>> thank you very much, chair. dear colleagues, dear commissioner, i completely share the concerns which have been raised by all political groups here, and i would like to say that it's not only data protection. it's not only small technical

issue. this is about the rule of law and about democracy. because both of them are not in line with mass civilian. they cannot be in line with mass surveillance of citizens of people all around the world. so we need to stand appeared to say clearly combat surveillance is not what we want to have. and we need strong a protection rules. we needed as a precondition for democracy, rule of law, and also for security and trust in the digital market or in the market as a whole. so, therefore, it's a very good issue that we react as europeans with creating our own standards on data protection, safeguarding the rights of our citizens in the first place, and decide as quickly as possible on the proposed regulation on data protection with strong standards. also with regard to transfer, because this is about companies protesting personal data, mass

personal data, and then giving the opportunists -- [inaudible] to access them. if we really want to help, we need to make sure that we have strict and strong eu data protection rules which are then also enforceable and which create clear rules, only that will help. for the framework agreement on data protection with the yes, i really think i would like to work on it and i would like to agree on standards with the united states, but therefore we need movements on the other side of the atlantic. we need some legislation. we need someone situated changes. because without legislative change we will not come to a common basis. thank you very much. >> thank you very much also. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the debate here today is about increasing the

trust and faith of citizens and holding to account governments and agencies that serve and protect them. those companies already named and chained have so far to acting outside the law. governments and the european commission have expressed concern. we've heard this morning, but rightly acknowledge that it is apparently too early to draw final conclusions. yet here we are already pointing the finger, some of you already expressing strong anti-american or anti-commission rhetoric that is all too familiar, as is the opportunism and grandstanding without pausing to gather facts or proof. because this is no stranger in the practice of convicting a defendant before the trial, this parliament is currently working hard on reforming its protection rules and it is still pursuing agreement on data exchange with the united states. something which i and my group

support. key to its success of being able to protect our citizens beyond our own borders is our relationship with other countries. yet i would caution that often the way in which some members of the house articulate themselves with little to bring us together on values, but instead pushes us further apart. protecting citizens from modern threats is a balancing act. intelligence agencies are often lambasted for not acting soon enough, and then equally condemn for going too far. their successes are celebrated in private, but their failings are only two public. increasingly, as we know, terrorists and organized criminal groups use information and technology against innocent citizens. therefore, there must be an expectation that the same technology will be used in our response.

but that information must, of course, be used and respected within the confines of democratic principles and legal oversight. we must understand that we do not gain more freedoms by taking others away, and that our greatest asset will always be the rule of law. that is why sometimes it is necessary for us politicians to remind those with less visible power that ensuring freedom and the safety of our citizens must not come at the ultimate price of sacrificing democracy. but it might also be worth some people in this room remembering who the real enemy is and where it is. and when we do with allies, when we want answers and the truth, that friends listen most when you talk and not when you shout. thank you, president. >> thank you very much. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much. dear commissioner, about the

secret prison program, the nsa, the agency since 2007 has been harvesting information and assisting information on our citizens. all electronic imitations passing through american channels. which shows that they are violating the privacy and our rights. we must not admit the spying on european citizens illegal monitoring, it is illegal. [inaudible]. would have access to this type data through the u.s.

government, yet violated eu legislation and we have to investigate this issue and we have to adopt the same measures and sanctions against these companies which would apply to others who violate our rules. the paranoid behavior of our american partners is regrettab regrettable. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you, madam president. hearing you speak, commission, [inaudible]. the british press is revelation many concerned, the fact that all of us apart from a small

handful have been asking for some time since 1996. in may 2010 the president told us himself how well the u.s. constitution protects its view of citizens rights. thanks to snowden we know that the nsa has access to the services of at least nine major internet companies. now, they are saying we didn't know this at all. we examine the request very carefully. the source of greatest concern to us is something so far obama has said. this isn't a confession. he said this quite cold. he said internet surveillance does not -- [inaudible] or people living on u.s. territory. a judge has to authorize surveillance.

we have the proof here that anybody else can be put under surveillance. european citizens do not enjoy this image of citizens. data is being gathered in bulk without any way of -- [inaudible]. we can't anymore allow our negotiators to come back having achieved absolutely nothing. [inaudible] to have their data protected. the situation has been going on far too long. that evidence, the fact is it's perfectly clear.

we must make sure that you us respects the privacy rights of european citizens. thank you. >> the next speaker as one minute. >> ladies and gentlemen, what would you say if u.s. secret services was watching night and day, tapping your data and recording it? you wouldn't be happy with that, but that's what they're doing with internet traffic of millions of people. this house issues possible for the protection of fundamental rights. this program breaches human basic rights. what i'm going to do? when it came to swift and the enough, we were taken for a ride by the u.s. authorities. that cannot be. it's time that we grasp the medal here, that would lift of our responsibilities and put our minds to ending the program.

we should instigate an inquiry to see what legal implications arise from the program, what european secret services have benefited from the date. europe, for example, and finally we should have u.s. represents and cited to this house to be accountable to it. the way we're going out is just leading the way from free democracy. >> finally i will give the floor to commissioner borg for his concluding remarks. >> thank you very much, madam president, and the commission i must say shares the european parliament's concerns of this prison scandal and i show inform you of our discussion today. i must also state that mrs. reading would address these comments on the 19th of june, which means that she will not only discuss and defer with the

committee which will take place, until that day but will also refer to the committee on her negotiations and her meetings in government next friday. next friday in dublin, and we will also request from united states, attorney general holder. >> this was a good debate, madam president. and there were two thoughts which are not contradicted to each other. one of them is that we should clarify things with my state and make it clear that whenever a european citizen information is concerned, european rules should apply, and that we are not happy with the level of protection of data information from the united

states come in particular, "the guardian." [inaudible] with which information could be accessed by the very person who has leaked this information. and thank he said the government has granted -- the government has granted itself power. it is not entitled to. there is no public oversight. the result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to. so we are entitled to our questions on whether this has been done with regards to european citizens. at the same time, i appreciate mr. kerr colts remarks, that let

us not forget, and i can comment as a form minister for 10 years, what was the fight against organized crime be without the collection of proper intelligence? but the frustration of very law enforcement agency is it's not the frustration, it is a difficult result the that is why terrorists and organized crime have no rules to go by, law enforcement agency in a democratic rule of law cannot use anything but the gloves off law in order to fight terror. which is why i appreciate the comments of those who have said we have a special relationship with our u.s. partners.

we have important investigations regarding prevention of terrorism through information with a partnership but no one should use this special relationship, not to abide by the law. and not to abide by international standards. so this is a fine balancing act of retaining this partnership. but because it is a partnership, it is not only a right but deeper obligation. because if the relationship is special, then the obligations should be special as well and no one should be taken for granted ask i appreciate also your comments on these issues. bear in mind also what he said about who the proper enemy is. and i would like also to recall that in the context of the proposal for the reform of data

protection, appreciate the positive comments have been made by members as to the importance of adopting this new practice proposed. the commission has made it clear that the application of laws by these countries may be in breach of international law and established his the reformist osha's what should be used. the commission is ready to consider any improvement the european parliament would make necessary in this respect because while we need to work together for a swift adoption of the package that some of the member states would like to see the light. it is our common interest to work hand in hand in the direction, more so in the of these recent developers. thank you. >> up next, the history and operations of the u.s. national guard. and senate finance committee chairman max baucus and david

can't talk about tax policy. and the senate is back in this morning for more work on immigration legislation. live senate coverage here on c-span2. >> the director of the national security agency keith alexander told a senate panel last week that the agency's phone service programs has helped stop terrorist plots in the u.s. this month, general alexander is expected to go into more detail at a house intelligence committee hearing. watch live coverage at 10 eastern on c-span3. and later in the they also on c-span3, president obama's pick to head the federal communications commission, thomas with them will testify at a confirmation hearing. that is live at 2:30 p.m. eastern from the senate commerce committee. >> it was essential to remove as

it became have the opportunity to achieve its independence. and 50 people led by franklin recognized the possibilities for america to become a great country. let me put it in different words want to set a moment ago. the american achievement, people of two-and-a-half million free people and half-million slaves, for them in effect to get the british to prevent the french from their borders and then the french to help them evicted the british, too many but the two greatest powers in the world, was a huge achievement. >> conrad black on emerged athena states as a world power, saturday at 7 p.m. eastern, part of booktv this weekend on c-span2's. >> now, a conversation on national guard capabilities and operations.

