yesterday. i believe that we will have a bill. i believe that. if you asked me last week, i would've said that i am hopeful. but i believe now that we will have a bill. yes. >> is there any scenario so these are all from my perspective as a chairman. it does not get through. they want to get a bill through. if it is labeled with controversy, it will not get through, and i think everybody understands that. you can ask everybody on both sides of the aisle. it has nothing to do with it. they have themselves said that it will be controversial. they have said that.

one more. >> the white house described this. the republicans are doing their best. do you believe that? >> britney tell me what i know? i know that this bill should have been done a long time ago. i know that because of the delays, people are suffering, and i know because of the delays, there is a threat to downgrade the entire transportation sector by moody's. this has not been a pretty picture. this has not been a happy time. this has been a difficult time, and 50 -- senator, you will remember. we passed this bill last year in november. yes.

we got it to the fore. the fact of the matter is it has been painfully difficult, every step of the way, so my view is the people will judge for themselves. i welcome a change of heart on behalf of the republicans that i feel we have now, and i think it is because of these groups and the folks at home. because like the national association of manufacturers, the general contractors, the association of equipment dealers. i am giving you know, excuse me, just a very quick flavor of the support that we have, so i would sit up until now, it has been very difficult, and our work should have been done. the fact that i am very happy today that i think it will be done is good. i welcome it on this bill, but

the should have been done. it has already cost thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs nationwide, these delays, these unpaid for extensions, so i am not here, you know, smiling broadly. i am here saying, "thank goodness." it is a really good change. i was heartened by the kind of work that is happening staff to staff. i am heartened by my conversations, but it has been really unnecessarily difficult to get to this point, because 3 million jobs and thousands of businesses are at stake. i want to thank you very much, and i will be doing this every week, and if there is any news that i have singer than one week, i will be back, and i want to thank the senator.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house is out on recess this week, but the senate is in session today, working on a measure dealing with the user fees that pay for fda reviews of prescription drugs and medical devices. senators plan to vote tomorrow on amendments. our coverage is on c-span2. and tonight on c-span2, the senate foreign relations committee years from secretary of state clinton, leon panetta, and another about ratifying a treaty with ocean rights, called a lot of the sea convention. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> congressman, people look at what happened with jpmorgan, and there are people that say this is a company that did something dumb, fired people who were responsible. this is the market at work. this is the way it is supposed

to happen. why does the government need to play a role? >> to some extent, that is true, but government has played a role. if this had happened five years ago, if they had lost more than $2 billion, i think you would have seen much more panic in the economy and much more concern. what we did in the legislation we passed and in other things is to require them to be much better capitalized. you had better have more capital. you have to have more capital than you would have had otherwise. >> this past weekend on the c- span newsmakers, congressman barney frank spoke about the over $2 billion loss by jpmorgan chase. and gay marriage. watch this online at the c-span video library. earlier today, is secret service

director and the inspector general testified on the prostitution incident in the columbia that resulted in the firing of nine agents and disciplinary actions against others. this portion is about one hour. [gavel] >> the hearing will come to order. good morning, and thanks to those are here, particularly the director marc sullivan of the secret service agency in charles edwards, the acting inspector general of the department of homeland security. over its nearly 150-year history, the secret service has built an extraordinary reputation for selfless and skilled devotion to the

important and dangerous work its agents do protecting the president of the united states and other high officials of our government, as well as foreign leaders who visit the united states. that reputation, a great reputation, was sadly stand last month when 11 secret service and please engaged in a night of heavy drinking in colombia which ended with them taking foreign nationals, women, back to their hotel rooms. we have called this hearing as part of our committee responsibility to oversee the functions of the federal government, particularly those within the department of homeland security, including the united states secret service agency. there are three things we hope to accomplish today and in our ongoingees' investigation. first, we want to get the facts about what precisely happened and where the secret service's

own investigation stands today. as widely reported, the misconduct involving 11 agents and officers arrived on wednesday, april 11, in cartagena, and they went to several nightclubs, and after drinking, the return to their rooms with women from the clubs, some of whom that we're prostitutes, and registered as overnight guests, according to hotel rooms. we also found that another individual was involved on monday april 9, and all of the agents held security clearances, and two were in supervisory positions. if one of the agents had not argued with one of the women about how much he owed her, the

world would never have known this sordid story. but the world does know this sordid story, and that is why the secret service, the inspector general, and we must do everything we can to learn the truth as best we can. our purpose is not to diminish the u.s. secret service but, quite the contrary, to help restore its credibility which our nation, indeed the continuity of our government so clearly depend upon. second, as part of that search for truth and lessons to be learned, we need to know if there were warning signs that misconduct had become a pattern among traveling secret service agents in the years before cartagena that should have been stopped. it is hard for many people, including me, i will admit, to believe that on one night in

april 2012 in cartagena who are to protect the president suddenly and spontaneously did something that they or other agents had never done before, which is gone out in groups of two, three, or four to four different nightclubs or strip clubs, drink to excess, and then bring for national women back to their hotel rooms. that lingering disbelief let our committee to send a series of questions to the secret service to determine if there was any evidence in their records of patterns of previous misconduct. we have begun to review the agency's answers and have found individual cases of misconduct over the last five years that i would say are troubling, but we do not yet find evidence at all sufficient to justify a conclusion of a pattern of

