureau. moreover, they said that making the chief of the national guard bureau and member of the joint chiefs of staff would run counter to intra-and inter-service integration and would reverse progress toward jointness and interoperability. making the chief of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs of staff would be fundamentally inconsistent with the status of the army and air national guard as reserve component 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" that. now i know that congress has implemented many of the recommendations of that commission including the following. increasing the grade of the chief of the national guard bureau from lieutenant general to general and making him a principle adviser to adviser to the secretary of defense through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on matters involving non-federalized national guard forces. another of their recommendations which was implemented by congress was establishing the national guard bureau as a joint activity of the department of defense, enhancing the functions of the national guard hero to include assisting the secretary of defense and coordinating with other federal agencies, the

adjutant general of the state in combatant command with responsibility for the united states homeland, the u.s. northern command. we require that at least one deputy of the u.s. northern command with the responsibility for the united states and at least one deputy va national guard officer in the grade of lieutenant general and to increase the number of unified and specified combatant command positions 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 thank the witnesses for being with us today and before calling therefore calling on senator inhofe i will note that we have two boats today as scheduled for

12:05. senator inhofe. >> thank you usher chairman. i believe that's right. i looked back in the eight years i spent about house in the 17 years in the senate and this is the first time all members of the joint chiefs are here so this is kind of a neat deal. i think the greatest trust that is placed upon congress by the mac and people is to provide for their security and maintain a strong national defense. our constitution gives congress pacific national security authorities to declare war, raised armies to provide for the navy, establish rules and regulations for military forces and organize and arm the militias in the state. >> i hate to interview senator inhofe but we do have a quorum here now and we have some business we can attend to. if we can interrupt your statement. there's a quorum now present and we were going to vote to lose that quorum by the way so that is why i am interrupting senator

inhofe but i asked the committee to consider a list of 4220 pending military nominations. all of these nominations have been before the committee the required length of time. is there a motion to february report this? all in favor say aye. post, and it. the motion carries. thank you senator. >> anyway let me just mention we are all close to the military and the branches, the active, the reserve, the guard and i don't think there's a person appear on this committee who hasn't had close relationships with the active duty and visited in the areas where they are stationed and deployed. in my case, we have 3000 members of the oklahoma 45th insure k. -- infantry brook raid national guard. i went down when they were deployed from cape shelby in mississippi and talk to them and

then left about three weeks later and talk to them over there. and i know that it is one where you have probably a closer relationship as they are sitting there in your hometown and you visit with them. so i know that happens and i have very close friends. in the oklahoma 45th, they were deployed until july and yet we have lost 14 of our people over there. one of them, his wife worked in my office and i remember so well during the august recess going into a small town in oklahoma where she was there. we were making arrangements. i was getting ready to go to afghanistan so i could meet with chris horton, her husband. two days before i left, he was killed in action. so these are things that we are all very close to, the people and all the services. earlier this week, the 45th

helped in capturing a mid-level insurgent leader in afghanistan and his brother as well as weapons in hand grenades, tactical fighting gear and cell phones that were there. they do that without hiring a shot. they did great work over there. their efforts will lead to a stable afghanistan prevent insurgents from gaining safe haven. our national guard has transitioned from a strategic to an operational reserve force. this means that the national guard has got to be trained and equipped the same as our active units. it also means that we must fully integrate our acting reserve components so they can seamlessly execute any mission. i'm proud of the contributions they have made and the sacrifice of our military and their families have made and continue to make. we have made a lot of progress. i think general mckinley will have read heart of this

statement in terms of the relationship between deckard and the active units. and i have to say i think this might be the first time that i can remember ever coming to a committee hearing. i had dinner the other night with lead wyatt the air guard chief and he started talking about this. i said that, leave me alone here. we are going to have a hearing. let me hear from everyone at the same time. is going to say this might be the only time i have come to a hearing where i'm really open on this and i want to hear the answers. we have specific questions so i think it is going to be a very helpful hearing and i appreciate your coming. >> thank you very much senator inhofe. we are hearing from members of our family. these witnesses are part of our family, our american family and the senate committee's family. are personally close to each of you so we have a defective

policy decision to deal with. we do that as family members. while there may be differences and there obviously are, that is what democracy is all about and we need to consider these as members of one unit all having the same mission which is the security of this country. you all have that mission and we all have that mission. we are going to call on our witnesses today in the following order. first will be the general counsel to the department of defense, j. johnson and ben will be the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey and then we'll be the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral winnefeld and the chief of staff of the army general odierno, our chief of naval operations, admiral greenert, the commandant of the marine corps general amos, chief of staff of the air force, general schwartz and the chief of the national guard bureau general mckinley so let us start

with you mr. johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman senator inhofe and members of the committee. thank you or the opportunity to testify here today. view of asked me to discuss a provision of the proposed legislation that would make the chairman, the chief of the national guard euro a member of the joint chiefs of staff. at the outset, i will tell you that there are no outright legal terriers to enacting this legislation. nothing in the constitution prohibits the joint chiefs are statutory creation. congress can therefore 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 implications and complexities. before i get to those here are some general legal backgrounds on the national guard, the chief of the national guard euro and

the joint chiefs of staff and mr. chairman you 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 oath state and national guard and the federal national guard of the united states. the army and air national national guard of the united states are two of the six reserve components of the department of defense. the army-navy air force and marine corps reserves or the other for reserve components. members of the national guard conserved in three distinct statuses each of which has differing responsibilities and authorities. first, national guard members may serve in what is known as state active duty. state law dictates when guard members assumed the status. typical state active duty missions include first responder

responsibilities after a natural disaster. the state pays for and the governor of that state commands the national guard when it is on the state active duty. the department of defense placed no direct role in that status. second, national guard members may be ordered to duty under title xxxii of the united states code which i will call title xxxii. when the card performs a title xxx to duty it is performing federally funded military training subject to federal standards or domestic missions both of which are under the command and control of the state governor. examples of title xxxii missions include post-9/11 airport security, southwest border security and counter drug support. third the department of defense may call the national guard to federal service including in times of national emergency as