the center for strategic and international studies hosted this our 40 minute event. please note some of the language used at this event may be offensive to some viewers. >> thanks everybody. i played on an ornamental roll this morning, which usually mild whites laugh when i said that. welcome everybody. like to have your. this is part of the military strategy forum and i want to say sincere thanks to our friends at rolls-royce are able to make possible for us to bring this to the policy committee. from my the question i think is the first time we've had the chief of the bureau do. and i'm glad for that. part of it i think it's quite opportune from a time standpoint because as everybody knows there is a giant war being fought every day inside the pentagon,

and it's over money. this happens. it happened a lot when i was over there. it's quite intense and now because we're in this, well, we don't have a national debate. frustrated by the. there should be a national debate over what we're doing. we are just having a lopsided discussion where we don't really have the substance brought to the table about the meaning of cutting these budgets. i think we have to be honest to say there's great damage that's being done to the defense department. had breakfast this morning with a very senior guy within the intelligence community. i'm alarmed what's happening in the intelligence community, but this is a broad debate we are having and is part of what we're doing today is to try to stimulate a debate. but were also taking a special focus on the role of reserve

components. the guard and reserves. this as everyone knows is a long-standing source of both strength but tension in the department. i grew up in a little town, everyday walk past the guard armory to go to school. i grew up having t declared. it was a presence in my life when i was a kid. we had to close the guard unit and out of but have to drive 30 miles to get to the guard unit. we lost ours, but we had our own guard unit and it was part of the cultural fabric in my hometown. and i remember back when we went to war in iraq come back in 1991, you know, the president since the defense department to war in august. but america didn't go to war

until anywhere, and that was when all of the guard units around the country were being mobilized. we go down to the courthouse, families with high little yellow ribbons on trees because their you know, their guards went. that was when america went to war. and it's one of the things that honestly, the active military doesn't appreciate. they don't understand how profoundly the guard and reserves connect america to the military. we have become a small military relatively. it's those communities that routinely see people in uniform, we don't routinely see this in america. you see in washington, but you go, back in sioux falls, south dakota, you don't see guys walking around in uniforms. most places you'll see them walking in uniform. if you do, they are guardsman.

now, the significance of that is this this way that america stays connected. with its military. now, it's a source of frustration for our active duty friends, our active duty components. because they see themselves in a very different way. they see themselves as being at work every day to finish the country in a look at the guard as being, defending the country on weekends. it's not true. guardsmen are out every day. i think one of the histories of these last 10 years is the remarkable, the remarkable capacity of the reserve components to step up for this fight. four or five times when i got to iraq, you couldn't tell, you couldn't tell who was active and he wasn't. the remarkable thing is to concentrate on all sides say to my good friends in the reserve components, you couldn't exist without the active duty. the active duty is the foundation for you. it's essential that this be a

constructive partnership. and if we continue to have once a divisive and brutal battle over the edges of the problem, we're going to undermine what's essential to the whole. so the purpose of this and the purpose to have you, general grass, was to bring this perspective because i know your spirit. you're a member of the joint chiefs and you're sitting there side by side working with their counterparts on all of the issues. not just guard issues if this is i think part of what's going to heal us together when we go through these wrenching debate, which we are having right now, i have we're going to resource the reserve components in the whole as we design a strategy for all of us. i'm grateful to have you here. get a, would you please join, and would you please, with your applause, please welcome general frank grass. [applause] >> doctor henry, thank you so much. your comments were right on

track with what we're doing with today. and i do appreciate the opportunity to be here with such a distinguished audience. ladies and gentlemen, coming in, it's not often you get a chance to talk to folks from all different disciplines that mena necessary know who the guard is today, or you may have a lot of conduct with the guard officer but i see a great opportunity to talk to you and hopefully you will take away from this discussion as well as the panel session some great, great pieces for the future. i think it is something we need input from a lot of different segments of our think tanks, government, as well as what we do and everything in the pentagon that's in uniform. we have to think out of the box of where we're going for the future. i wanted to start out though as i look through a distinguished audience and the backgrounds and

where you all come from and i thought it might be worthwhile for me to start by talking about the national guard is here where to become from and a little bit about what was happening pre-9/11 with the guard. because we were going in the '80s and '90s, going through a transformation of it. that was quite accelerated after 9/11 and some of the missions we do today. but then we're going to need to change for the future and that's really where i look forward to comments, your help for the future of how should we change, how should the active and the guard, reserve mix come out of this in the end, and take away from our last 12 years of experience and cost savings and say okay, what's the right mix of the active component versus reserve component going into the future? i thought i would start out just some real basic numbers. national guard was stood at 376 years ago, massachusetts bay colony's, the militia, to defend their homeland. to be able to fight small

companies were stood up at that time. so we tieback our grounding to the organization up in the northeast and we split eventually to all 54 states, territories and the district of columbia. the numbers today and we were at 358,000 army guardsmen. that number is going to go down to 350,200 as part of the drawdown. 350,000 right around there is where we were pre-9/11 so we're going back to about where we were. if you look at the historical trends, the guard is that at about 350 for public the last two to three decades, right around it. it's bumped up and have a little bit here and there but for the most part 350, maybe a little above the. on the air guard site, they were at 105,700 as a part of the '13 budget discussions, some of you heard the debate that's going on and there's a senate commission going on right now, that number will go down to 105,400.

the interesting thing as dr. hamre said though is we are still in close to 3000 unities across the nation. so when you mobilize the guard, you're touching the communities. everyone knows someone from your hometown. and the heavy opportunity in the last few weeks ago and went out to moore, oklahoma, and walk the devastated area of the tornado went through and where the children were killed in the school come and talk to residents. and governor fallin, she was with me all afternoon and he adjutant general. but everywhere we went, people were thinking the guard are coming in and supporting the first is bug. of course, we made it very clear that the league, the lead organization there was the fire chief and the police chief and the ambulance and the hospitals, but our folks were there. and everyone knew someone. a new specialist smith from down the smith that immediately put

on his uniform and showed up at his honor and ready to go. a new specialist jones and sergeant aurora and all those names. they came in right away, left their jobs. they knew there was a devastation that would require the guard to be used, and governor fallin basically announce right off the bat to the adjutant general, moving, get ready to go. but coordinate closely with the state emergency managers as those with the locals. so when you touch the committee like that, that's the foundation as dr. hamre said. people knew th those armories, w where the people were from. i went up to boston and met with governor patrick come and we talked through how you respond to something like the boston event, bombing. and the city of boston, very proud first responders, great police force. but how do you bring in the car to support that?

and then how do you do it without pushing too far? and it starts with advice. advice from the governor, advice from the adjutant general. and we had 45 450 national guardsmen supporting the marathon. we had some that were actually marking the marathon and a neatly switched gears from even a security force or a participant marching in a statement of the to and responded to and a step-by-step. but it was their hometown. it was the people they grew up with they were responding to. so that brings in a close tie that there's no way you can ever replace that. so i think the 3000 unities that we touch are extremely important. wanted to talk briefly about our pre-9/11 posture, and how we, and probably the '80s we began to transition a bit.

in the '80s we started to see some of our first equipment modernization in the guard. we also began to see our regional training institutes stand up, '80s and '90s. we saw overseas deployment opportunities. example, 1985, national guard task force minuteman into panel. 1986, big bear going into honduras. the new infrastructure, the new medical support to the population, to work with either those military or those defense forces by the ministry of education or help with those organizations. we did the logistics of that to build the base can. so in the mid '80s we started to transition from a strategic reserve to being more operation. and having opportunity to pack up everything from a hometown, figure out a way how to get it three, 4000 miles away by ship, by air, by land.

clearing customs, moving into an area and establishing a base camp in the formation working with the nation to produce a humanitarian product in the end to leave it there. so i look back at that, and on 9/11, short after 9/11 we first on mobilizing. i remember making calls to some units that have not deployed. they usually did their drills or their annual training in a close by training area. and i would call those that have deployed a number of times in south america but a couple cases even into africa. and it was pretty interesting to see those that have deployed the first question you got, okay, what's my time and, where's my budget, what's my list going to be. those that hadn't left have been a camp swampy, stay training area for the last 20 years and was the first words were usually all, shit, what we have ourselves into. but it was that mindset that we created i haven't those

operational deployment opportunities. in addition, in the '80s and '90s, especially in the '90s, we had the opportunity to deploy combat training centers. combat training since been a national training center and the joint readiness training center, and send brigades and our enhanced brigades had an opportunity to plan and execute a deployment into an operational mission in a training status that gave them value and crew leaders like we never have before at the brigade level. so i see that some of the change of a strategic reserve pointing us in the direction of an operational force in the guard. a couple of unique programs that we start in the '80s and '90s, the state partnership program, some of you may be aware where we partner in nation with the state. this really came out of the fall of the soviet union and

throughout europe. a lot of countries wanted to partner with somebody. the first three or latvia, lithuania, estonia, and we align them with states. summit similar backgrounds. poland want to board a. we align them with illinois using the cultural diversity of background that comes with it. today we have 65 state partners. some states have to. and then eventually get into nato, many of these countries comment and debate some of them are deployed but i give you an example. maryland is partnered with estonia and bosnia. i was just about i was just up at the statehouse with governor o'malley and the adjutant general, minister of defense for policy was there, minister of defense of estonia was the estonia was celebrating their