misconduct or a culture of misconduct. but the secret service disciplinary records only take us so far. the only include cases where misconduct was observed, charged, and/or adjudicated. we can only know what the records of the secret service reveal and what others, including whistle-blowers, come forward to tell us. thus far, the committee has received a relatively small number of calls from people outside, whistle-blowers, but they, too, have not provided evidence of a pattern of misconduct by secret service agents, similar to what happened in cartagena. however, we have not concluded our investigation, nor has the inspector general. therefore, in this public forum, i would ask anyone who has

information about the conduct of the secret service employees over the years that they believe is relevant to our investigation to contact our staff at the homeland security and governmental affairs committee here at the u.s. capitol. today's "the washington post" reports multiple anonymous sources and that, and i quote, sexual encounters during official travel had been condoned under an unwritten code that allows what happens on the road to stay on the road, and the article actually contends that this tolerance was part of what was called the secret service -- circus, apparently used when large numbers of agents and officers arrived in a city. one of the men implicated in cartagena has said that a supervisor had advised agents

to follow oohs guidelines when spending time with women that they met on the road. one-night stands were permitted as long as the relationship ended when they left the country. this is a washington post" article, which, again, i say was based on anonymous sources, although the article contends that there were multiple sources, obviously confirms the worst suspicions about a pattern of conduct existing within the secret service and needs a response from director sullivan, hopefully this morning. in addition, as i mentioned, our initial review of the secret service agency disciplinary records for the last five years, which is what we requested, shares some individual cases of misconduct, which are troubling but are not evidence yet of a pattern of misconduct. these records to reveal 64 incidences, again, over five

years, in which allegations or complaints concerning sexual misconduct were made against employees of the secret service. most of these complaints involved sending sexually explicit emails or sexually explicit material on a government computer, although three of the complaints involved charges of an inappropriate relationship with a foreign national, and one was a complaint with non consensual sexual intercourse, and, of course, in this morning war in our investigation, we would like the secret service response to those, and we need to know more about them. 30 more cases over five years involve alcohol. almost all relating to driving while under the influence. i hasten to say that these complaints involved a very small percentage of the thousands of people who have worked at the u.s. secret service during the

last five years, and i also want to say that discipline was imposed in most of the cases. nonetheless, it is important for us to know how those complaints were handled and whether, looking back, they should have had warnings of worse to come. third, we want to know what reforms the secret service is implementing to make sure that what happened in cartagena never happens again. i know director sullivan has already made some changes, such as increasing the no alcohol before do the world from 6 to 10 hours -- and no alcohol before duty rule, but i also want to hear what they are doing to report egregious behavior so that no code of silence exists between agents and officers. let me put this in a larger context.

in the last several days, the secret service has been called on to provide protection for a large number of war leaders who are attending both the g-8 and nato summit in the united states. presidential campaigns of 2012 are ongoing, and the secret service needs to protect the candidates and secured two large national conventions, and, of course, ultimately, and most important, the president and vice president of united states, and their families need protection every day. this is why the cartagena scandal needs to be dealt with. the mission is to critical and important to leave any questions about cartagena and what preceded it and answered. i want to personally thank secret service director marc sullivan for his cooperation with our investigation and also to thank him, because he has

worked very hard and fast since he learned of the crisis to investigate it and tried to restore the credibility of the secret service. a director sullivan, i look forward to your testimony, as i do to yours, inspector general. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, let me begin my remarks today by stating my strong belief that the vast majority of men and women of the u.s. secret service are professional, disciplines, dedicated, and courageous. they do an extraordinarily difficult job, extraordinarily well. the honorable conduct of the many true professionals of the service stands in stark contrast to the misconduct that occurred in colombia last month on the

eve of the president's visit there. the timing makes the appalling behavior all that much more troubling, not only to me but also to the majority of secret service personnel, both past and present. i will not dwell on the details of the incident, since they have already been so widely reported, and i am sure they will it -- they will be discussed by director sullivan today. the behavior is morally repugnant, and i certainly do not want to downplay that fact. my concerns however go far beyond the morality of the agents' actions. first of all, this reckless behavior could easily have compromised the individuals charged with the security of the president of the united states,

and second, the facts so far lead me to conclude that though not at all representative of the majority of secret service personnel, this misconduct was almost certainly not an isolated incident. let me discuss both of these concerns in a bit more detail. it is basic counterintelligence 101 that secret service personnel and others holding sensitive positions of trust in the u.s. government should avoid any situations that could provide a foreign intelligence source, security service, or criminal gangs with a means of exerting coercion or blackmail, and yet, two of the primary means of entrapment, sexual l

ures and alcohol, they were both in abundance here. this has shown that none of these men had weapons or classified materials in their hotel rooms, but they still easily could have been drugged or kidnapped or had their liaisons with the foreign nationals used to blackmail them, and therefore compromising their effectiveness and potentially jeopardizing the president's security. they willingly made themselves potential targets not only for intelligence or security services but also for groups like the farc or drug cartels. there is absolutely no excuse for it or factors that can mitigate such recklessness. the service, to its credit, has

tightened up its regulations and oversight to try to insure that this never happens again. second, the facts suggest to me that this likely was not just a one-time incident. if only one or two individuals out of the 106 female secret service personnel assigned to this mission had engaged in this type of serious misconduct, then i would think it was an aberration, but that is not the case. there were 12 individuals involved, 12. that is 8% of the secret service personnel in the country and 9% of those staying at in particular tel. moreover, contrary to the conventional story line, this was not simply a single