authorized by law. national guard members ordered to active duty lose their status as members of the national guard and become members of the reserve of the army or the reserve 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 end -- command but it is in isn't federal service. thus at different times the national guard may act as either a state or a federal entity. indeed many of the functions the card performs her underneath her the command bar the control of the department of defense. rather for much of what the guard does state governors are in command and when the national guard does act in federal service, it does so as part of the reserves of the army or the air force. the chief of the national guard does not command the national guard acting in any of these

three statuses. rather by federal statute to the chief of the national guard acts as a principle the principle adviser to the secretary of defense on all matters involving federalized national guard forces and he also has the statutory duty to advise the secretary's and the chiefs of staff of the army and air force the air force on all national guard batters. the department of defense director further explains the guard bureau's authorities and responsibilities, consistent with types provided by congress. now some legal background on the joint chiefs of staff. the joint chiefs of staff serve as a senior military advisers to the president, the national security council, the homeland security council and the secretary of defense. the joint chiefs are currently composed of six statutory members, the chairman, the vice chairman, and the chiefs of the

four services. the service chiefs have a broad range of leadership and command responsibilities that extend throughout their respect of services encompassing both the active and reserve components of the service. each of the service chiefs is the senior military officers are of their respective service. against this backdrop i turned to the proposed legislation which will make the chief of the national guard you are a member of the joint chiefs of staff. as a matter practice the chief of the national guard bureau currently attends meetings of the joint chiefs, as does the commandant of the coast guard. the purpose of the proposed legislation is thus to make the chief of the guard euros attendance at joint chiefs meeting a statutory entitlement with is a independent statutory authorities and responsibilities. in connection with the legislation i make two points. verse goldwater-nichols, the

goldwater-nichols department of defense reorganization act of 1986 struck many carefully crafted balances of intra-and inter-service equities. the chief of the national guard bureau represents only the army and air national guards national guard's and the proposed legislation would thus alter some of goldwater-nichols careful balances by for example altering the fact that each service's statutorily represented by one service chief in the joint chiefs and b are biting the only two of the department of defense's six statutory components with additional joint chiefs representation. second, elevating the chief of the national guard through to represent national guard equities to the joint chiefs could create legal confusion as to whether the army and air force chiefs of staff continue to represent their total force. current law the chiefs -- met

the chief of the national guard through to advise the army and air force chiefs of staff on all national guard matters. currently i noted a party received letters from the chairman of the joint chiefs and the service chiefs to detail their concerns with the proposed legislation. the chairman and vice-chairman vice chairman of the service chiefs are far more conversant with respect to the operational and administrative consequences. from my perspective, i hope any legislation does not add ambiguities with respect to authorities in the place where we can tolerate such ambiguity the least, at the top of the service hierarchies, especially in especially in a time of war. thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much mr. johnson. general dempsey. >> thank you chairman levin and

senator inhofe. i want to point out before you begin i appreciate the spirit of family metaphor used for this. i do want to make a point that as we have talked about this, craig mckinley has been in the room in every instance, so everything we have done to try to talk about this among ourselves has been done with the chief of the national guard hero present. and so i thank you for the opportunity to continue that discussion here today. i would also like to thank my colleagues at the table. we share a bond of trust with each other and with a nation that will be sustained regardless of how we answer the question before us today. let me be clear on both -- on i'm both an admirer and advocate for the national guard. our entire reserve component makes an indispensable contribution to our national security. throughout our nation's history and circling the decades since 9/11 we have depended on our citizen soldiers and airmen to help defend us, our allies and

our interests. at home and abroad the national guard served with courage discipline skill and distinction. i am proud to be their chairman. the chairman of our total joint force active and reserves, civilian and families and i take seriously my responsibility to give voice to their achievements into their needs. i ensure their voice including the voice of the national guard peer was heard. this that i join the secretary of defense in the service chiefs in counseling against making the chief of the national guard are 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 her success as a joint force is due in large measure to our ability to integrate the active and reserve component so that they are indistinguishable on the battlefield. i believe this is because i believe they have accomplished this because the service chiefs of the army and air force are the single voice for their

respect to the services. with the service secretaries they bear sole responsibility for making the key resource decisions that produce and organize trained and equipped force in this includes the national guard and reserve components. proposed change could undermine this unity of effort. as you know which of our services has a reserve component but only the army and the air force have national guard. this proposal will create a situation among our reserve component forces whereby two of the six, as mr. johnson mentioned, would be represented differently creating what could at least be the perception of iniquity. my second and more important concern that was one of accountability. 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 jcs would make him equal to the service chiefs

without commensurate accountability. this seems to run counter to the carefully crafted organizational and advisory principles established by goldwater-nichols. i don't find the argument to change the composition of the jcs compelling. it's unclear to me what problem we are trying to sell. here's what i do know with certainty. the chief of the national guard bureau has and will continue to attend meetings of the joint chiefs i chair. i wanted i need them there. the chief provides experience for matters of importance for the national guard and therefore the nation. this advice is also carefully considered when the army and air force chiefs make decisions that affect their service. the chief of the national guard bureau has the boys and it is heard. over the last 10 years the relationship between our active and reserve components has grown into a well-integrated fighting force. you really can't spot can spot the difference between active and reserve airman. we are and will remain one

force. again i like to thank the committee for its continued support to all of her men and women in uniform as well as their families and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much general dempsey. admiral winnefeld. >> good morning senator inhofe distinguish members of the armed services committee thank you or 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 our nation's entire reserve component including the fine citizen soldiers and airmen of our national guard for their incredible contributions to our nation's defense of security as well as their considerable sacrifices both at home and abroad. there should be no doubt that i'm a huge supporter of a believer and america's national guard and i have a personal connection to the guard. indeed when i was nominated to be the commander of northcom and norad, my first call was to my

friends and soon-to-be partner general craig mckinley. while 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 and biological and radiological and nuclear response to the guard while i was at northcom. with the help of the national guard hero, we brought more guardsmen into the northcom had orders including doubling the number of flag officers in the headquarters. when i walked around my northcom and norad headquarters i could not have told you who was a guardsmen and who was not. and i wouldn't want it any other way. along the way i have come to count many of the state's adjutant generals as my personal friends. it was not by chance that my first speaking engagement as vice chairman was at the national guard association of the united states annual conference this past august.

