down the level of continuation training, which would be difficult to do and maintain our we will give it the best shot. >> again. it's something that will have to be decided by the secretary and the chief of the air force. so i guess there's a possibility that they wouldn't be operational during the one year holding period. that would be my concern. >> that is a possibility. >> and then what effect would that have on the the planned sir? >> it would be delayed obviously. the part i'm concerned about is the people. the thing that i'm hearing is concern about an indefinite future.

what is the future of my job? is it the same? is it different? will it be here at all? i mentioned the volunteerism. the recruiting continues to be strong, even in spite of pb-13 and the operations tempo. but where i'm starting to see some stress on my folks is our retention numbers. our retention numbers are beginning to drop. i contribute that to the air force's 13pb. it's had a more detrimental affect on our numbers than 20 years of high operational combat has had. so the uncertainty is beginning to take a toll on our people wondering about their futures

and do we have time to invest in a unit that may not be here next year or changing to a mission that we don't know what that will be? >> thank you. the humvee was mentioned in your opening statement. 60% 20 years old or more. what's the -- what is the take on what you need? i think you mentioned modernization. some have mentioned upgrading existing fleet. others say the cost -- it's more cost effective to go to the more modernized vehicle. what is the story on this? >> first of all, thanks for the question, senator. i'm in revote of letters from 17 adjectives, general, in support of purchasing new humvees. i am the channel communication between the states and the department. so we have forwarded the letters of support. general ingraham can talk about

the percentages. i would say strategically across both air and army guard, this generation of soldier and airmen have joined our services and joined the guard specifically to be used, to operate first line equipment. to be part of the team that goes forward, either here at home for domestic emergencies or to support our army and our air force. and so recapitalization across the fleet to include ground vehicles has got to be factored in. we have to fight hard with our services to make sure that the balance and the proportions are right. some people who joined us are just not going to be as excited about the air national guard. i'll let bill answer your question. >> senator, we have some of the oldest humvees in the inventory for the army. and i guess the question at this

moment is do we recapitalize the ones that we have, or do we, as the army buys the jltv, the next generation, we should get a proportional share of those vehicles. so the question is do we keep a number of humve, s unrecapitalized to trade in or to turn in as we gain the jltv. and it's a balance. obviously we can -- we would like to upgrade the fleet. we want to be frugal with our resources and do the right thing. so at the moment there's a tradeoff there. the longer we wait, the more need for renewed recap. >> just one last question, mr. chairman, if i could. my preference has always been

redirect money for recruiting for you. you decide how to best use liz the money. you see the air guard or army guard on the side of the car. you do that in areas where the potential for recruiting is very high. i don't like to micro manage, but is this instilling a value to you in terms of recruiting and what other gains you may get from it? or is this something that time has come and gone? >> it's really a matter of branding and being associated with a national brand. we do run recruits at sporting events. both motor sports and other sports.

people don't necessarily buy tide laundry detergent because of the race car that sports the tide hood. but they do associate that product at a national level. and the army national guard, because of the of the target audience that we're looking at, that's of interest to those people. it's a national branding opportunity that is of great value. and the fact that the teams that the army national guard sponsor do good things for the nation and held in high esteem by that

group of people. it leads to recruits for the army national guard. >> i would hope we couldn't micro manage that project. for the branding and recruiting. i think it says do this and put on that commercial or this car, but not on that car. it ought to be left up to the people who are involved in the process, and not those of us who have a preference. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. now i would like to recognize the chairman of the senate national guard caucus. senator leahy. >> thank you. yesterday we saw on the news a plane had to be landed on its way to charlotte. were those guard jets?