20th year of the partnership in bosnia, 13th. right now bosnia as an mp platoon embedded in the company of the maryland national guard in afghanistan. i can give you hundreds of deployments like that that we've done, many countries now where we're actually taking countries that were consumers of security 20 years ago now, 10 years ago, that are now produces of security and they want to continue to progress. and it's the partnership, that hometown relationship. and give you one example on the state partnership that basis huge benefits. the whole thing for 65 state partners, costs about $14 million a year. it is the one program that continues to do well in the budget discussions. but to give you an example, i had in adjutant general company one me one day and he had a long-standing partnership with the chief of defense and the minister of defense. and they had just assigned a new combatant commander to the

combatant command it in the first called the minister made was to the adjutant general and probably since he was a lieutenant colonel, now a two star. and he says what can you tell me about this guy. what do i need to know about this combatant commander? how will he work for us? wind we need to go see them? what should i focus on for our country to be a part of this combatant commander? general jack keane's was a lieutenant colonel, one of the first u.s. officers to go into estonia after the wall fell and now he's in the adjutant general. so creates these deep tight you can only get with the foundation that stays with you for that long. because of the guard being a community-based organization that we were able to do that. a couple of the programs that begin and then maybe even further back but the category program for each state support local law enforcement, agencies. they support the southwest border.

each state provides aviation support to state police, whatever the state may need we have a counter drug program that is funded to support first responders as was also the training program to train county, okemos about the, police on counter drug. those programs, we provide the facility and the trainers actually come in from dea, from some of the bigger communities within the regions. the counter drug program has been very successful for us. it's been successful for hometown america we have a very limited resources in some areas and that program is constantly under threat. because of the budget issues. one of the program unimaginably came out of the '80s and '90s was the youth challenge program. youth challenge is where we take at-risk youth. we work with the schools, state school system.

the states have to pay 25% of the cost. we get 75% to run a logistics center. so i was recently visiting the d.c. guard here. they use their armory as a base and to bring these students in. would do almost like a drill sergeant for five months. and these are at-risk youth. they can't have any felonies but there at-risk youth camp and we run them through, we provide the discipline. and then the school system comes in and gets them through a ged. most of them are 16, 17, 18 year olds that would probably end up in the court system at some point if we can do something for these young folks. so that program that started, more ramped up in the ninth is still in existence today. not all states have. they don't have the funds in some cases but it's a great opportunity for the guard against through hometown america to do about those communities. there's tremendous success stories that some of you may

been to decatur that we host every year in february, but there's some images successes with about an individual would tell you they were on path to end up in jail and to date there productive members of society. very well educated. so it's a part of a nation that fits within our community based organization. on federal missions in pre-9/11, we were doing as i mentioned earlier some of the missions and balkans as well as the nation's that we supported under the no-fly zone. but it was very small, two to 3000 a year being mobilized for those missions. we did avoid in desert storm, desert shield, desert storm. we had troops, just cause but most of it were very small units and not for very long time friends. so a very small portion of our population actually had the

opportunity to mobilize. and they give you the numbers up front if you think about today, 460,000 army and air guardsman it and that than a couple, two or 3000 a year getting a chance to deploy was a very small number. in addition to that though, our air national guard dating back into the '70s, actually before that, probably even as late as the late '50s under the norad agreement doing their control over over the united states. today there's 45, seven tankers and a couple of awacs. 95% of that capability setting alert today comes out of the air national guard. and we been doing definition for a long time, and again through the '80s and '90s we continued to hone that and our folks to that very well working with, under the direction, under the command and control of norad. in the '80s and '90s our state active duty missions have little interaction with the federal side of the most part. there was no north concord there was no j. 34 in the pentagon.

so we're pretty much internal. we knew we had to get beyond being able to respond just to a state disaster. went to rent that up to we established, i say we, the states established emergency management assistance compact so that they could bring in civilian assets from one state to another, an agreement between two governors and two attorneys general. and we include in that the national guard. so if you're in new jersey and to get it by a hurricane and there's a capability that doesn't reside in your state, i'd say you don't have the ingenuity the building of the medical, you could reach out to the surrounding states. or you can reach a halfway across the country. you can reach to any state as long as the governor is willing to move in to assist. so that's really the foundation of emergency management contact which today we use quite frankly. but again, there was very little interaction on the federal and state.

i think hurricane andrew was the largest interaction, but it wasn't synchronized as unity of effort and india command at that point. i'll come back to that later. post-9/11, i was the ops chief for the army national guard over here in arlington to begin using kind of what we're doing pre-9/11. didn't realize what had happened as the building started to fall. i just knew that something was changing. general roger schultz was my boss, came in and said, this is going to change we are for the future. i tried to think and grasp that. and summary said you had to get ready to mobilize. get ready to deploy. and oh, by the way, by next week you said that 6000 guardsmen. 6000 right off the bat. what status will it be in? who will pay the bill? what did he need to be equipped with? what are the rules of engagement with those all the things we with you early on.

150 active installations across the u.s. needed to be closed because we were a very open military. many of these you could drive right through the gates. go to fort myers, drive right on through the nobody stops you. coaches the generals house, nobody will stop you. all those installations, those demos, those storage sites for ammunition, all of that had to be closed. that took upwards of 10,000 troops at the peak. we actually had in europe at the time because many of the installations in europe do not have the manpower to close those installations. so we mobilize for that in title 10, federal duty to the state and airports, we mobilize those forces by the adjutant generals did it and they received the money from the federal government but the forces state under the command and control of the governor. very unique. later on when this thing called winter freeze, operation winter freeze. we need to support 12 states, 12

border states. commerce was backing up on the borders are three weeks of auto supplies, the cost between canada and the great lakes were beginning to back up. employers are beginning to have to lay off the auto and she was ready to let off people because they couldn't parts. submission we got was to support us and in -- customs and border protection to close to 2000 guardsmen to again, what status do in this case we did come up with a new criteria which was a federally paid formation so there on federal active duty working under their active duty counterparts which we're going to mobilize our forces. and then we had to detail them, customs and border protection to for a guardsman is pretty easy. that's a we do every day. we support someone in the committee. in this case was boring so upon the border. so another unique mission that came to us after 9/11. >> somewhere in early 2000

actually before 9/11, another me commission the card picked up which we're doing today is missile defense, ground-based interceptors. 100% operational armed runs through national guardsman that are sitting right now fort greeley, alaska, shredder air force base in colorado, and vandenberg. the operational centers of those are both our garden had been trained up, mostly air defense skill sets, and they are the operational arm of our ground-based interceptor. even though joe jacoby is the individual -- general jacoby is this individual deploy them in the second and the president of the pacific our everyday our guardsmen and women. as we've moved on and moved into afghanistan, the air guard right off the bat had a huge part to play.

22000 guardsmen are mostly mobilized, and both strapped left, tactical lift moving in as well as fighters. 22000 that number actually came down after the initial surge into afghanistan in 2001, 2002 time frame. then in 2003 as we prepared to go across the border into iraq from kuwait, again the air guard went up to 24,000, most of that mobilized, fight a capability to build up the fox executed forces going in. transportation but we started using the air guard for something completely different and in some cases up with their support personnel were designed to do. and they stepped up to the challenge to fill those requirements. so about 2003 the army guard, we've been mobilizing a few up to that point. homeland missions, overseas

missions can we take it over the coastal mission for the army. they assess and we took over another nation at the point. but about 2003, 19 january, i remember the specific date, secretary rumsfeld said, prepare of the reserve component to augment the active. which for the national guard at that point, it meant on the 19th of january we've alerted 21,000 troops, and we gave him anywhere from three days to seven days to pack up and move to the mobilization station but in some cases hundreds of miles away. and i would say that some of the conversations i had with adjutant general were pretty amazing, but they really took it as a huge challenge. first thing to do is make sure everything was in place, all the records were in place, the medical peace within, anyone who wasn't medically deployable, they got him out of the unit.

they pushed into another person, caused some disruption as far as cost lovely. additional path -- task than to accomplish, when they got to the station was too trendy. whatever task they were not prepared to do against the mission they were deployed to, they had to do. so a lot of our units within 30 to 45 days of arriving at the station, small it is especially the company and some of the battalions had to be certified, have the overloaded on the ship and moving on a plane overseas to a staging area within 30-45 days. shortly after that we had a request from forces command to start looking at mobilizing brigades. so what we did was we looked at our combat training center rotations. would look into it been deployed recently to a combat training center rotation, who was next up, we picked six brigades. those with the brigades ready to go to if you think about that going from 39 days a year training, now you're going to deploy, you could be expected to

full spectrum operations, you need a bit more time. probably at that time the average post mobilization training time was about 110-120 days. days. i think if he your -- i think if he did on the far end, it was bob closer to 150. but for the most part three to five months to certify the brigade and although the units have to be certified by the army before they can deploy. that got the right equipment, personnel and accomplish all the training. so i throw all that out as how this transition, the guard, from a strategic reserve in the '60s and '70s, progressing through some initial changes in the '80s and '90s, and then deployment and full of now, 12 years of participation and overseas operations as well as the homeland. and i thought of which is give you a few of the numbers. the army guard has mobilized 510,000, you know, that's not come we have 358,000.