during my time as vice chairman thus far we have been successful in bringing the chief of the national guard hero into more senior level dod forms. i've virtually abdicated for the expansion of the state partnership program with a think is so important to our country. i fully advocate elevating the position of the deputy chief of the national guard bureau to three-star rank and would happily support a future northcom commander in a guardsmen as well as key component commanders being guardsmen though i do not believe the law should go any further than that already doesn't specify which components hold which -- i 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 act legislation regarding full membership of the chief of the

national guard bureau on the joint chiefs of staff. the spirit of joint by the goldwater-nichols reform legislation is truly alive and has served our nation well and reflects the wisdom of the congress. i do not believe it needs to be fixed and we don't need to take a step backwards in the unity of effort that legislation did so much for bob. as jim dempsey said the service chiefs have great responsibility for manning, training and equipping both 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 may send a very positive message to the terrific men and women of the guard, and concern that it will send a negative message to

the remaining 46% of our nations reserve component that they are somehow of lesser importance and that future decisions could be taken at their expense. i hear that from some members of the title x reserve components who i'm -- whom i have asked. third some may believe that this legislation will provide a tangible benefit by empowering the guard with a vote on the jcs. mr. chairman i will tell you there is no voting process on the joint chiefs. instead we'll provide our best military advice to the chairman within four relays his advice to the secretary of defense into the president. we already receive fantastic but terry advice from general mckinley who as general dempsey said is always invited to that table. just as we do from the commandant of the coast guard who is also always invited to that table although the coast guard is not asking for similar legislation. in the end i'm not sure what is broke in and we are fixing it

but i also would assure u.s. 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 and brave active and reserve components. i thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. thanks again for your continued support and that of your staffs for a minute women in uniform and i look forward to your questions. >> admiral thank you so much. general odierno. >> thank you is your chairman, senator inhofe and other members of the committee. it's an honor to be here before you as always si today. i've had the opportunity both to my current position but in my previous positions to see first-hand the power and capabilities of the total army. the performance self service and

dedication of our active component army national guard and our army reserves all have contributed directly to our successes and i'm proud and humbled that i'm currently the chief of staff of the united states army. the total army. the reserve component connects army to then american people. the guard and reserve soldiers that live and work in over 3000 divinities have share the burdens of war with over 900 killed in action in more than 7500 wounded. they are a critical component of the joint force and connect us to main street america. we have built a strong relationship between all of our army components and i would argue probably the strongest we have ever had. it is our role to sustain and increase this moment some as we move forward. but with all due respect to the chief of the national guard bureau my good friend greg mckinley with whom i have the

utmost respect for and i work closely with on numerous critical issues, i am bound to communicate my explicit opposition to this post is a as a member of the joint chiefs of staff. first, representing only two of the six reserve components, the army national guard in the air national guard at the joint chiefs of staff bubble will create confusion, and balance and potentially challenge interoperability. it would run counter to enter service and intra-service integration and negatively impact the progress we have made toward jointness. second the proposed legislation would complicate the essential principle of civilian control of our nations military. this proposal risk creating a bifurcated force, one focused internally and another focused abroad. is important to have clear authorities and responsibilities to ensure effective employment of the total force. third, this could lead to divided or redundant force

management funding modernization and training and doctrine creating a high level of complication and friction. the reserve component forces will continue to play a critical role in our national security strategy and advice of the chief of the national guard bureau will always be as it has been extremely valuable and essential in the context of our total army in a balance joined portfolio. the integration of the regular army, the army national guard and army reserves has proven over the last decade to be unbeatable on the battlefield and a replaceable at home and abroad are gone now more than ever, we are truly one army and we cannot sacrifice the fact that we are truly one army as we face many critical challenges ahead. mr. chairman, members of the committee i thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you and for your support and i look toward your questions. thank you very much

mr. chairman. >> thank you very much general odierno. admiral greenert. >> thank you chairman webb and senator inhofe members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to comment on and it testify in a matter including the chief of the national guard bureau and a member of the joint chiefs of staff. i fully support continued participation by the guard bureau and joint chiefs deliberations particularly regarding issues that deal with the national guard. are national guard chief general mckinley who we do consider a brother has made notable input and provided valuable contributions to issues of importance to those of us serving in the department of defense. i think this relationship should continue. however in my opinion making the chief of the national guard bureau and member of the joint chiefs of staff adds unnecessary complexity to the principle of unity of command. unlike the service chiefs on 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 chiefs and their respective services. taking 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 reception could instigate an inequality among the national guard and it's army, marine corps and navy and air force reserve counterparts. i appreciate the committee's long-standing support for the men and women in the navy and i look forward to continuing to work with this committee as we address the challenges we face both as a nation and for a navy. thank you very much. >> thank you so much admiral. next, general aim is.

>> levin senator inhofe, i will committee members thank you for the opportunity to provide my advice on whether the chief of the national guard bureau should become a member of the joint chiefs of staff. in my view there should be no change to the status quo. at may 1 technology mccauley general craig mckinley the current chief of the national guard bureau for the many men and women who have faithfully served in our states national guard units. they have served their nation and their states well for many decades. for this and much more we owe them our great debt of gratitude. by virtue of the funds rolled the department of defense and the supporting role in the army and air force appears to chief of the national guard bureau lacks the requisite broad insight into all levels of strategic planning for jcs membership. additionally the chief of the national guard euros dual mission and stayed focused creates an unavoidable complex of interest inconsistent with

voting membership. innocents voting membership would introduce a irrefragable state interest into an inherently federal activity and process. the chief of the national guard bureau membership in the jcs could complicate command for both the army and the united states air force. congress intended the current structure ensures the service chiefs are singularly accountable to the executive of the legislative branches of the government for the combat readiness of their respective services. to include their reserve component. i think is critical we safeguard the unity of command. lastly the chiefs of staff of the army and air force are best suited to advise on the most effective deployment of their supporting elements. under law the national guard has the supporting relationship with army and air force when federalized as the reserve component. providing membership to the chief of the national guard bureau creates unnecessary leadership duplication when the

jay-z is contrary to congress's long-standing policy. this duplication could unfairly amplify air force and army cancers and creating representational and balance to the reserve components other than the national guard. the chief of the national guard bureau's advisory is adequate as it currently stands. thank you for the opportunities to offer my statement and i look forward to this. >> thank you general amos. >> mr. chairman center and often numbers the committee am grateful for the opportunity to offer my views today on behalf of men and women of the united states air force. i thank you for your ongoing support of our servicemembers and importantly their families. i join my colleagues and definitively stating that the chief of the national guard bureau is a very important senior leader under our total force construct. though its role in advising the

secretary of the air force directly and the secretary of defense through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the national guard bureau chief is a daily contributor to many of the consequential decisions that are made to at the total force leadership. title x of the united states code for provides the advisory role and preserves unified service leadership. this advisory role in the bureau chiefs relationship to each service continues to be important in this currently appropriate in the performance of organizing, training and equipping functions for which the service secretary and the service chiefs are singularly responsible. 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.