organized group that went out for a night on the town together. rather, these were individuals in small groups of two or three agents who went out at different times, two different clubs, bars, and brothels, but who all ended up in a compromising circumstances. in addition, and perhaps most troubling, two of the participants were supervisors, one with 22 years of service, and the other with 21, and both were married. that surely sends a message to the rank and file that this kind of activity is somehow tolerated on the road. the numbers involved as well as the participation of two senior supervisors lead me to believe

that this was not a one-time event. rather, the circumstances unfortunately suggest that different roles -- rules apply on the road, and indicate a culture. the secret service and the department of -- inspector general are continuing to investigate yet another secret service agent and at least two dea personnel who entertained female foreign nationals in the cartagena apartment of one of the dea agents. thus far in this investigation, it suggests that that was not a one-time incident, and, of course, the regional reports out of colombia also alleged misconduct by about one dozen

members of our armed forces. again, i want to emphasize that the vast majority of our law enforcement and military personnel are real heroes, and i deeply appreciate the danger is that those deployed face every day. given this apparent question of culture however, i am pleased that the dhs inspector general will be examining the culture at the secret service to see if there is something systemic that led to these incidents, and the director himself has convened a task force. i will follow these developments closely. finally, mr. chairman, i do want to join you in recognizing that director seligmann and the acting i.g. had acted in a

forthright and open manner with this committee over the past six weeks as we have attempted to better understand the ramifications and causes of this scandal. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing. >> thank you very much, senator collins, for your opening statement. the director sullivan, thank you for being here, and we welcome your testimony at this time. >> thank you. good morning, chairman lieberman, ranking member collins, and distinguished members of this committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you do discuss the facts surrounding the conduct of u.s. secret service employees in cartagena, colombia, the actions taken to make sure the mission was not compromised. and the actions that have been put into place thus far.

the last several weeks happen a difficult time for the u.s. secret service, and i would like to begin by talking about the outstanding men and women who serve in our organization. the overwhelming majority of the men and women who serve in this agency exemplifying our five core values of justice, duty, courage, honesty, and loyalty. on a daily basis, they are prepared to lay down their lives to protect others in service to their country. and it is precisely because of these longstanding values that the men and women of this agency are held to a higher standard. clearly, the misconduct that took place in cartagena, colombia, is not representative of the standards we demand from our nearly 7000 in please. i am deeply disappointed, and i

apologize for the misconduct of these employees and the distraction that it has caused. the men and women of the u.s. secret service are committed to continuing to live up to the standards that the president, the congress, and the american people expect and deserve. from the beginning of this incident, we have strived to keep members of congress and the jurisdiction of up to date as information became available. while my written testimony provides an overview of our findings to date, i am committed to keeping you informed as our review continues. immediately upon learning of the allegations of misconduct, i directed secret service personnel, supervisory personnel in cartagena, to conduct interviews of those alleged to be involved in this incident. once the preliminary interviews had taken place, i ordered all

11 people involved in the misconduct allegedly to return to the united states. the conduct of these individuals allowed us to make adjustments to the staffing plan in advance of the president's arrival and cartagena. these 11 individuals were interviewed by our office of professional responsibility, our agency internal affairs component. at the conclusion, all 11 individuals were placed on administrative leave. their security clearances were suspended, and all of their equipment was surrendered, pending the outcome of this investigation. as the investigation progressed, a 12th person was implicated. at this point, the administrative action has been taken relative to all 12 individuals. in addition, during the course

of our internal investigation, we had one individual self report an incident unrelated to the misconduct that occurred at that hotel. this individual, too, has been placed on the ministry of leave pending the investigation, and their clearance has been suspended. during the course of the investigation, we confirm that none of the 12 individuals had received a briefing prior to the misconduct taking place. we also confirm that none of the 12 individuals had any sense of security documents, firearms, radios, or other security- related equipment in their hotel room. since the beginning of this investigation, we have been transparent and forthcoming with the department of homeland security office of inspector general. i have instructed our office of professional responsibility to cooperate fully with the dhs acting inspector general as

their office conducts their own and comprehensive review of the matter. as i mentioned at the beginning of my statement, while the overwhelming majority of the men and women who serve in our agency exemplify the highest levels of professionalism and integrity, i want to assure that this type of misconduct which occurred in cartagena is not repeated. as a result, and number of enhancements to the code of conduct in addition to some policies have been put in place, as detailed in my written statement. i have also established a working group to look at -- the efficacy of the disciplinary actions, ethics training, and all related policies and procedures. a director from the office of personnel management and another director from the federal law enforcement training center are cochairs of this group.

i am confident that this review will provide us with objective perspective on our organizational practices, highlighting both areas where we xl -- excel and areas where we can improve. we're proud of the work we do on behalf of our nation. throughout our 147-year history, the agency has had service of honor and distinction by agents, officers, administrators, and technical staff. all employees are expected to adhere to the high standards of professional integrity and recognize that the success of our agencies mission depends on the strong character and sound judgment of our people. one of the greatest privilege as i have is swearing in new agents and officers. it gives all of us a tremendous sense of pride to witness a new generation take that same oath

we took many years ago. that pride comes for all of us from being part of a special organization with the history of dedicated people who serve our country honorably. over the past several weeks, we have been under intense scrutiny as a result of this incident. to see the agency's integrity called into question has not been easy. through it all, the men and women of the u.s. secret service have demonstrated professionalism and integrity in their daily work. just this past weekend, the agency successfully completed security operations for the g-8 in maryland and the nato summit, which included a gathering of more than 40 world leaders from four continents and the city of chicago. concurrent with these events, we continue the planning for similar large security operations for the republican

national convention in tampa, fla., and the democratic national convention in charlotte, n.c., later this summer. all of this comes on top of the exceptional work carried out every day in field offices around the country and around the world. today as i testified before you, the men and women of this organization are protecting world leaders, a presidential candidates, former presidents, numerous embassies in washington, d.c., conducting criminal investigations, keeping american citizens and financial institutions say from fraud and preparing for the presidential inauguration. they have an overall positive impact on their community. i am grateful to them for what they do every single day, and my sincere hope is that they are not defined by the misconduct of a few but rather by the good work that they perform with character and integrity. thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.