some of that to deployment, some of the three, some of it for. we've had a turnover were some haven't had any. when i see those kids in a usually ask, they will say when is my deployment? i want to go. the air guard, i think the number i saw the other day today was just right at 290,000 air guardsmen. normally, their diplomas will be shorter period, four-six months part of the rotation at some air guard have gone a year or longer period so well over 700, 800,000 guardsmen have been used in this war. if you look at today, and this would've been unheard of 20 years ago, i pulled the numbers off our report this morning. on federal duty today, we have 29,372 guardsmen. points to thousand of those are deployed overseas. the other argument or just got back and going to their

demobilization. state status, we have 3290 guardsmen supporting the wildfires in colorado. support the air control in title 32 status. supporting the counter drug program on the southwest border. so we are very active debate in many of these missions. state missions and a change that has occurred in the state, and i talked to that earlier about hurricane andrew. the biggest problem we had after hurricane andrew and the problem we had later on with hurricane katrina was unity of effort and unity of command. we did not have the systems in place to do that. about three to four years ago general mckinley and others who was the commander of an to at the time came together and said we need to work on this. they worked with us and the second of homeland defense. they came up with the structure called dual status command. dual status command is usually a one star that will come from the

state. we will run them through training with fema so they understand that national management system. they will understand civil authorities. they will go through a jdf commander scores posted by northern command then it will go through the designated, it will go through a course of study and actually office visits with the senior leadership of both dhs as well as the military, and that dual status command of course this allows general jacoby and i to certify them that they command and control active and guard and reserve troops. today we have at least one in every state, most states have to, somehow 33 of the dual status commanders. last year, we used these folks were unity of effort and unity of command. we used in probably six times. we use them for the nato summit in chicago. we use them for the republican-democratic national

conventions. we use them for the flyers last year in colorado. use them for a flood. whenever a governor says, i might need some capability from the federal government, i'm going to stand up a dual status command. it takes one phone call or one enough and the secretary will approve it. because the president has delegated that authority did with his person and both title x and title iii to. title 32, that dual status command and to his or her governor. adjutant general, on the title x side, because the report to general jacoby and the president, sector defense and the president. so we been using this now, the first one was actually done in 2005 but we didn't use it much in contingency operations until admiral winnefeld and jim mckinley met and said we needed something here for contingency operations it's a debate it is the usual and customer -- is my way. the most recent one was over the weekend when, last week when the

dual status commander stood up for the firefights in the black forest in colorado springs. general jacoby brought in some forces from fort carson, colorado guard brought in helicopters and engineers and the team then of all under one commander. so i think i'm going to stop there. wanted to just give you a flavor of how we've progressed him butt me pose a few questions to you. so realizing we have invested the best equipped, best trained, best lead car today, we have the schools, go to the same school as an active counterparts do. but given the budget constraints we have today and the fact that sequestration $50 billion, economic, 37 voting had become out of 400, about 500 billion this year, next year we will actually be deeper cut. what condition of ford in its military? what can they put in the reserve component of the national guard

back and be ready at some timeframe, smaller units can be read a lot quicker. brigades might take a bit longer depends on what you can college in 39 days of the year. what can you afford when you, you pick the number of what the cost difference is, some studies say cost, you can buy one active duty for three active duty to give them a wonderful, depends on a look at that, but somewhere in that range. so what do you need on the ramp today to respond to a very uncertain world by the way as you look at the map of all the places that could flash at any time. but what can you put in your reserve component and keep it operational at some level ask and then unchain unchain ? when our budget, you look at the manpower costs, the compensation that dave and i were just talking a just a minute ago, there's a report out there that says even if we weren't under budget control act, by 2021, 80%

of the defense budget will be going to compensation. if we didn't do something to change it. going back to reserve component being a small part. so my question to you is, what can a nation of ford? what should the nation of ford? i try not to say one or the other. i think there's a balance in there somewhere as a nation we have to find. if we can find that balance and we start giving up reserve component units and we get into a major operation, where are those folks going to come from? are we going to go back to a draft? we don't want to. we don't want to do that. we've got the greatest military in the world is because it's an all-volunteer force. so i pose the question, look for to any type of comment you might have been looking forward to hearing in the future anything you might have to spend sometime with the correct of you are, director of the army guard. thank you.

[applause] >> general grass, thank you. i'm with csis. general grass agree to take a couple of question. we have a whole host of them coming and. if you have questions on your guard, holding up, the staff come by and pick them up. we're going to say the easy ones for the panel. i'm just going to give you a couple that the panel itself is probably not in as good a position to one is of course your role not as a member of the joint chiefs of staff. can you talk a little bit about the challenges and opportunities that are afforded to the national guard because of that new role? >> sure. well, first let me say that is quite an opportunity to serve as in the joint chiefs of staff. but that brings certain departments but you better be reduced to a. when chairman dempsey, we were sitting in the tank sessions, we don't get asked just about

issues that deal with the guard. we get asked to vote on every issue. we voted on moving forces from one area to another. we have input to the. we had input to women in service. today, we have nine guard brigades that are interested in sharing -- transition to women in service, to have an opportunity for them to serve in a number of our combat skills. we voted on same-sex marriage. any issue that comes up inside of the tank we have a vote on. so the challenge there though is the national guard bureau staff hasn't had in some cases the opportunity to work at that level. so we're working very closely with the army and air force to say we've got great people, but there's some positions we need opportunities to fill. we need to ensure that everyone on the inch the staff, the national guard bureau staff is

focused at the strategic level. we're doing a strategic realignment right now which we are reading later this week to the adjutant general to say okay, said clark and bill ingram, aaron army guard directorates, they did it operational, tactical, the relationship with the state. we work very closely to the adjutants general but let's keep our focus at the strategic level so when questions do come up we've got the background. and the real value that i see that we have to provide for the chairman, the president, for the joint chiefs is how does all this come together in the state when you have to deploy 100,000 troops someday to a new madrid earthquake. how does that happen? how do we do that? that's one example of some the issues that lie ahead for the i think also as a look to the future of the joint chiefs, i

found during hurricanes and i didn't know exactly what i was getting into up front, although i did what i always do, is immediately communicate with the adjutants jenna. notches in the affected states was ready states who have a better understanding of the status of the forces, the capability, the ratings, i want to take and move into the cover as for under emergency management system, how long it would take and give the site have that information flowing committed i was talking to general jacoby three, four, five times a day looking at the title didn't get of those that were out there and what was available. so i found there was real value added setting with secretary panetta in providing that level of detail. looking forward so now, we're getting into thing called national guard strategic plan system which actually later today we will breathe secretary carter to say, how do you identify those more complex catastrophe events? and something that is nested

underneath general jacoby's ability, under the defense civil authorities, but how do i determine what the states need working with the states to respond to disasters? and you can pretty will pick across the country where those worst-case scenarios are. but then i need to better understand the state requirement so i can, to the pentagon, come to the joint chiefs and vote wisely on future structure and resources for the guard. ..