.. super advisory world of 30th fielded forces, who organize, train and equip personnel of all components of each service and who are responsible as force

providers to the combatant commanders. consequently, the national guard bureau achieves membership on the joint chiefs present issues concerning his or her recruit or your pole in offering it a sunday enslavement of the air force is a designated title x role. moreover beyond the established relationships among the military services, interactions with the inner agency and international part ourselves up the confused. existing law and policy provide approved peripherals and requirements for the chief of the national guard bureau. his or her authority as augmented by the gcs chairman standing invitation to the bureau chief to attend you that the chili cheese and ensure that the chief that the pair will continue to have these cowboys and will remain an essential and highly valued partner for any air force chief of staff richard

chiefs team. but for the foregoing reasons, the chief of the national guard bureau should not be included at the statutory voting member of the joint chiefs of staff independent of service leadership. mr. chairman, senator inhofe members of the committee cut my thank you for your time. we look forward to your questions in fma, i would like to publicly recognize in-state power admiration, respect for her teammates from the united states marine corps who celebrate their 236 birthday today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> happy birthday, general amos. >> we congratulate you and all the marines. thank you general schwartz. general mckinley. >> good morning, mr. chairman, let me take a point of personal

pride for causing the pbs schedule that will be seen tonight. we are soldiers honoring eight of your soldiers should the upper mid to. your relationship with the oklahoma national guard is one to be emulated as all the other members and all the distinguished members of this committee, it's an honor to be sitting before you today. to provide my opening comment on the matter and. i admire the chairman terry, very much. i can tell you that our relationship will not be broken by the testimony came in today and i thank them for the honor of letting me be part of this day as today. mr. chairman, for me to be here today to provide my personal views on whether the chief said the national guard here should remember the joint chiefs of staff, i figure believing on the

21st century after three years as chief of the national guard bureau and allow then total years 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 while the 2008 national defense authorization act and resulting dat initiatives make important fundamental changes in the role of the key to the national guard euro on the full joint chiefs of staff membership for the national guard bureau will ensure that the responsibilities and capabilities of the non-federalized national guard park in sydney and a plan and deliberate manner that is not based upon ad hoc or personal relationships, but is instead firmly rooted in the lot and the national strategy. the domestic mission of the national guard must be taken into account when making

military contingency plan when allocating scarce readiness resources and when advising the press may come as secretary of defense coming national old and homeland security council on strategies and contingency response options. homeland defense and civil support s.b. at the core of our national strategy due to the changing threat environment, one that is asymmetrical and more dangerous within our home lan than at any time in their history. it is for this reason that i played the chief of the national guard here should be a member of the joint chiefs of staff. carnations military planning and resource are the pathname printed my opinion. more comprehensive, more effect than more efficient. i do not personally support a change in the title x relationships among the services in the army and 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 air 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 adjunct general when the card is non-federalized. with the federal commanders when it is. nor does it increase the risk in my opinion of the over representation of any service at the highest levels of our military. rather, does it add to the gcs in an injury matter, the expertise and knowledge of the chief of the national guard bureau as it pertains to the national guard in its non-federalized role in the defense and safety of the homeland. in taking the chief of the national guard bureau is the

title x officer under the law and the dod or pertaining to the national guard should be counted on as the federal officer best posture to advise the gcs and client-side capabilities of the nonfederal national guard. i have read letters to the service chiefs submitted to your committee and i provided the chairman a copy of this deity direct disc, chairman of the joint chiefs on monday. these letters and comments focused directly or indirectly primarily on five discrete teams. budget authority, statutory advisory role as it currently exists that it is sufficient that the national guard could become a separate service or will be somehow it and to survey the other reserve components, and maintaining title x command authority and finally civilian oversight. in the area budget authority, the chief of the national guard bureau plans program and administers budgets of the army and international guard and

indirectly responsible for nearly $20 billion annually. i am the appropriation sponsor for the army national guard military personnel account and the international military personnel. by law, chief of the national guard is responsible for the budget income execution execution and accounting of these appropriations. the chief of the national guard bureau competes for common defense and validates requirements for the above appropriation and submits budget materials through the services to the department of defense. the chief of the national guard bureau is required to provide an annual finance report to congress that states how specific national guard appropriations funding was spent. in my regard as the statutory phrase there, is sufficient and significant difference between the chief of the national guard bureau's principal advisor authorities and the gcs member's military advisor authorities.

the jcs members advise the president, national security council, homeland undersecretary of defense. the jcs members may also submit advice or an opinion in addition to advice presented by the chairman. additionally, the president, nsc, homeland security council and secretary of defense may request advice directly from the jcs members in jcs members may make recommendations to congress after first informing secretary of defense. in contrast the chief of the national guard or advises the secretary of defense they see jcs and understood all the non-federalized national guard forces. the chief of the national guard bureau must declare an interest in order to have a voice on this limited matters without statutory gcs membership, chief of the national guard bureau's role in the gcs is ad hoc determined by each successive chairman. in regards to separate service

or advantage over other reserve component, the national guard is unique thanks to article i, section eight, clause 1516 of the united states constitution in title 32 of the u.s. code. it is unlike other reserve components which can perform title x duties under title x command authority. the national guard performs the same title x duties when federalized plus diverse nonfederal duties and state duties under state command authority. the command chance are unambiguous. the other reserve have no analysis to the non-federalized duties and command authorities. the nonfederal national guard mission include but are not limited to air defense, ballistic missile defense, weapons of mass destruction response, disaster response, counter drug support, border security, airport security and national special security events. in regards to uncleared title x