i will be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, director sullivan, and now, the acting inspector general from the department of homeland security. mr. edwards? >> good morning, chairman lieberman, ranking member collins, and distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate this opportunity to update you on the inspector general's actions to review and monitor the united states secret service investigation of the incidents in cartagena, colombia, involving secret service interaction with nationals. our role began almost immediately after the incident, when, on april 13, director solomon and i discussed the events. we have since remained in regular contact. director sullivan has repeatedly stated to meet his commitment to conduct the federal investigation.

his actions so far have demonstrated that commitment, and the secret service has been completely transparent and cooperatives of the inspectors and investigators since our team started its work. on april 26, i instructed our assistant i.g. and the acting i.g. regarding the incident. the next day, our assistant and the deputy assistant met with officials from the secret service office of professional responsibility, which is conducting the internal investigation, and we briefed them on the objectives. the assistant has assembled a nine-person review team, led by a veteran inspector and with

three criminal investigators. on may 2, they met with officials and began part one of our three-part review. in part one, we are evaluating the adequacy of the secret service response to the incident in cartagena and the adequacy of the conclusions of the internal investigation and the sufficiency of the corrective actions already implemented or planned. we are in the process of interviewing secret service personnel responsible for coordinating the agency's response to the incident and conducting its investigation as well as personnel within the office of the director, those in charge of field operations, and in the office responsible for security clearances. we will review all records, documents, and other materials related to the secret service

internal investigation, including the standards for inspection and investigation. we will review protocols for advanced teams, the secret service code of conduct, and disciplinary processes and records. part one of the review is currently taking place in washington, d.c. we have started meeting with past members who interviewed the secret service and chlorine is who were there at the time of the incident. we have also started reviewing the records that resulted from interviews of nearly 200 secret service employees who are cysteine with the president's visit, as well as 25 employees at the hotel's in cartagena. we have plans to interview the special agent in charge you had on-site responsibility for the secret service's cartagena

detail. we also plan to interview director solomon. there is the report on the internal investigation that will be released as soon as it is available. after the receipt of that report, our goal is to complete the first phase of the review and report our findings by july 2. immediately thereafter, we will begin part two of our review. we will determine whether certain work force -- workplace conditions have promoted a culture within the secret service that could have contributed to the cartagena incident. we will examine the secret service's recruiting and hiring process, and we will also examine the secret service equal employment opportunity and other cases. communications within the agency, and administration of discipline, training, and any other programs that might shed light on the organizational

culture of the secret service. this portion of our work will include trips to miami and other field offices. the third phase of our review will examine the memorandum of understanding between the secret service and other offices. we will about the changes and but secret service and the office of inspector general investigative capabilities since it was created in 2003 -- cents the mou was created. we will report our findings on book of those phases two and three later this year. finally, i would like to stress that the value of the secret service efforts to date in investigating it down employees should not be discounted. it has done an incredible job of uncovering the facts and taking swiss and -- swift and decisive action. mr. chairman, this concludes my remarks, and i am happy to

answer any questions you or any others may have. >> thank you for your testimony and for what you have been doing. we will start with a seven- minute round of questions for each of the senators here. director sullivan, you have told us that you were shocked by the behavior of the 12 agents in cartagena, and i believe you were, and you have felt confident that their behavior was not a common occurrence within the ranks of the secret service. i wanted to ask you after reading "the washington post" story today whether you have that same confidence. in other words, can you give us your first reaction to what is contained in that story? obviously, the most damning, an agency employee to say that sexual encounters during official travel had been condoned under an unwritten code that allows what happens on the road to stay there. >> thank you, senator.

i absolutely feel the same way about the men and women of the u.s. secret service and the culture after reading that article. when i read that article, it cited numerous anonymous sources. i guess, number one, what i would ask is if people do get information, i want them to come forward with that information or to the dhs i.g., but the thought or the notion that this type of behavior is condoned or authorized is just absurd, in my opinion. i have been an agent for 29 years now. i began my career for seven years in detroit. i was on the white house detail twice. i have worked for a lot of men and women in this organization. i never one time had any supervisor or any other agent tell me that this type of behavior is condoned. i know i have never told any of our and qualities that it is

condoned, so i feel as strongly now as i did before i read that article. >> ok. mr. edwards, let me ask you, because at least some significant part of the conclusions drawn again generally without attribution in the "the post" article are based on conversations with the 12 agents involved in the cartagena scandal. are you intending to interview any or all of them about what happened? >> thank you, sir. yes, we are going to be interviewing of 13. in fact, this afternoon, we will be interviewing two of those individuals this afternoon. >> well, that is very important and very encouraging news, because obviously you are conducting a formal inspector general investigation, and, therefore, if they repeat the allegations made to the