>> let me start by saying that when we talk about cost, i think the army guard today is about 9% of the army's total obligation, i think the air's about 6% of the total obligation authority for a significant percentage of the force. but that doesn't tell the full story, as my good friend sid clark will tell you and told me the other day. you cannot separate us from our federal reserve or federal relationship with the army and air force. because the research and development we don't pay for. the equipment comes to us from the service through the acquisition programs. the training base for basic training -- we don't run basic training. we do run some regional training

institutes where we train active guard and reserve. but we really look to our service partners to give us that. so we are so tied on our federal mission to those services that sometimes the numbers can get lost a bit. so you have to take that into the equation when you start thinking about the split of the budget for the future. and the second question, i think one of the things we will deal with in the future as we get beyond the budget, the guard brings tremendous value, and there's going to be new mission sets. and i told someone the other day, i was reading this thing in popular science where 30 years from now your platoon will be robots. i mean, that may be far or fledged, but the technology's there today. you think about what's happened in 12 years with unmanned aerial

systems. i think there's a lot of opportunities for the guard to continue to support our partners and also have that ability, that training, that command and control that we grow inside our leaders that we get that from our federal mission that we do every day and can provide support to the state. cyber, cyber is an area that i think we're going to have huge capability for the future. i was saturday visiting a unit here in virginia that was an annual training, division headquarters. two-star command. they had that huge tent that sets up on about three acres. the networking in that facility was just phenomenal. and i went around, and i talked to all the staff. they have the new communications, same thing they were using in iraq and afghanistan. but i was talking to the members of that unit that are in that division. they are in their annual training, two week period. they're halfway through. and the current ops chief, colonel, works for itt. he owns five patents on the

night vision goggle system in a civilian capacity. the network administrator inside the division, a captain, works for a large i.t. firm. in fact, he told me, he says you really got some good stuff here in the military. he said we have junk on my side of it. but what i found over and over is that skill set that our guardsmen and women bring is a real treasure. you can find about any discipline you want in addition to their military service. and they want to serve, they want to be challenged. so i see as we go forward and in today's warfare, i remember listening to a 4th infantry brigade commander when he returned from afghanistan, and one point he made was one-third of his mission was security. two-thirds of his mission were infrastructure development, reestablishing security forces, police forces, water, electric, you name it. so i think that's where the guard has a great niche for the

future because of our many skill sets, and i think these are the types of things we're going to deal with as we head down into the future. >> sir, it has been an honor and a privilege for us to have you here with us this morning. we're very grateful to you. we're delighted to be able to continue the conversation with the panel. but i'd ask you all to, please, join me in a round of applause. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> all right. we'll resume the program now. it's always a testament to the audience when the key speaker departs, and the audience still remains. [laughter] i think that, though, in large part is due to the panel that we have following up here this morning, and i will introduce them. they'll each have an opportunity to make some remarks, and then we'll turn to the questions. i have a few questions left over from general grass' commentary, but i know others are still pouring in. so if you don't have a card, raise your hand, and we'll get you a card. if you have a card and you've put a question on it already, raise your hand with the card, and the staff will pick it up and bring it up here to our able senior fellows, stephanie and nate, who will assemble and integrate them and make them harder for us. i'm david berteau, senior vice president here at the center for strategic and international studies.

it's my real pleasure this morning to have with me this morning the three generals who have to carry into action all those wonderful things that general grass talked about this morning. i'm a native of south louisiana, and so i grew up with the guard, and i saw the forward primarily as the people who showed up when we had hurricanes coming. and we had 'em a-r. i guess sandy was here, and that was my first s hurricane. audrey, betsy, there was a hurricane named david, it took me a while to live that one down all the way up through rita. and in louisiana we activated the national guard when the warnings went up. we didn't wait until it hit because, in fact, it was part of preparation and advancement. so for me, the guard was part of my life growing up, and it was a very important part of my life. that's why i'm so pleased to be here today with the distinguished gentlemen that we have up here on the stage.

i'm going to introduce the flee of them -- the three of them, then they'll each make some remarks. to my immediate left is general joseph lengyel. he came to this from a really easy job as a defense attach they in egypt. made it really easy. next to his left is lieutenant general bill ingram, the director of the army national guard. his commission 1972 as a distinguished graduate from officer candidate school in what was then called the north carolina military academy at fort bragg. i don't even know if it's still in existence by that name, but we're still turning out an awful lot of fine soldiers there. he has been the agitant general of north carolina and, of course, now is director of the army national guard. he's responsible for guiding the formulation and development, implementation of the programs and policies for the 350,000

national guardsmen that general grass described. and to his left is lieutenant general sid clarke, director of the air national guard. he's got responsibility for only a little over 100,000 air guardsmen across some 213 locations around the country and around the world. commissioned in 1981, again, as a distinguished graduate of the reserve officer training candidate program at the university of georgia, he had a much easier assignment as defense attache, i think that was in turkey. so nobody gets the easy ones here like, actually, i don't know where there are any easy ones anymore now that i think about it. i'll turn first to general lengyel, and then we'll proceed down the table. thank you. >> great. good morning. thank you, everyone. it's an honor to be here, and just the fact that the national guard is here at this august institution to talk about our future and our potential capabilities to the department of defense says something about where the national guard has

come from over the past 15 or 20 years or so. general dwraz gave you a great rundown, i think, on the major events and the transformation, really, in the national guard over the last 10 or 15 years and where we are, and i don't think anybody doubts the contribution that we're making to the national defense today. i thought i'd tell you just a couple things on what general grass has me focused on in the building with my colleagues up here, and that is how do we maintain this operational force that we have become. you know, all the senior leaders throughout the last couple of chairmans have said that we've made a great investment in the national guard in terms of people, equipment, training. it's been engaged operationally throughout the world and remains so today unlike ever before. and we feel like that investment is something that we want to maintain, and we want to reap the benefits from it going forward. so four main parts that general grass has me working on is maintaining this operational

force. how do we get our fiscal house in order, how do we maintain the best bang for the buck, the national guard is a lean institution anyway, but how do we go forward and become even more lean? how do we invest in our national guard community of interest so that we can continue to develop and transform to ran even better -- to an even better, more able organization. that looks at three things. the members themselves, how do we become developed to a point where we can serve in various roles with our active component counterparts across the department and the interagency to get the positions up here where we actually can support a four-star position as a member of the joint chiefs of staff. and finally, to look ahead to the future. what is it that the national guard needs to become with, divest, transform, what new missions do we need to take on, where are the best fits that we feel for the national guard in the future as we go forward? i think, you know, i come here today, and i'm an optimist that

when you look across the street at the pentagon from here, you tend to see this big black cloud sitting over it as we talk about the woes of having to find $2 billion a week every week for the next ten years. if full sequestration were to hit. that means we have to do things differently. but i'll tell you that because of this investment that we've made in the national guard, i'm an optimist in that we have a tremendous tool to use in the reserve component going forward. never have we been more ready, never have we been more capable. and as the financial burden comes across, i think it's entirely possible that we may have to find ways to leverage the combat capability and the contributions both in a federal and state sense to use the reserve components going forward. i think it comes down to four major questions as to how much we can leverage that tool. general grass touches on pretty much all of them. it always comes down to, essentially, can the national

guard op or the reserve component get there fast enough. the cost question which anytime someone can throw a number out there and tell you a certain cost, someone can trump you and show you another number that gets a different cost, so getting agreement. one of my favorite statements i'll steal from dr. patrick in the back was never trust any number that you have not manipulated yourself. and i think we do that to each other routinely in the pentagon and sometimes not to the best interests of the total enterprise. next is access. when can we use the guard? i think one thing that is fundamentally changed about the national guard is not only the use and the access to it, but the expectation that they will be used. 39 days is no longer anybody's expectation in the guard. in fact, rather than as i watch some of the old tv shows and you talk about the national guard as a place to serve as a refuge from combat, as refuge from being in the fray, now it's anything but.

people get in the guard because they want to break things, because they want to travel, they get in the guard because they want to be members of full spectrum decisive action combat units. and we're proud of that. and i think that's something that should we make this transition at this point and decide not to do that, it's going to have immense adverse impacts on the national guard and our ability to recruit. as you said, cleaning up after hurricanes, that's not what the national guard is anymore. not what they want to be and certainly not what they could be leveraged to be in the future going forward. >> although they are still damn good at it. >> they are still damn good at it. and every time you look at it and you see soldiers on tv whether it's bombs blowing up in boston or hurricanes in the gulf or tornadoes in moore, oklahoma, the national guard is there. and we're there resource-trained and equipped by our services, the army and the air force. and that is a unique piece that the american people can leverage in the 3,000 communities where the national guard is out there. so finally, the final question i

think that sometimes is harder to assess is, is the national guard force actually the same quality force, is it the same readiness force. and i think the service of the national guard in engagements, i think back to 2005 and the 15 bcts in iraq at the time, eight of them were national guard. so i think that, clearly, they have been engaged at the highest level across the spectrum of conflict. i don't think the national guard's tired. i don't think the national guard is looking for an opportunity to take a knee. i think the national guard is engaged and ready to stay engaged in the future at an even greater rate. so with that being said, i am an optimist. i think right now that the national guard is poised to make a great contribution to the national defense. and remain so in the future. with that, i'll turn it over to my colleague. thank you. >> well, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. it's an honor really to join you today.