command authority, this issue discussed today in my opinion would not alter title x command authorities or accountability over federalized national guard forces. there would need no change to the title x authorities said the service secretaries or the service chiefs. conversely they would take on no new title 32 responsibilities. the chief of the national guard is not or would he be within the title x chain of command for title x national guard forces geared when federalized, national guard forces are it will remain under the command of federal commanders. total force integration would not be compromised. if anything it would be enhanced a greater situational awareness of title 32 national guard missions, capabilities and leadership on which the chief of national guard euro is uniquely qualified to advice. total force integration would also benefit from enhanced understanding of the homeland defense and civil support

missions. they are performed by non-federalized national guard forces. regards to civilian oversight. since 2008 under provisions of the deity direct it, chief of the national guard bureau is under the authority, direction and control of the secretary of defense. the secretary normally exercise his authority, direction and control to the secretaries of the army and of the air force for matters pertaining to responsibilities and mom were dod policy. to conclude, much has changed since 2008. the national guard bureau is now joining dignity of the department of defense and the chief of the national guard bureau has enhanced authority short of gcs membership and for those, we are very appreciative. and yet the chief of the national guard bureau still does not have an situational position from which i can advise the president, nsc, homeland security council and congress on non-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, national guard's non-federalized role in homeland defense and civil support missions will be fully represented in all gcs deliberations. this would not detract in my opinion in any way from its other critical gcs functions. without statutory membership on the gcs, chief of the board ability to participate in deliberations in solely by discussion of the chairman. i believe the rule should he established in law. and is fully shared by assistant secretary for home insecurity, paul mchale, who has consented to that they inform me that he liked me did not have this opinion several years ago, but

now agrees the chief of the national guard bureau should be made a full member of the gcs. in my role as the communication for the states, territories of the one virgin islands and puerto rico and district of columbia, i would be remiss without speaking on behalf or visit for adjunct general in a letter i would like to submit for the record, mr. chairman, the general had provided unqualified support replacing the chief of the national guard bureau on the gcs. i appreciate very much again sitting with these distinguished on them and any opportunity discussed this issue with you today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you are in much, mckinley. that will be made part of the record as well as his statement of senator rockefeller who also has his statement to be made part of the record. let's have a six minute first-round so we can perhaps i'll get a round in. there is a lot of this here before the votes and then if we

need a second round, we could take that. mr. johnston, let me ask you that a statement in your prepared statement where you say that the proposed legislation would alter some of the goldwater-nichols careful balance is by altering the fact that each of these services statutorily rep resentment in one service chief in the joint chiefs and providing only two of the department of defense is six statutory reserve components with additional joint chiefs are temptation. they also said that elevating the chief of the national guard europe to represent national guard equities to the joint chiefs of staff in your words could create legal confusion as to whether the army and air force chief of staff continue to rep resent their total force. now, can you tell us what

attentional legal confusion could result that you are referring to. >> 10 usc 10502 spells out the role of the national guard bureau in the chief of the national guard bureau. the chief of the national guard bureau in his advisory capacity has principally to functions. one is to advise the secretary of defense to the chairman on matters involving non-federalized guard. the second component of that is to be the advisor to the service leadership of the army and the air force on matters concerning the federal card. so the way this statute breaks it out 10 usc 10502, when we

talk about the card and federal status, the law contemplates that the chief of the national guard bureau bureau resent those interests to resent those interests to the service leadership and to the chiefs of staff of the army in the air wars. when we are talking about the state guard in the state guard role, the chairman -- the chief of the national guard bureau advises the secretary of defense in this legislation that you have before you will not change any of that. so if the chief of the national guard bureau is also a member of the joint chiefs, he is on the one hand and a year to general short and general odierno on matters concerning the federal guard. but he also has an independent

heat in the joint chiefs says an adviser to the president and secretary in the national security council in the same matters. in the national security council in the same matters. in the national security council in the same matters. an issue of dual representation. second, as they think the chairman alluded to, when the chief of the national guard bureau is it dicing with respect to the non-federalized national guard come to representing the interest of the state national guard who are commanded by the governor of each of those states. so it creates a dynamic, which i am not saying this necessarily wrong or right, but it creates a dynamic where the assurance that the state card, the governors has a seat at the joint chiefs, advising the president and the national on the secretary of

defense. >> this is perhaps a related question to you, general mckinley. under title x, chief of the national guard bureau is the principal adviser among others to the chief of staff and the chief of staff of the air force on matters relating to the national guard come the army national guard of the united states in the air national guard. my question is this. is there not an inconsistency with an adviser participating as an equal with the principles in these advising that he would he is a member of the gcs along with the chief of staff of the army chief of staff of the airport. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the best way to answer that is to look at the empowerment act in the nba at 2008, which established the deity direct to the secretary gave 92,008 direct in the conduct of my job. if i could read from the organization management piece, which are referred to as his

chief national guard person at the authority direction and control of the secretary of defense. the secretary normally exercise of his authority and direction to the army and air force for matters pertaining to the response ability in law. in the second section of the two referred to is that as a principal adviser to the secretary of defense through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, it allows me and directs me to advise on matters involving non-federalized national guard for his geared so i think the answer to your question is in my opinion, my personal opinion it doesn't raise inconsistencies wearing that hat in this deity direct to following the nba at 50,008 gave me the authority to do just what i addressed in my opening statement. >> general dempsey, in your opening statement you made reference to the fact that the

services have never been closer to the reserve on his and separating them by title risks unnecessary -- creating unnecessary friction in the ranks. can you tell us why it isn't what you meant when you said that separating the reserve components from the service is create unnecessary friction in the ranks? >> thank you, senator. the issue for me is called one of branding. to say soldiers see himself as a soldier? disregard installed a soldier first recurs at first? to me where we are today as a force is we are where we are because we have all seen ourselves as branded by a single service chief and his subordinate leaders into soldier

sailor, airman and coast guard than. i am just not sure that establishing cautions notwithstanding, i think that the way this will resonate through the forest -- forget about the leadership you see before you, but the way this could resonate through the floors is that we kind of separate ourselves and our brand is no longer is clear and defined as we'd like it and needed to be. >> okay, thank you. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recall general mckinley, back when we are working on the 09 nda committee issue at that time was a three-star versus four start. i was strange to remember him to remember him talking to misstep a minute ago about what the arguments were.