>> yes, senator, they were. >> that sort of leads into a question i have. there's a couple of lesser known cuts. not lesser known but lesser cuts proposed to the air national guard and issues that concern me deeply. specifically cuts to air control alert locations. air national guard explosive ordnance. the air controller. i think it's safe to say from everything we have learned without going into anything we get, it's safe to say that commercial airlines are still a target of terrorists. is that not a fair statement? >> that's correct, senator. our strategy for dealing with

threats to the united states have changed. and that's would drive reductions. but i worry that we're just seeing a budget cut, i don't see the threat going out. i think we should have our air control alert locations. it looks like they just handed you a bill to pay, and then you had to make cuts to meet those targets. do you think they considered the impact of getting rid of the air force bomb squads? i know governors all over the country use. to help when they need a bomb

squad. i've certainly seen it in my own state of vermont. do you think they thought of that? that that impacts the states pretty badly? >> i'm going to address this question first. senator, you're correct. that threat is still there. and i think that according to studies that you referenced that are classified, could the nation assume a little additional risk? that's a discussion i would like to have you with in a classified -- >> but what i worry about is the discussion is driven more by budgetary issues, and not by reality. >> certainly the budget does come into play. we have to talk about what we can afford to provide. and are there opportunities or places where we could take additional risk, and whether,

you know, whether this additional risk is worth the money is a debate -- >> i think you're going to find on the question of bomb squads -- >> yes, sir. the bomb squads, what we did there is we looked at the situation in iraq and afghanistan. reck needsing that we would be coming home from those wars. we tried to look at the capabilities that the united states needed that could be supplied by the air national guard. i think the issue that has been highlighted with the council of governors is the new process inside highlights that we need to do a better job of communicating with the generals and the governors to get the

effect of title ten decisions on the governor's ability to respond to things like explosive ordinance disorder. >> also, i think that the air force. >> especially considering the air force has cut into the guard reserves for more than the army or maybe i -- i worry that they're not listening to some of the concerns. certainly i get that from governors of both parties. if you see any analysis that's going to save money or provide the air force with more capability. >> no, sir. i'm not seeing that analysis? have you asked? >> yes, sir, i have.

>> well, that kind of bothers me. you should have been allowed before the air force presented the budget proposal based on the claims they have and haven't showed you. >> i agree, sir. i guess coming to the conclusion that the analysis that i have been able to see, the answer is sometimes i guess the conclusion is important. but as important are the initial going in assumptions. and the metrics are what it is that you're trying to answer.

not only not seeing the analysis, but how we got to the analysis. >> i agree with you. i don't think the cuts is going to save us money. i think in the long run it's going to cost us a lot more. we saw how important they were to us during iraq and afghanistan. that's not a capability you can turn on and off like a switch. i their the concern of the governors they weren't listened to. you've always been very available to me and my staff when we have had questions. i thank you for your service.

we've been good friends. we visited both in vermont and here. you're going to be first chief to wear four stars. folks with voice on the joint chief of staff. and we take pleasure in that. he made history by transforming the guard to the operational force. and i just ask this. you're leaving. you can say whatever you want to say. do you think the guard would be in a good position of keeping

the pressure on the way we do? >> you don't have to anxious that, general, but i see the grin. go ahead. >> most of us prefer not to build our own gallows. i will preserve only of my comments for the meeting with you before i leave. they have seen the effectiveness. i can only say to you because you know it so well by visiting your members of the national guard, as you all do and the

support we've had over decades from our two services. what i worry about most is will the title ten world find a way to include world war ii, find a way to maintain a balance to keep the national guard. how do we keep this low cost, high impact force of citizens, soldiers and airmen in our case in the game to keep the investment in our competency at a level that the nation nay need and sustain as a hedge for future operations.

this investment has been a wise investment. and this deserves to have a national guard that's trained, equipped and well led. because there will be challenges in the futures. i can't thank you enough for helping to make us who we are toda today. >> you're not going no be ignored. none of you. i applaud all three of you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to ask about the proposal to move the squadron to richardson. right now this proposal looks like it will have an impact on the 168th air refueling wing. to the extent that an operation that is currently a 24-hour a day operation, 365 days a week, that with this proposal, it may result in operations being diminished to effectively a 12-hour day, five days a week. not necessarily bankers hours. but certainly not the kind of hours that will be required, that are required for this incredible intensive refueling wing up there. general schwartz keeps reminding me of the significance and the