i'm proud to represent the 358,000 soldiers in the army national guard of the united states. today's army national guard is, honestly, the best-manned, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led organization that we've ever had in our 376-year history. right now 25,000 of our soldiers are mobilized across the world including 10,000 that are in oef today. since 9/11 there have been more than 525,000 mobilizations of national guard soldiers. at the same time, the guard soldiers continue to fulfill obligations to our communities. last year the army guard served over 447,000 man days, duty days conducting state missions and, actually, that was a historically slow year for us. one message i'd like to leave with you today is that citizen-soldiers will continue to play a pivotal role defending

our states, the territories as well as the nation. to this end, we work every day to strengthen the army national guard's 21st century capabilities. the evolutionary path that we've taken over the past 12 years really underscores that fact. the value of the national guard was recently reinforced in a letter written on the 5th of june to congress on behalf of the state governors that encouraged congress to fully utilize the national guard's cost effectiveness and high skill level to maintain critical capabilities for the federal government and the states while reducing the overall size and cost of our nation's military. as the governors point out, utilizing today's guard is an essential element in our nation's defense. our strengths are based on four key elements. first, the army national guard is cost effective. a range of department of defense and independent studies that have already been mentioned confirm that an army national

guard soldier delivers operational impact and strategic depth at about the third of the cost of his active come possibility counterpart. in terms of sheer scale, the army national guard contributes 39% of the army's operating forces for 12% of its budget. complementing the active army and the army reserve and providing vital capability to the total force. with these forces, the army national guard serves as the military's first responder for domestic emergencies while also providing a balanced force for employment overseas. and i can't underscore that enough. the reason that the guard is good at doing the domestic mission is because we're manned, trained, equipped and organized by federal forces. as federal forces. and we provide, the army national guard provides a combat reserve of the army. the army reserve does other things, but they, the

preponderance of the combat forces in the reserve components of the army are in the army national guard. second, the army national guard responds rapidly. the past dozen years of war have demonstrated that even the largest guard formations can be deployed well within the timelines required by combatant commanders. the experience of deploying repeatedly over the past decade has honed this training regiment and significantly reduced postmobilization training time. the army force generation cycle provides a rotating pool of about 55-60,000 army guardsmen in their ready cycle available for employment each year. most companies and company-size units complete their postmobilization training in approximately 30 days. brigade combat teams take a little longer, averaging 50-80

days of training. and, again, it all depends. the active army takes about that long as well depending on what level you go into that training regiment. if you go in at platoon, the it takes a little longer. if you go in at company, it doesn't take quite as long. and while predictability of scheduled deployments is preferable for soldiers, families and civilian m employers, the last decade has made the guard more ready to respond to no-notice overseas contingencies than we were in the past. third, the army national guard is accessible. lessons learned in nearly 12 years of mobilizing and deploying soldiers have enabled the department of defense to collectively refine processes and procedures for employing the reserve component. army national guard has answered the call and accomplished the mission time and again without fail. fourth, the army national guard is fully capable whether it's brigade combat teams conducting full spectrum operations in iraq

or afghanistan or small units and individuals executing security cooperation missions and exercises other places in the world. the army national guard has accomplished every mission it's been assigned. perhaps this was most evident during katrina. 80,000 guard soldiers were deployed overseas, and another 50,000 soldiers from every state, territory in the district converged upon the gulf coast to -- and they were there in time to support rescue as well as recovery operations. governors across the nation have depended on our units to save lives and properties in the face of danger and disaster for decades, for years and years and years. these inherent army national guard strengths are a direct result of decades of deployments. and, again, the cumulative experience that we have gained in the war fight for the last 12 years. i really appreciate the opportunity to be with you

today, and i'll turn over to sid. >> good morning. it's a pleasure to be here. i always feel welcome when i come to a place, particularly when it smells like pancakes when you walk in the door, so glad to be here. [laughter] a lot of numbers were already thrown out, a lot of description about the air national guard, what we are, what we do and where we're at. again, a little over 105,000 outstanding airmen serving in the air national guard. a lot of those are former members of the regular air force, the largest gift that i think that the regular air force gives the air national guard are fully-trained, experienced personnel who for one reason or another have elected to leave the regular air force and come to work in the air national guard. and they've found a home, and they love it and are very happy to be members of the air national guard. we're 89 wings, we're in all 54 states, territories and the district as general grass had pointed out. we have mission types extend

across the entire united states air force portfolio. every single core function that the air force does, we're a part of it. and i think we do it very well. and i talk to a little bit why i think we do it very well in just a minute. the other thing i wanted to talk about that i think is important is readiness. the air force years ago made a decision its reserve components, both the air force reserve and the air national guard, would be as ready as their regular air force members when it came time to go to war. that was a huge investment, big decision that went well beyond just talking about a volunteer force. it was about how would they posture their forces to commit to a combat environment? because of that we have outstanding cooperation when we go overseas. seamlessly, we work side by side. you'll hear multiple times people tell you they can't tell a difference between a member of the air force reserve, the national guard or the regular air force when we're serving together. that is the starting point for

any discussion as we go forward. when we talk about active component and reserve component, if you want to talk about what can we do, what can we change, one thing that has to be the foundational understanding is the air national guard can do any mission it's tasked to do if it has the proper resources and you set the expectations high enough. joe talked to that a little bit. expectations, that's a big part of it. i would tell you years ago we also were included in everything when it came to professional military education, things like sending members to the fighter weapons school. things like that made a big impact when it came to our readiness levels. today we still have very high readiness, and the air force values that in many ways. basically, it's somewhat of a core value of the air force, to be as ready as possible when called upon to do whatever mission you're asked to do. so we've been very fortunate to be included in that. i also wanted to talk a little bit about the operational force. in fact, i think it's key.

i mentioned my pillars here in a second of the total force, but as members of the total force the readiness along with the idea the expectation you will be an operational force is big. because our members will look forward to the opportunity to serve side by side with regular air force airmen or in missions they're tasked to do individually including air defense over the nation every day. when we talk about future discussions on force structure, they are very happy when they're deployed. the proudest conversations you'll see or have with members of the national guard is when they've been deployed side by side with their other total force brother and doing a mission for the nation. they're also very proud when they do their missions at home, when guardsmen are helping pull things off of houses and looking for victims in tornadoes, earthquakes, the hurricane sandy. you will see another piece of pride come out of guardsmen when they perform those missions at

home. it's a unique structure, title 32, title 10. but the pride that comes with being able to serve the federal mission in the states is quite unique and very -- i'm proud to be one member of that. not just the director of the national guard. the big change to me for the operational force came in the '90s when we were asked to step up and be a part of the air expeditionary force. that is going back to that foundational understanding that if you're going to do a mission, be as good as anybody else with regard to the components that serve in the service. we were put on the first string, basically, when it came to the air expeditionary force. that was profound. and people stepped up to it. they realized it meant more deployments, more time away from home, but that was the beginning. and that folded into the last decade when we served in iraqi freedom and enduring freedom. i think in the future i see no difference. i see guardsmen very proud to serve in that operational force.

i see them being supported by their families. i see them being supported by their employers. there are four pieces, four pillars, if you will, to the total force. the first one is standards. we all meet the same standards in the air force. you can't tell the difference between an f-22 pie lot in the air national -- pilot in the air national guard and one in the air force. that's because the air force set that template, if you will, for how we would be structured in meeting the same standards is one part of it. the second one is inspections. we all meet the same inspections. that's important. if you expect to be tier i ready, ready to go out the door on day one, whatever mobilization time it takes whether it's two days, three days, a week, be ready to go. there's no going off to another location to get ready. you've got to leave. you're in garrison location and go forward right now. the third of part of the pillars is the operational force i was talking about. that's the expectation piece that you will do this either in

rotational demand whatever that -- right now it's a 1-3 for the regulars, 1-5 for the reserve components. that's an expectation that you will meet. if that rotational demand is there, then you have to step up to that. of course, if there's a bigger conflict and different mobilization authorities required, then you be ready to go. and it could significantly change the life of a guardsman for 1-3 years. it's going to be a big deal if that happens, but we're ready to do that. anybody who wears this uniform in the guard has to understand that. and the fourth pillar is resourcing. that makes the first three happen correctly. so when it comes to the recapitalization efforts, the modernization efforts, the man daipts to support the operational force, they have to be there. pull all that together, and you've got a great total force, you have got a great team. we've talked about the efficiencies, cost factors and others, and i would be happy to answer any questions that you have along with the rest of the panel. thank you for your time. >> all right. thank you, all three of you. that was a very well-rounded

survey, if you will. as the moderator, i'm tempted to ask all the questions because i have about 40 of them here, but i'm only going to ask one, and then i'm going to turn to our associates here to catch some of the questions you all have been circulating. again, if you still have questions written on your card, raise them up, and the staff will collect them. i want to tackle the readiness issue, because all of you touched on it. it seems to me for active forces readiness questions are fairly linear, how much money do you have, who comes in first, the whole question of first tier and below, can we live with the consequences? for the guard this is a harder dynamic. it's not only readiness for what, but you've got to balance federal responsibilities and state responsibilities. you hinted at that in your comments. you have to also, i think, think about how you compensate for a less ready active component which adds a complexity to your situation probably not looking