i do recall the perception argument that those in the field and i heard that firsthand, but also recall that -- i got the impression that if we made that change and that within conine, that that would resolve a lot of these problems. i didn't care that we would want to come along with another change in the relationship. do you remember that originate to comment as to what benefits came a change and not from a three to four start? >> thank you, senator inhofe. i honestly took this position in november 2008. i was the beneficiary of the legislation that passed before he became chief of the national guard bureau cared much has improved and much has been given to me in terms of my access to the chairman and to participate in nature and meaning affecting the services, national guard,

army. i do remember that discussion of the grade and i do work closely with the reserve component sheets come in dirt damian minnie beavers serve. steve hummer and the marine corps reach their. it is important in the air force reserve not to get imbalanced. i would just suggest that the 468,000 members of the national guard who reside in the states and territories looked to me as their representative in channel communications to the department of defense. but the willingness of the meant getting before you to allow me to communicate and conduct discourse with them and to interact with them has significantly improved since i became chief of the bureau in 2008. >> general of year now, tomorrow i am going back to your old place, where you started in the

70s and have had several tumors they are. i'll be participating in the veteran celebration tomorrow morning. and i know that they will be discussing this at that time. the question i would have a few of because after asking you, i want to ask general shorts the same thing. have you seen in terms of the army the guard fading side-by-side with you guys, with any difference in equipment or capability or resources between the guard and the duty army? >> senator, i would tell you is made great strides over the last seven to 10 years in improving the cape ability, more importantly equipping of the national guard. in their assessment by october 2012, the national guard will achieve for a total acquit in necessary and will be at 92.5%. so i'd think that says it sends

a strong message about how we've been able to equip. i would just comment that understanding the total army, we have to have all these different components. you have to have an active component ready and prepared to respond immediately and we made our national guard prepared and capable of responding and worked together at all times. we been able towards that over the last several years. i think we've gotten a great solution as their army has contacts with many, many deployment. and i worry that we will lose the one single voice that has driven us here if we move forward. >> i want to ask a question on the equipment of the quality resources used, are they the same? >> they are. >> general shorts i ask you the same thing because i remember because i met it in aviation i

can remember some time ago when we were at the thought to in the f-16 and you have the two engines who were the 220 and the 229 having greater threats. when the plaintiffs are necessary, as i recall, it was the state of oklahoma and the state of ohio, where they were not able to get for their deployment to 229 engines, which provide a greater threat. as a result of that in and going from memory now, i believe they deployed together as a unit into only the 229 term ohio and from oklahoma. which was a disparity in how they are treated in terms of equipment. i would say number one is a memory correct? number two, has that been correct? >> senator inhofe, generally speaking, the equip is generally at the duty, the card in the reserve is common. there are some anomalies with

regard to the aircraft consideration based on maturity and so on and so forth. we have not corrected or normalized every single configuration in everyone of our aircraft, but i think the point is that the air guard and united states air force is always been an operational reserve. it has always shared the same readiness with thereat to duty and force reserve counterparts. that is still the case and is certainly conviction going forward. >> but there is a disparity in that particular aircraft. >> sera, there is a different dimension. 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. >> were in better shape now however that then?

>> absolutely. and i too agree with that, general mckinley? >> will work closely and trying to achieve the proper balance and equip each of our national guard. i can attest over my 30 years in the air force at the air guard today has the oldest legacy fleet and its history and i am concerned, as i am sure the chief staff of the air force is over future modernization plan so that we can have the balance force that is made the air force and the international guard so close throughout history. i am concerned about the future of capitalization of the air national guard. >> my time is up, but i would like for the record and writing at a later time if you would respond to three of the witnesses talked about the confusion -- the work confusion. i would like to have the respond, for the record on that particular issue.

>> inks, senator. >> senator lieberman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all of you for being here. i guess i would say on this interesting and important question in a minor member of the open-minded caucus because i am undecided. this discussion has really been very helpful. i wanted to get on the record just some basic facts. maybe you will start with you. what is the number of personnel in the army and air guard? >> we have approximately 460,000 combined >> hotbed in the other observed components? what is the number they are? >> deal and commit to memory as the army reserve and that's about 250. >> for the air force, 71,000 air force reserve, 106,000 in the air national guard.

>> admiral, how about the reserve? >> 65,000, senator. >> general amos klatt >> 39,600,000,000 users. >> pretty definitive answer ratepayer. thank you. >> clearly there is a larger number and the army card, but there is not inconsequential numbers in the reserve components as well. obviously some of us about the coast guard reserve, which is another part of the reserve component. let me ask this question. i think i am probably focused here because those the homeland security committee and want to begin this discussion with you, general mckinley. we start with the understanding that the other reserve could comments don't have nonfederal

respond abilities >> yes, sir. >> this is an interesting issue as i'm sure you all know because from our home states, we are getting tremendous support for putting the national guard bureau commander chief on the joint chiefs of staff. and there is a lot of support in congress, but obviously there's a lot of opposition in the military. one of the unique functions here -- i want you to talk about it more than you did in your opening statement, is what i call homeland defense missions that are part of the cards responsibility. disaster response, border security, et cetera. some of the discussions i have had with folks at home about us i think involve a concern that those homeland defense missions,

which are obviously critical to national security are not receiving sufficient attention from the joint chiefs now and if you were on the joint chiefs, they would receive more attention. so i want you to respond or say anything about the unique function in the mass. general dempsey if you speak from the perspective of the chief bs. general mckinley. >> think that i am not critical by the army air force. i think it is the unique capability of the national guard his relationship to the 54 who work for the governors that intricate and delicate relationship that allows me to rewrite the best in the day should be a focal point. our intergovernmental relationships with >> coming ths, custom and border protection, those types of

relationships built at the community level are significant and i wouldn't expect, but wouldn't be surprised if the chief said the services know a lot about it. they think we are uniquely qualified with our rules entitle 32 data dtd to operate in statuses in several states they represent. >> so would you say that is one of the major reasons why use it for putting chief of the national guard here on the joint chiefs? >> as i set my opening statement, and that is where a zero win on is to institutionalize the role of the national guard bureau chief in becoming a spokesperson for the chairman coming to the secretary of defense to give my best military advice when asked if so we don't miss the heat in this very new age asymmetric -- i got it right this time, a semester challenges that face our nation. >> general dempsey.