newspaper, presumably you will find out whether they are credible or not in your report to us and to the public as your investigation goes on. director sullivan, let me ask you, with respect to your own investigation thus far and the individuals alleged to have behaved improperly, were they asked whether they had engaged in similar conduct on other irritations? >> yes, sir, they were. >> and what was their answer? >> their answer was that they had not. >> they had not. and just for the record, were they under oath when they were interrogated? >> i believe they all gave a signed oath. i will have to get back to you on that, senator. i am not sure if they were under oath, >> ok, i appreciate that. they were all offered an opportunity to take a polygraph test, and it would be of interest to me whether they have

also been asked if they had been involved in similar behavior. >> yes, sir. we did use every investigative tool to include polygraph interviews, talking to other people, looking at records, and thus far, we have not found that this type of behavior was exhibited by any of these and the jewels before. >> were the secret service personnel questioned it in your own investigation asked whether they considered their own conduct acceptable for some reason? >> yes, sir, this is a question an awful lot of us have asked ourselves over the last 1.5 months, and i believe many of these people were interviewed. i do not think they could explain why they exhibited the behavior that they did. >> for instance, some people have tried to explain and understand why such risky, really irresponsible behavior would have been carried out by

secret service agents on assignment, except perhaps they were influenced by the fact that prostitution was legal in colombia. i take it that that would not matter so far as the secret service is concerned, because whether prostitution was legal or not, by their behavior, they would run the risk of compromising the security of the president of the united states, because who knows who they are with on those occasions? >> centre, absolutely. there is no excuse for that type of behavior from a conduct or a national security perspective. both. that type of behavior was reckless. >> understood. ok. over the past five years, based on our review of the disciplinary records that we so far have gone over that you have provided to the committee in

response to our questions, there appear to have been five cases that are directly relevant to what happened in cartagena and are therefore noteworthy. one was an allegation of a prostitute and another was an allegation of non consensual sex. director sullivan, are you aware of these cases, and if so, can you tell us what was involved and how the agency handled them? >> i believe so, sir. first of all, the step of conduct we take very seriously, and we investigate it to the limit. the one i believe you are talking about with the non consensual sex was investigated by law enforcement after doing

an intense investigation and decided not to go forward with any charges on that one. >> may i ask if there was a complaint that was in the secret service or somebody else? >> somebody outside of the organization, senator. the other three, with a foreign national contact, again, all of those were investigated in the appropriate administrative action was taken on those three. >> did any of those have characteristics similar to what happened in cartagena? women or prostitutes that they picked up the >> no, nothing pertaining to that. i believe they may have been women that they had contact with, but nothing like this situation we are referring to now. >> where these long-term relationships, to the best of

your understanding, or just people they met when they were on assignment in a foreign location? >> i think there might have been people, and they continue with the contact via email. >> and finally, what about the one context -- contact that occurred right here in washington? >> yes. back in 2008, an individual was involved in prostitution and was separated from the agency one month later. >> was that agent on duty at that time? >> yes, sir. >> and i take it was not somebody that he met during the course of his work, but he was caught in a sting. is that correct? >> yes, sir. as a understand it, he solicited an undercover police officer. >> ok, we will continue to talk about those cases.

thanks for being so responsive. my time is up. senator collins. >> thank you. director sullivan, it is my understanding that all of the secret service personnel and vault, with the possible exception of one agent, the men had used another agency name, registered the women at the hotel front desk using their real names and using the women's real names. is that accurate? >> yes, it is, senator. >> that fact made your investigation easier in terms of tracking down the women, but it also seems to reinforce the claim that this kind of conduct has been tolerated in the past. in other words, it suggests to me that the agents were so unconcerned about being caught

or about the impropriety of their actions that they did not even seek to conceal it. what is your reaction? do you think the fact that they register the women, and they follow the rules of the hotel in registering the women, using their real names, using the women's real names, that it suggests that they were not really worried about being caught? >> again, senator, i go back to i tried to figure this out for 1.5 months. whenever got people to exhibit this type of behavior. again, i will say i do not think this is indicative of the majority of the men and women, as you had mentioned before, senator, but i just think that between the alcohol, and i do not know, the environment, these individuals did some really dumb

things, and i just cannot explain why they would have done what they did, but i cannot say that they did it because they believe this type of behavior would be tolerated. we have a zero tolerance for this type of behavior, but i cannot figure out why they did what they did. >> what troubles me about this is, again, i will go back to the fact that this was not a case where these 12 men together were out on the town in the same club, bringing back women from that one source. they went out on the town in small groups, in some cases two or three or individually, and yet, each one of them comes back to the hotel, makes no attempt to conceal the fact that they are bringing foreign nationals into the hotel, actually

registered them at the front desk, they do not try to conceal their actions in any way, and that suggests to me that they were not worried about being caught, that they did not think there would be consequences if they were caught. otherwise, would you not expect that they would try to conceal their actions? >> senator, when i was first apprised of this situation, i was dumbfounded, and the decision for me was so easy to make that people on an assignment protecting the president in a foreign country could have acted in this manner, it was a very easy decision for me to say we need to bring them back here. again, secretary, senator, i have no excuse for those actions. all i can tell you is that we acted quickly and brought them

back here and initiated our investigation. >> let me turn to another, related issue. when you discovered what had happened, you updated some of the training manuals, and in late april, you said that it clearly says that the laws of this country apply to secret service personnel as well as abroad, and i give you credit for issuing that to make it crystal clear, bought -- but was not your guidance, as i look through your agitation guidelines, the access to classified information, was in not already pretty clear in those guidelines that this kind of behavior would not be acceptable? >> centre, absolutely, and we put these guidelines out.