at in the other direction. so how do you deal with those challenges? and really, i guess this is a question for all three of you. >> well, i think, you know, clearly the issue today is readiness. i think the discussion as we've had in the pentagon oh over the recent weeks in terms of how do we go far forward and the analysis on where is there money to be saved, you know, readiness is incremental -- i mean, when you start to adjust readiness, there aren't huge, huge dollar savings there that you can get to immediately. it's relatively constant. for us in the guard, i would offer that our readiness problems are no different than the active component where you take, you look at people training facilities and equipment. all of those things impact our readiness, and we tend to defer the thing -- we cut things first that don't actually impact our ability to go out and save people's lives, and that's -- you know, we let our buildings

start to decay, our equipment become less ready. and over time this begins to snowball as i'm sure sid and bill will tell you, and it becomes harder and harder to dig out of it. so our questions are the same. when we look at a drill weekend, those are the periods where we increase our readiness in our 39 days. for the 5er78 national guard it costs about $350 million to bring in bill's soldiers and put them on a drill weekend for readiness. it's much less for that for the air national guard, much less people. so it's an expensive proposition in order to do it. so however ready you want to be, that's how much money we have. so i think the question going forward we're looking at in the national guard perspective, we're looking at our ability to react both on the federal side, the state side and determine what kinds of equipment and people do we need to keep ready. general grass touched on the national guard strategic planning system as we look at

various states and various catastrophes that may happen to determine what are the most important things that we keep ready in order to respond to those kinds of things. with that, i'll let bill -- >> okay, thanks, joe. i absolutely agree with what you said. one thing i think to point out is that federal -- readiness for the federal mission and readiness for state missions really don't compete with each other. you heard general grass talk today about visiting the 29th infantry division, and their headquarters was set up with the cpof and the drash tents, and they were ready to do business. but it doesn't really matter if they were doing a state mission, doing command and control for an earthquake or whether they were in iraq or afghanistan doing a combat mission. the skill sets that you use are almost the same, and the ability to train, i think when you talk about readiness, you can only be as ready as your resource.

so as we move into this next era of reduced resources, we're going to have to be very careful about how we pick and choose what training exercises that we do. and everybody in the force, you know, the army with their force generation model is really a methodology for having cyclical readiness. we were training and equipping and preparing for the next to deploy to either afghanistan or iraq, and we focused resources on the next to deploy units. in the case of the army national guard, it's an available cycle of one year in every five, and we're still looking to do that level of, that level of resourcing. so we'll have about a fifth of the force which, again, is about

60,000 soldiers that are in their available cycle every year. and the type of forces that are available that year are a cross-section of the army national guard of combat units, combat support, combat service support units. that's our be ready for the federal mission which has us ready for the state mission as well. the state mission is a fight the night mission, so we have to be careful with dual use equipment so we keep that equipment ready as it can be based, again, on resources. for whenever we're called for the response to things like hurricane sandy or the tornadoes or the fires during the season. with that, i'll turn it over to sid. >> the question, dave, i think you kind of reflected on the regular forces and their

readiness. the chief staff of the air force and the secretary of the air force are committed to whatever size the air force is and however we're composed will keep the readiness high. so they're commitment is to keep that readiness up there. we've seen times when it's dropped down. now, recently an air force had to ground some squadrons due to sequestration and the oco bills that have to be paid. and that hurt readiness, no doubt. but i think that's a tremendous, also, compliment to the reserve components because we continue to fly in the reserve components due to different appropriations. but i think the confidence that the regular air force has in the guard and reserve if the nation calls that we'll step up and we'll respond, i would hope we all maintain the same level readiness in the outyears. >> can i just add one more point? this goes to the operational use of the reserve component. there is a certain readiness that comes from using that force in an operational sense. and so when we actually go to

sinai or we go to bosnia or horn of africa as an operational force, that replaces otherwise -- in some cases -- training that someone has to spend extra dollars to do. and that's one reason why we find it's so embe pertive that the -- imperative that the national guard stay current, stay networked with the operational forces we engage with, and it helps maintain us at a higher level of readiness while doing an operational mission. >> good, thank you. um, let me turn now to the questions from the audience. nate friar, stephanie, our two senior fellow, i assume you all have organized yourself, so let me turn the mic over to you. >> thank you very much for being here, gentlemen. um, i think this question applies across the board. it's, again, a kind of amalgam of a couple of questions that came in from the audience. first, i'd say what are the current -- as we reset from iraq

and afghanistan and look to the future and deal with an air of increasingly tight resources -- what are the acquisition priorities for the guard, in particular the two components and then overall sort of as you look forward? and then at the same time, where are there areas that we can take some risk? where are there areas that we're oversubscribed, perhaps, in capability? where are there areas that you really want to cover that risk? >> sure. i'd take it on. well, the last part of your question about where yo dow take risk where do you take risk, one of the questions we're going to have is about the active component, reserve component mix. i think one of the foundational questions you have to ask yourself is what threats do we face now, in the future, does the united states face an existential threat? do we face one in ten years, in

twenty years? that gets back to what general lengyel brought up about how big a force do we have or need, how fast does that force have to get to the fight, and how long is that force going to stay there and employ? so i think that's one part of the assumptions and the questions you have to ask about what you going to do in the future. >> your question had to do with, again, where do we take risks, but what are our acquisition priorities for the future. we have to be, again, careful because of our dual mission. we need to have the equipment available and in a readiness level that it's available to do the domestic mission. and the way the army national guard is arrayed across the 54 states, territories and the district we have a mix of capabilities in each state, and all disasters and all emergencies are local.

so the governor is in charge, is what it really amounts to. so the national guard has to have certain capability and, again, available capability in each state for the domestic mission. on the other side, a brigade combat team is a brigade combat team is a brigade combat team. the striker brigade in the army national guard or one of the infantry brigade combat teams again in the readiness cycles we're still going to do for the foreseeable future the same things we've done for the last ten years, twelve years in being ready for the war fight. so resources will be centered and focused on the units that are in the available cycles as a training model moves forward. >> before we get to our

question, um, i wanted to note that a lot of the cards nate and i have been receiving have the first line of them has read thank you for your service. so i think not only is the smell of this room welcoming, but things are emanating towards you guys that really there's a lot of appreciation for everything that you've done. my question is a little bit more about cybersecurity. the guard straddles between, in many cases, between the department of defense and can -- and the department of homeland security, engagement with fema and the like. i think cybersecurity and cyber terrorism is an area where a lot of people are talking about what is the risk that's acceptable. can i ask, and it was reflected on several of the cards that we received, the role of the guard in approaching cybersecurity and cyber terrorism, when you look out in the next 20 years, how will the guard play in that arena? thank you. >> well, i'll see if i can hit the wavetops and then turn it over and let the army national

guard and air national guard talk about the service things. clearly, there's a lot of discussion in the pentagon about cyber enterprise in general. one thing to consider about it is as we have and we engage in all these discussions about what is the current active component, reserve component mix across the air domain, the land domain, the sea domain, all the rest of that stuff, i'd like to make the point that as we begin to build a cyber domain, really we have been engaged in cyber activities for quite some time, but we're just really getting serious about putting together a force model from all the services, and we have an opportunity to build it kind of from the ground up and think think where the best places are to put the cyber piece and the reserve component. you know, i think one thing that has kind of been touched on across several speakers has been the unique attributes and civilian skill sets that are resident in the reserves and the capabilities where people with unique cyber skill sets are able

to bring sometimes the newest, leading-edge capabilities in the cyber domain too. they're well trained, their already in it, they understand it. the only thing we think and we are concerned from a state and a fema and a dhs and a state level is where do we expect the cyber attacks to hit? oftentimes we think, well, will they come after us, or will they go after the networks of the banks and the systems and the pieces that are going to hurt our economy or our power grids, all those things that are actually out there in the civilian sector. we feel like national guardsmen who work in these sectors, reservists in general will have sometimes the first look and ability to see those things, identify them, fix them and go in and clean them up. i think the challenges that we're going through right now is that we think it's important that whatever it is that we build in the reserves and national guard is we feel that

it's important that it mirror the title x capability, the same standards and training that general clarke and general ingram have talked about before so that we are integral and replaceable for pieces of the federal title x mission domain. and so a lot of ongoing discussion with how we build that and how the national guard can contribute to it. turn it over to bill and sid. >> thanks, joe. picking up on that, right now we have army national guard soldiers that are working as soldiers at nsa and have been for the last ten years, actually. there are a couple of units in the army national guard that are deployed and work in the cyber arena. but they're very small, and they're very selective. obviously, the civilian-acquired skill is the is a perfect, is a perfect match for the guard. the real question is about authorities, and that's being worked out at u.s. cyber com and

other places, is do soldiers have the authority to get into the networks of civilian corporations, for example, in the banking industry and the power grid and others. this is a lot of reluctance and how do we -- if we attack, if we attack another country by back, you know, by backtracking who's attacking or who is trying to get into our network, is that an act of war? does the congress need to be involved? there are a lot of really fundamentally large questions dealing with cyber. getting down into the tactical part, leaving that and going to tactical, any units that we have in the army national guard because of doctrine and training and others need to look like units that are in the active army.