the mac remember the joint chiefs are statutorily response well for this saturday's torsion of our defense. the jcs would normally give advice through northern commands, so you may want to ask. >> and the point they are is north com, the impact statement if he will pick craig is talking about right now would come to us through the service chiefs. the joint chiefs would compare the impact on the services with the demand that would be reticulated by your com and we would figure out what to do. this adds another voice into the mix that frankly i don't believe we need. >> admiral, i would've died she mentioned this on the direct point to impose a second kind of question for you. it is true that as general dempsey just said that the joint chiefs of staff obviously has hocus responsibility for the

overseas responsibility. on the other hand, the very reconstitution of northern command involved post-9/11 an assumption that some response ability for homeland defense and the pentagon that was a big different than before. would you agree and how does that reflect this matter we are discussing this morning? >> senator, 9/11 was certainly a wake-up call that was the genesis of northern command. nhs rep resent as to whether cocom's for the various regions of the world, representatives jeter in terms of what the title x need dark, whether it is intelligence or action the ground or readiness david had few and he does a good job of that current commander. i can't speak for the last commander.

in partnership with the department of homeland security, davis and essential partnership they are it does have the ability to respond in the disaster for your position as the chairman of that committee. we have a number of robust relationships they would point out the wisdom of the congress in encouraging and work with the governors were retained very good advice and guidance frankly from department of governors. and i also would tell you get great advice from craig on matters that have to do it title 32 stay that did duty in house of cards like other reserve components and other components of the military to the homeland security. i think we have a pretty good situation where we get the advice they need. we have a good commander in the field. i am not sure what's broken and we need to fix. we have a good system going on.

>> thank you. my time is up, mr. chairman. >> senator brown. >> will be able to submit questions? >> we also can have a second round if we need it as you suggest questions for the record will be welcomed. >> i am looking at a letter from general amos and chief green and paragraph 3 of the letters sent that cn gb does not represent a branch of service nor are they responsible for organizing, and manning, equipping the service chiefs. i respectfully disagree pursuant to obviously the dod directives was once abilities of what the card is. they are responsible for cradle-to-grave planning program, budgeting and execution that provides the president's budget submission for each of the eight ppm, which goes to

congress and validates requirements and provides financial reports to congress. in fact, service chiefs don't have the budget responsibility. this very misstatement in your letter they are quick >> senator, the point that a snake eating 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 had legitimating offices in the navy who do similarly that you just listed there. >> he said specifically they have been not responsible at all. in fact that's not correct. that being said, out of a gears a little bit. mr. johnson, you indicated that he thought maybe would create confusion as to who represents the army and air force. i have referenced letters in general dearness confusion,

imbalance obvious he general schwartz confusing lines of authority and you can't assert, admiral greener greener complicated complicated unity of command. is there really any question as to what the chain of command is that the joint chiefs? obviously general mckinley would go through general odierno and i say general schwartz for general dempsey. there is no chain of command breach at all. i think it's very clear. in addition to that there is no question they want to change. i don't think the garter general mckinley is seeking to change that at all. he wants and i believe -- i want to speak for him, but i guess i'll just ask you come you don't want to change the title x command authority at all, do you? >> as i set my opening remarks come as working well.

>> there's a reason yet to go through the chain of command, as they are quick >> i have no confusion. >> with regard to the total force integration, would that be benefited by you having a seat at the table? >> it is improved greatly and can only get better. >> is there any question to you in your capacity would be the person that would best advised not only in any capacity to service chiefs or anybody on the domestic mission and lebanon federalist units would be a lot to do in light of the homeland security issues that were facing? is there anyone else better qualified than you and your crew passed the to do that? >> these are all talented gentleman in front of you commissary. it is my role and responsibility to be that person. >> i would agree with you. just to follow-up on that

senator in have said, general schwartz, on the fighter aircraft issue, is very fair statement that due to the effort to save money with the air force, the card units will be eviscerated and especially -- i have heard and others have commented that the tax can't gain access to the plan is to look things will be effect in 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 as to what the plan is for the air force? >> senator brown, and that's the name of the joint chiefs. but beyond that, the reality is that the air national guard is going to be eviscerated, so whether you did duty in the reserves. we are getting smaller together. that is what is underway here. and i would emphasize a point

that we are now the smallest air force we've ever been. and because of that, those reductions that occurred because the diminishing resources which we all face will be shared to other components. >> it's interesting. that's another reason why we need to get back to work. so it doesn't come in and affect them more. you know what this reminds me of him doing history and being in the military is understanding the relationship it's remembering in the navy. they need, this is very similar. aiming, the navy -- i'm sorry, the marines -- we have general amnesty without tremendous respect for that table in it he does always budgeting to the navy and everything basically flows through the navy to him in some respect.

>> we do the department of the navy. i'm an equal service chiefs along with nato operation that controls the budget. >> how is that different from general mckinley won in the same opportunity you have into the guard. how would that be any different? >> i can't speak to the budgeting of the guard aspect paper than a service for 236 years. in the marine corps got a seat at the table in 1870, we've been spending the nation status battles of the service for over 200 years. that is different. the card is not a service. >> well, my tennis. i have other questions. i too get to a meeting to combat. and looking for definitive grants as well. >> thank you on the senator brown. senator reid. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general mckinley, your reputation for professionalism, skill and seizure. thank you for your service. having to be so visiting the

43rd police brigade in afghanistan, 143rd air lift in afghanistan the service of the national guard, army and air is not only commendable but essential to nation security. as i look at 10502, the first step is getting recommended that governors. is that correct? >> the process by which they select achieved does require that governors nomination. that's correct. >> the head affectively, some governor is going to have to be the nominee -- nominator or veto a bad joint chiefs of staff. is that correct? >> the initial submission of the name goes to departments of the army and air force preventing invasive mates in a mischievous secretary of defense so they can recommend to the president. that is my understand of the process commissary.