fact that we have 23 million gallons of gas up there. it's pretty important to the overall mission. how would this proposal, which would effectively reduce the operations there, how will this impact the guards' mission there. >> senator, i've asked the same question. you know. when you stop and think about the importance of that refueling wing, the strategic location and think about the other activity. you can recognize the role that it plays in the air control alert mission for afghanistan. if the f-16s are moved and the

level of support goes down will there be sufficient contingency to continue functioning as it does now? a lot of the dollar bills required for my air national guard unit there are not in my budget. i don't get to make that call. i have ensured there will remain sufficient funds and sufficient services to keep the 168th playing the vital role that it does. the decision to whether to go from a 24-hour alert that they're currently onto something less than that is a call that is left to a general in consultation with norad ennorth com. i can't get into the operational decisions. but my concern would be that we have in the future as competent and capable wing as we do right

no now. >> let me rephrase it. if, in fact, you did have to go to a reduced hours operation, 12 hours, could you do the mission that you believe you're required to do there in the arctic? in the north pacific? >> again, the mission requirements are set by the war fighters. if they were to make that conclusion, we could do that. that's a judgment call that will need to be made by the combat commander that will take into consideration the additional risk that not having that unit on alert for 12 hours a day might pose to the aca mission. >> let me ask you another, then. the 168th we recognize as operating at its capacity.

they reported having to dwe clean certain missions within the 24-hour a day period that they're operating now. the 168th has asked for additional aircraft and an active association they've been doing so for several years now. can you give me the status of any of these kwgs? part of the release to congress evolved from what we call the fca, forced composition analysis. not just kc-46s, but kc-135s, and kc-10s. one of the recommendations that came out of the study was as we go guard in the refueling enterprise that all of the units transition to either active associations and in the case of

the 168th where the guard or reserve would play the supporting role. i think the future looks good for an active association. the question will be the timing. would it bring additional airplanes or maintainers to help robust the capabilities of the wing with the existing eight airplanes. those are questions yet to be answered. >> and no, no time line within which to that we mipgt expect those answers? >> no time line that i'm aware of. other than a push to active association associations. >> let me ask you about the 323s.

last year they proposed the elimination with the belief that they would replace that capability. they're now proposed to go away. are we reconsidering the future of the c-23s? >> the army has taken the funding away. the intent is to stop those by 2014. to my knowledge there's no reconsideration of that. what i'm told is there's a wide number of generals that feel that the c-23 is important to the domestic missions. air force is looking at the c-130s to fill that mission. are you satisfied that that the

mission can be served with the c-130? basically, this the right thing to be doing? i feel like it's a concern that should be addressed. i'm not sure it's been adequately addressed. for the domestic mission. i know army the took the air force position that they will support inner theater air lift. which is the mission that the c-23 and the c-27 airframe were designed to do. >> any ideas on how we can address domestic air lift? >> north come is in a recent discussion, the commander of the

north command. he views looking at the homeland as a theater of operations. and i think his perspective will be very important in determining requirements for all ohm land defense or homeland operations the homeland being one of those parameters. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> gentlemen, i thank you for your testimony early this morning and i thank you to our service to our nation. do you have further questions? >> no, mr. chairman. i have no further questions. i want to thank you for the leadership you're providing for armed forces. thank you very much. >> i will be submitted questioning. i ask for your response. and now the committee asked the

generals to come forward. present your testimony. >> i thank you for joining us this morning. your full statements will be placed on the record. shall we start? with general admiral devink? >> chairman, thank you for the privilege to speak with you about the capabilities, capacity and readiness of our 63,988 men and women serving in the military today.

. the hours exemplify the values of honor, courage and commitment. as our mottos claim, we are ready now. any time, anywhere. the chief naval operations established three tenants for the navy. war fighting first, operate forward, and be ready. . they provide both full and part time operational capabilities and importantly, also provide strategic depth for maritime missions to ensure the navy is always ready to respond globally, while maintaining efficiency across the spectrum of operations.