and, honestly, the army is working very diligently right now. we're standing up some units at the direction of u.s. cyber com. all the services are to fulfill that need. from the army's perspective, cyber is a combination of signal intelligence and operations, and you combine those g2, g3 and g6 disciplines together to come up with cyber. so the army's still working on what their cyber structure is going to look like for the future as they downsize, and it takes people, it takes training, figuring out what the moss are going to be, the military occupational specialties, for people that are in the cyber arena is something that's still, still being worked out. whatever the active army stands up for cyber units, the army

national guard will have similar units. again, spread across the 54 states, territories and the district. as an aside to that, they will in a non-title x status they may be able to for state or nest you can missions -- domestic missions depending on how they're called and what authorities are available. >> sometimes, not often in the pentagon, you'll see one slide it brings remarkable clarity to a subject when you ask about the people and the mission. i have a slide, and if i had it with me, i'd show it to you. it's one of our squadrons, and there's over 30 different company icons and agencies that guardsmen work for in their civilian world that do i.t. not that they just work for these companies, but they actually do i.t. things related to that company. and when you think about that

for the individual, that's tremendous networking that you get when you get together with all of those different companies on a regular basis. and it's a great value to the nation that we have these people that serve in that capacity. and then i put an employer hat on, and i went, okay, so at least once a month and more often likely you're going to bring all these people together, and they're going to share ideas on information technology, computer network defense and how to do things. that's stuff strength. what a fabric -- that's such strength. what a fabric that makes for security. if i was, in fact, an employer and had one of those individuals in the squadron, i'd probably try to figure out how i could get more of my employees in that squadron. you're going to proingsallize them even -- professionalize them even further, but also that networking piece is big. so cyber has a national place with the guard. >> gentlemen, there's been, there are a number of questions

on the transition from strategic to operational reserve and the maintenance and the guard's capability as an operational reserve, so i think it would be useful to hear, um, some specifics on your specific goals with how to maintain sort of the edge the guard has achieved over the last decade, what your priorities in that regard are. and i'd really like to readdress and ask if there is some tension now as the active component is certain to decline, if there is some tension between the title x and title xxxii mission with if increase in maintaining the operational reserve focus. >> everybody loves tension. you know, i go back to what we've all kind of been saying is our capabilities to do our state mission comes from our ability to do the federal mission. we are organized, equipped as

the reserve, and when we do that well and we have those capabilities, we are able to then crosswalk those capabilities. we call them the essential ten capabilities. i'm not going to name them all for you, but think of everything we use in the homeland, the medical, the transportation, the logistics, all of those things that enable us to respond in the homeland sense come from our ability and resourcing to do our title x mission. that's hugely important. when we look at what is it specifically that we're looking at readiness, sure, we're trying to identify as we talk to an army and an air force with reduced resources specifically what is it we need in terms of combatant commander exercise engagements, in terms of active man years of operational use of the national guard to maintain us at a readiness level where we feel we can maintain this combat benefit that we've leveraged

over the last 15 years to what we have now. we feel like general grass touched on the state partnership program when he was here, but the operational engagement we get by doing some of the engagements with our partners is amazing and leverages our readiness to really a whole other level. this, i'll talk about the 65th partner we just did in vietnam. in march i was giving a speech in san antonio which was the 40-year celebration of the release of the prisoners of war from coming back from vietnam, one of which was my dad who happened to spend six years as a guest of the state of the vietnamese. a week later i am talking to the vietnamese who want to talk to us about how we exercise together to do search and rescue operations and defense support of civil authorities. all things that we are experts at in the national guard. so that's how we try to tie these programs together to -- which is, as general grass said,

$13 million -- to give us engagements out and beyond and across the enterprise that maintain us a higher operational force and still at a reduced cost of the cost benefit business model of the part-time military force. turn it over to bill. >> it's real, the tension is all about money. when a active guard or when a guardsman is on active duty, it costs the same amount of money out of a, from the army or the air force as it does to have a regular army or air force be soldier or airman on duty. so in a time of diminishing resources and a time of downsizing for the united states army, the more army national guardsmen that are on duty every day is, diminishes a number of active duty soldiers that you could pay for with the same amount of money. so that's where the tension is. there's no question that being

operational enhances the capabilities of the national guard in general and, certainly, the people that are involved. it's leader development, it's the opportunity to get out of the state and see what goes on in the active or, actually, in the big word. world. so operational is good. that can be serving in, building partner capacity somewhere in the world and working for a combatant commander, it's just as valuable to do humanitarian missions in south and central america. we do a lot of that, we've done a lot of that since the '80s. general grass talked about that. it's also anything that you're doing that you're exercising command and control training missions, we have done in the past a lot of annual training

missions specifically in europe where our maintenance unis have gone to -- units have gone to some of the depots that we, that the united states maintains in europe and fixed stuff for a couple weeks. the ability to get outside and exercise command and control in a place that you're not used to helps in operationalizing the guard. national training center, jrtc, other training opportunities, again, where you train like you fight are also great opportunities that we will continue to do. i'll turn it over. >> what tension? [laughter] i think, you know, i think your question had to do with tension between title 32 and title x with regard to performing the missions or -- >> right.

absolutely. >> you know, i haven't seen it, actually n that world. i mean, it's like we said, we train for that federal mission, and i would tell you there's some tough scenarios that expands that operational engagement that we've been talking about that we think's important, that operational force. i think it seasons our leaders, it seasons our people so that when we face disasters at home, we perform well at those. i think it's important that the governors have those forces. in aeronational guard, you wouldn't think that we do as much as the army national guard does in disasters at home, but we do. quite a bit. it's because we have people that are pulled forward that know how to task organize, they take orders, they follow derek, and in the most extreme cases where we have tough situations and being from south louisiana, david, you know down there we had guardsmen wading through places where it wasn't very press santa, to tell you the -- pleasant, to tell you the truth, that caused the need for people

to even go seek some psychological counseling after some of the stuff they'd seen. not everybody, but in some cases. that's pretty desperate. i mean, that's some of the stuff that you would see overseas in combat. so i think it's important that we continue to train towards that federal mission, be as good as we can at that mission because that enables us to do that state mission very well, and i'm not familiar with the tensions between title 32 mission and title 10 mission. >> we're reaching the end of our time here. one of the things, of course, that the guard is very good at readiness, and that is at getting governors to sign letters at the drop of a hat of any sign of tension. some of you have seen this come to play. i recall back on friday the 13th, may of 2005 when secretary rumsfeld released his list of base closures. there were four states that had an f-16 air national guard base

that i'm pretty sure on may the 12th the governors of those states didn't know they had a base. by the evening of the 13th, it was the last thing that stood between the collapse of civilization and the saving of those f-16 bases. so these things have a way of focusing themselves. i want to -- i have a number of thanks that i'd like to put out. i'd like to thank our panel for staying through and giving us their insights and their expansive views, if you will. i'd like to thank general grass for his attendance and his speech here this morning. i particularly want to note one thing he brought up, and that is the national guard youth challenge which is an exemplary youth program. it's been around for more than 20 years, but this month is the 20th anniversary of the statutory entitlement -- creation for that program. and in two days in this room, csis will be hosting the national guard youth challenge program in commemoration of that 20th anniversary event. i would invite you all to check

your calendars and be back. i think general mckinley, chief of the national guard bureau, will be here as our lunchtime speaker or our lunchtime panel director, etc. and so it's a really tremendous, tremendous success story all across america that could be replicated over and over again. and i want to thank all of you for being here with us and sitting here today. and final finally, i want to reiterate dr. hamre's thanks at beginning to our underwriters for this military strategy series, rolls royce knot -- north america, thank you very much. thanks to our viewers on the web, thanks to all of you and thanks to you, gentlemen. thank you very much. prison. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the directer of the national

security agency, keith alexander, told a senate panel last week that the agency's surveillance programs have helped stop terrorist plots in the u.s. this morning general alexander is expected to go into more detail at a house intelligence committee hearing. watch live coverage at 10 eastern on c-span3. and later in the day also on c-span3, president obama's pick to head the federal communications commission, thomas wheeler, will testify at a confirmation hearing. that's live at 2:30 eastern from the senate commerce committee. >> go to gettysburg and to think about pickets charge, to think about the carnage there, the lives lost, the great battles before fredericksburg and at the wilderness and chancellorville, you talk about antitam, you talk about shiloh and manassas, all

these battles for people defending either what they think a way of life or slavery, what have you, all of it, all that bloodshed to settle this contradiction. and we won. we have our country. and i like to go to gettysburg to say to my clerks are we, do we deserve this? do we deserve the sacrifice for the country that we have? and are we living up to that? >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live all-day coverage from gettysburg national military park sunday, june 30th, starting at 9:30 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> senate finance committee chairman max baucus and ways and meanmm