>> as the logos, the governor were essentially recommend the national guard bureau chief, who will it is statute passed the member of the joint chiefs of staff. some to announce governor she selects a member of the joint chiefs of staff and the fact. >> it is correct, sir, we hold dual statuses in the national guard. we must be confirmed as a federal officer or member of the state. you're right. >> would you be at first eliminating the gubernatorial back to nation is statute would create a position on the joint chiefs of staff, which i don't see a gubernatorial, particularly since this kind of a random process of which government would be doing it. which object his changes? >> senator, i thank the chairman can establish the process to pick a successor.

go finish my term in 2012 severe on the verge of doing that. i have no objections to doing that. >> c. would not object to eliminating a gubernatorial recommendation for the chief of the national guard euro? >> i personally would not. >> to let me ask you, to what extent do you have the authority over the actual budgets of the nonfederal unit and the actual policies of the nonfederal unit that you advising the joint chiefs have? >> as they work within the service line with their staff in washington to the air national guard readiness center which work with the army and air force as they prepare the budget, once those budgets are proved, we are given the fence and push this out to the states. >> sees talk about federal funds, which we approve the. i am talking about nonfederal activities. do you increase the spending or

configuration of the forces? >> now, that they are responsibilities. so you'll advise nonfederal function, which you have no with dority to affect underground? >> the constitutionality of my role at the event that governors and adjuncts general decide what small percentage of the budget are given to this day. it is large for comments the funds funds, 90% which are federal funds given to the guard. >> federal funds we provide in anticipation of unit being fed her life to federal mission and i don't think you dispute this within the chain of command of the service chiefs and general dempsey and secretary of defense. we met the federal mission and says he stated. >> way, but as i understand this whole procedure to keep youth access about states missions,

which you don't have any control that because you can't force them to change the budget. you can't force them to take reticular pico. you have no say in who is running the show. in fact, there is one date in which this tag is select it by popular vote. one state elected by the assembly. just to raise serious questions about what you're going to do on the joint chiefs issue cannot too effectively or perhaps my affectively now? >> clinic with simply by saying that they can come you have done a superb job. and your colleagues in the card in the research and i -- genomic bride and i was vascular unit tees commanding the police brigade. i knew this was one on me. and one air force. and we want to get this right. i think there's some serious questions here. thank you very much.

>> thank you. senator ayotte. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to follow general amos on what senator brown had asked you about. isn't it true that in 1878 the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff oppose having the commandant of the marines be a member of the joint chiefs of staff? >> senator, i don't know whether he did or not. i know it became law in 1978. >> well, if i would represent to you, act were all trained for the your predecessor admiral holloway and admiral hayward at the time opposed having the commandant of the marines before the chairman of joint chiefs of staff, i assume you disagree with that position now. >> i certainly would, senator. >> ice in having the commandant is valuable in the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and

that it has not resulted in any confusion on the role of the navy with respect to marine corps and advice in the chairman. >> no, ma'am, it is not. the man to have any reason to believe that 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 joint chiefs of staff? >> general mckinley may not. most of my concern stated is really what is in the fours. how did the force via? is there clarity of the unity of command? who is ultimately accountable for the budgeting, the source of the budget to the congress, to the secretary of defense? it's really a lot of what chairman dempsey stated before. it is very clear how we can work together. what is the perception out there

and perhaps confusion? >> i certainly have great confidence in all of you in a tremendous service that you have that whatever decision the congress makes that it will be very clear to our servicemen and women as to the chain of command and you all were together and we deeply appreciate it. general dempsey i want to comment on something winnefeld have stated. these are the potential of making the commander and not fair? >> i do, but i would also add that i would rather not affect the legislative because it is my job to find the best athlete available into growth via least competitive cheetahs jobs. >> it would be appropriate to have a guard officer?

>> yes. the next general dempsey, do you think would be right to bring forward the national defense authorization act for the first time in 50 years in the history of our country this year? >> now, senator, i vanquished at a national defense authorization act as soon as possible. >> and is that important to our military into a canny to accomplish? >> it is, senator. >> thank you emissary. general sorts, on a different topic and i feel the need to ask about this. i am deeply troubled by the reports about what's happened at the mortuary at dover air force base and i'm sure you would agree with me. this is outrageous that remains of our soldiers would be put in a landfill and not treated with appropriate dignity and honor, which they deserve. can you tell me where we are but

as in how we are going to ensure that this never happens again and most importantly, those who have purchased the pages in this outreach will be held accountable? >> senator piatt, let me clarify the allegation about putting remains in the landfill. these proportions. prior to 2008, which were sent away from the mortuary to the funeral home for cremation, which is an authorized benefit 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 another close port company for

incineration so you had cremation and incineration and it was at that point that this medical support organization placed the residuals from that out for to a 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 your v. it has been that way since 2008. it will continue to be that way in the future. and that may just conclude by saying the secretary of the air force, mike donnelly and i take personal responsibility for this

our obligation is to treat our fallen with reverence and dignity and respect and provide the best possible support and care for their families. that is our mission. the people that did not fulfill her dictation were disciplined and there is no doubt what our expert patients are today. >> well, general short, i appreciate your updating on that and you know, when i think about the fact we had veterans day tomorrow, mrs. ellen parsons that we treat the remains of our fallen dignity injuries facts and i know you share that fairness while. and please note that members have the committee will be fair to support you in any way to make sure that the families now that we certainly won't allow this to happen again.

thank you. >> thank you, senator ayotte. senator akaka. >> thank you frame much of it, mr. chairman. i would like to add my welcome comments our very distinguished panel of witnesses that we have. on the eve of veterans day. i thank you and the men and women you meet in serving our country. i've read most of you are opposed to updating the card era of cheap to the jcs. i want you to know that while i disagree on this issue, i have complete respect for you but i'll let you hold. it may take a moment to say that understandably, change is not

always is a welcome concept and an abolition of joint chiefs of staff has been significant opposition to structural changes. however, there is precedent in changing the composition of jcs to account for readiness, policy and budgetary issues. for example, in 1953, president truman signed the love to have the commandant of the marine corps to the jcs two related issues. it was insurer sought that time that several years later the commandant was elevated to full 13 member status. today, i think we would all agree that making commandant devoted member was correct