we have been excused for being draconian for putting them out. i think, again, i go back to the overwhelming majority of men and women. i do not think they need these guidelines. i do not think our men and women need these guidelines because we have men and women of character and men and women of integrity, but what i want to make sure is even if there is one individual out there that did not get it, did not understand it, we want to reach those individuals, but you're absolutely right, there are adjudicated guidelines out there. we are a professional organization. we traveled around the world. over the last six years, we have done 37,000 trips around the world, and we have had no situation like this one before, and, again, i am confident that this is not a cultural issues. this is not a systemic issue. we make decisions every single day. our employees make some critical

decisions that, again, the overwhelming majority of the time, they make good decisions on. this particular trip, we had some individuals who made very bad decisions, and that is why it is important for us to have a strong office of professional responsibility and to have a good relationship with the inspector general, because when those individuals, which are the minority, when they make bad choices, bad decisions, misconduct, we are going to act appropriately. >> i guess the point i was trying to make it as i read these guidelines that specifically refers to engaging in any activity that is the legal in that country or that is illegal in that country but is illegal in the united states, so there is no doubt that officially this kind of behavior was already prohibited prior to your issuing this on

april 27, correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> mr. edwards, in just the two seconds that i have left, are you conducting an independent investigation of what occurred in columbia, -- what are you simply -- what occurred in colombia, or are you just reviewing what they gave? >> we are reviewing the investigation as done by secret service. at the same time, we are also doing some independent interviews ourselves. we also want to talk to the people who are interviewing the personnel.

we have also sat in in about six of the interviews that were conducted. in order for us to get a comprehensive report. i do not have the personnel to go interview all 200 of them, but we are doing a random sampling to make sure that our review and investigation is independent and transparent. >> thank you, mr. chairman, let me just say that i believe we need to do a completely independent review investigation, not just a review of the agency's investigation. thank you. >> thanks, senator. i agree with you. i know this will require a commitment of personnel by you, mr. edwards, but i think it is so important to get to the bottom of this event, to get to the truth of it, to find out what happened and to restore confidence to the secret service, which most of its

members deserve by their work, so i agree with that. the members of the committee, as is our custom, will be called in order of appearance, and in that regard, senator brown is next. >> thank you, mr. chair. director sullivan, and inspector edwards, thank you for coming. in your testimony, you said you are not aware of this having happened before, and this is part of the investigation to have done it as part of your long history. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you also said this is something you are still trying to figure out. is that what you said? >> the most recent type of behavior, yes, sir. >> and you are making changes, changing policy. is that also correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you have said many times that the majority of folks serving in the agency, and i would agree that they do wonderful work.

they serve with great pride and resourcefulness, as i believed it was 147 years. i know you have set out new guidelines, and indicated, you have said that they were draconian, as a matter of fact, and that you hate to do them, but to feel it is necessary. i would ask, do you also trust the men and women now that are serving, notwithstanding this one incident, do you trust them in their sacrifice and service and the job that they are doing right now? >> yes, sir. >> the reason i am asking this is that it is potentially a new policy to send an officer, which he said is also a member of the internal affairs division of the agency to basically go and babysit these agents when they are going overseas and doing their duty, so i am a little confused as to when we do what we would be sending a $155,000 a person to basically babysit

people that you say this has not happened before, you have changed policy, you have made draconian changes, and you trust the men and women, and yet, we are going to be sending people to oversee that they are following this. i am not sure this makes financial sense or that it, number two, arenas damages trust. can you explain that? >> yes. i was accused of being draconian for putting this out, but we thought was important. he or she will have an assignment. i have heard them referred to as a babysitter. they are not. one of the things we did find on this particular trip was that when we did have this situation we had to look at, the person we need to rely on was the special agent in charge of the miami field office, who did an outstanding job. by preference would have been

for her to continue to work on the upcoming visit. we do need to have supervision. >> you already have supervision. you have agents in charge of agents and you have other agents in charge of those. you already have a chain of command. it seems like you now want to insert a person, you can call it a babysitter or someone just overseeing what is happening. i am just going on your testimony where you said you have made changes coming to trust these people. this is the sub can, you have no knowledge, yet we will spend the time and effort to take someone away from doing another job to be there just in case something like this happens. i am wondering if you think this is overkill. >> maybe i am doing a bad job of explaining it. we have a group of agents called a job team -- a jump team.

we have replaced those to supervisors with to gs-15 supervisors. one is from our office of professional responsibility. they are not there to be a babysitter. if the situation does come up, they will be there to resolve that situation. >> is this on every mission that we do now? >> every foreign trip. >> how many foreign trips to we conduct per year? >> i would have to give you the numbers for that. >> approximately, is it 10, 200, 500? give me just an approximation. >> so far this year, we have done about 200 trips or so. this is only for a presidential

visit or a vice presidential visit. >> how many of those? once again, you are changing the entire structure, putting higher paid people. they should be doing the job regardless of the gs level but are at. changing in having someone there to oversee an agency that you trust, i am still not quite -- >> center, i do trust our people, but we are talking about protecting the president. clearly, on this particular trip -- >> that entire hearing will air at 8:00 eastern tonight here on c-span. the senate foreign relations committee hears from secretary of state clinton, defense secretary panetta, and general dempsey about the law of the sea

convention. >> right now, i want you to take a look around you and think not about where everyone has been, but where they are going. the guy in front of you could win an academy award sunday. the girl behind you could be a future president of the united states, or even better than that, the mayor of new york city. the guy sitting to your right could be a future nobel laureate. maybe not the guy to your right, but certainly the one to your left. >> memorial day weekend, watch commencement speeches on c-span. politicians, white house officials, and businessmen sure they are adults with the graduating class of 2012. saturday at noon and 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> congressman, there are people looking at what happened and saying your company made a stupid decision, did something dumb, lost money, for the people

who are responsible. this is the market at work. this is held is supposed to happen. why does government need to play a role? >> to some extent, that is true, but if this had happened five years ago, i think you would have seen more panic in the economy. you would have seen much more concern. what we did in the legislation we passed and through other things was to acquire -- require political institutions to be much better capitalized. one of the results from the government telling you you have to have more capital than you would have otherwise, it helps give people reassurance. >> congressman barney frank spoke about the loss by j.p. morgan chase, as well as the state of the u.s. and world economy. the dodd-frank law, and a marriage. watch his comments on line at the c-span video library -- and gay marriage. leaders of the national guard

and reserve testified on last month's decision by defense secretary leon panetta and budget cuts that would have reduced the national guard force by 5000 and 200 aircraft. they spoke on ways the operational reserves and the trip drawdowns in afghanistan. this is two hours. -- troop drawdowns in afghanistan. >> this morning, the subcommittee agreed to receive testimony fy2013 budget of the national guard and reserve component. from the national guard of like to welcome chief of the national guard bureau in general mckinley, the director of the army national guard, general ingram, and the director of the air national guard, and general y.e. it -- general wyatt.

generalstultz, commander of the marine corps reserve, general stephen hummer, and the chief of the air corps reserve, general charles stenner. i would like to thank you all for joining us today as we review the fy 2013 budget for the reserve components. this year budget proposal for the air national guard, reducing aircraft inventory by 130 four aircraft. this proposal has come under intense scrutiny by the members of congress, council of governors, in many adjutant generals. i would like to hear from you on how involved you were in the

deliberation process that preceded the structure announcements, and what input your asked to give. in addition, over the last several years, the guard and reserve have made important changes as they transition from a strategic to an operational reserve. this shift requires you to have deployment ready units available at all times. as we brought down our military forces in afghanistan, the department will need to figure out how to best utilize its new operational reserve. many challenges remain for the guard and reserve. reservists and their families like the support network provided for active-duty installations. so it is important that our reserve families get support they need during deployments,

and as reservists transition back to civilian life. the guard and reserve still face significant equipment shortfalls. congress has provided additional equipment funding for the guard and reserve in each of the last 32 years, because year after year, the president's budget failed to sufficiently fund reserve components. i am certain that the witnesses here this morning agree that without this additional funding , or reserve components would be woefully under equipped big it is our duty for men and women of the guard and reserves who are called on to deploy in harm's way, just like their active-duty components, to make sure they are adequately trained and equipped. gentlemen, i look forward to

hearing your perspective on these issues and working with you this year in support of our guardsmen and reservists. i would like to thank all of you for your testimony this morning. you are full statements will be made part of the record. -- careful statements will be made part of the record. we will begin with our hearing panel with the national guard. i would like to call on mr. alexander, because our budget chairman has been slightly delayed. he has just called to say he will be coming in shortly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will condense my remarks to welcome to the gentleman. we look forward to your comments. the guard is one of the biggest challenges facing the department of defense. i think the chairman has outline that very adequately in the president's proposed budget does that adequately support the

guard and reserve. each of us in our states are very proud of the role that our men and women have played. our cavalry regiment has been deployed twice. many are serving in afghanistan and iraq and running missions, installing fiber-optic communications and getting wounded in harm's way. we are grateful to them and grateful for the efforts that were made to modernize the guard. we have seen great changes in what men and women who joined the guard expect to do of the last 10 or 15 years. we need to be responsive to the changed conditions and the changed expectations of our members. i will be listening closely to the testimony, and i appreciate very much your service and your being here today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will now call upon the vice-chairman. >> thank you very much for

convening the hearing. i am pleased to join you in welcoming our panel of distinguished witnesses this morning. we thank you for your service to our nation, helping protect the safety and security of our citizens and our interests around world. thank you. >> i recognize general mckinley. >> chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you. it is an honor and privilege to be here today with my directors on my right and left, as well as the other reserve chiefs. we have a very close affiliation with each other and it is a pleasure and honor to testify before you. i wanted to take this opportunity, as i always do, to thank you all for your dedication to the soldiers and airmen that we represent. bud and bill will make some statements after i do.

they have unique perspectives on the issues and concerns of our soldiers in the state active duty status and entitled 32 status. we find ourselves obviously in the midst of constrained budgets and tough decisions. no doubt we must alter spending, but should not at the expense of our security. that is why i must tell you that sequestration would haul the force substantially and devastate our national security. it would result in further severe reductions to the national guard reserve and the active component. the national guard is already facing difficult budget cuts, as you have alluded to, cuts that impact equipment and personnel. for the reductions would significantly limit the guards ability to function as an operational force, decrease the total forces overall capability , and reduce the department's capacity to protect homeland and respond to emergencies. the national guard is a more

ready, more capable, and more rapidly deployable force than ever in our nation's history, as all of you know so well from your visit back home. we have and will continue to answer the call for mobilization and volunteer support of our combat and commanders. today more than 50% of our guardsmen have combat experience. as a part-time force, the national guard is a proven affordable defense option for america. during a time of constrained budgets, we should continue to be used as an operational force to ensure the nation is getting the most effective capability at the lowest cost. as an operational force, the national guard is suited to meet the new strategic guidance, to meet city and state demands and act as a strategic head for unforeseen world events. at any time, the national guard can and will augment the active duty, but the army and air force, to surge and regenerate forces. the nation also count on the

national guard to protect the homeland. your home state,, well, territories, and the district of columbia. the national guard is the best and primary military force to respond to complex catastrophes and contribute to our security by protecting our airspace and borders. while representing only a small portion of the guards response capability, last year federal and state authorities called on one of our 57 civil support teams to use their unique weapons of mass destruction assessment skills almost twice a day, every day, in our home towns. the national guard is crucial to our governors. over the past three years, birds men and women responded to an unprecedented string of disasters -- guardsmen and women. according to the team administrator, speed is critical to domestic response. he stated recently that the national governors' association conference that aviation assets the study organic to the

national guard. other options may not provide the same speed and capacity. we are obviously located in over 3000 communities across the country, and the national guard and its position to respond quickly and efficiently and work closely with our civilian first responders to any domestic emergency. our dual role requires that we continue to improve the quality and the audio equipment, and it has been and will continue to be crucial that effort. it provides the ability to be records including homeland of vinita and modernization of legacy equipment. after 11 years of war, we continue to work closely with the united states army, the united states airforce to ensure our equipment levels meet the defense strategy. as citizen soldiers and air man, guardsmen are able to blend their unique combination of military training, civilian guard skills to provide innovative approaches to support

our nation's security strategy. the state partnership program is a cornerstone of the new strategic guidance and demonstrates the guards versatility. our partnership with more than 60 foreign countries to strengthen their military capacity and competence as well as our clients. most recently demonstrated in chicago with our nato summit. national our partner nations have reduced the demand on u.s. forces. 22 partner nations have provided 11,000 troops to afghanistan, and 40 partner nations have provided over 31,000 personnel and support of un peacekeeping operations. this year we will celebrate 20 years of the state partnership program. we look forward to continuing to work with the adjutant general, the governors of our states, territories, commonwealth's, and the district, continue this small footprint approach to security in the future.

that is what the sure we are instituting a grid based -- brett based resource and model for our counter drug activities -- borat based resources model. the breath of our skills allows the guard to take on new and emerging nations. i would like to address our most important asset. our soldiers and airmen are the reason the national guard has been so successful over the last decade. indeed, for the last 375 years. today the national guard is the most capable and competent in history and that is because we are recruiting the highest quality soldiers and airmen. our retention number since september 11, 2001 or proof that they joined because they want to be used, and expect to be used. this dedication would not be possible without the support of our families, communities, and employers. that is why i am dedicated to working closely with the army air force to provide our service members and their families and employers with the best and most effective support available.

thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today. i would like to ask bud wyatt to speak, followed by bill ingram pierre >> i would like to open with a brief review of the events of 2011 before looking to the future of the air national guard. airmen continue to make significant contributions to our nation's defense, both here at home and around the globe. last year, guard aaron filled approximately 54,000 request for manpower, 91% on lee's request for filled by volunteers. air national guard's responsiveness and adaptability was clearly demonstrated a year ago when on march 17, 2011, as the united nations security council passed a resolution 1973

authorizing a no-fly zone over libya, planes were diverted to operating basis. they began flying operational missions 48 hours later, clearly demonstrating that the air national guard is both accessible and ready to serve. last year, national guard air man spent over half million mandates performing domestic civil support missions, one- third of this on state active duty. included assisting local authorities with explosive ordnance disposal, helping with security at special events such as the boston marathon, done at state expense, not federal expense, and helping victims of floods and other natural disasters and assisting in search and rescue efforts. guard aaron spent an additional million man days and homeland

offense, including helping to defend u.s. airspace, assisting u.s. customs and border protection on ourselves west border, and supporting american counter drug programs. national guard air minnesotas have spent countless volunteer hours in their local communities aiding their fellow airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines through yellow ribbon and wounded warrior programs. congressional funding for the national guard and reserve equipment account has been essential to the air national guard fulfiling of its federal and state missions. the air national guard squadrons of deployed to afghanistan with targeting pods for the first time as a direct results of funding. a cyber critical infrastructure range, allowing siberian is to train and develop tactics and

procedures for cyber warfare without disrupting efforts use to accomplish day to day missions. while the fiscal year 2013 budget has challenges, it also has opportunities, and we adjusted our priorities to take full advantage of those opportunities. their national guard's priorities in preparing this budget were to foster the air national guard by aligning composition to be flexible and ready with special attention to new missions such as remotely piloted aircraft. number two, maintaining a combat ready force able to quickly search and integrate seamlessly into joint operations. number three, repairing what is broken by the previous realignment process and recent programming changes. mr. chairman, thank you. i am grateful to be here and look forward to answering any questions that you and the committee may have for me. thank you very much. >> thank you very much,

gentlemen. >> members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to be with you today, representing the citizen soldiers of the army national guard. the patriotism and sacrifice of these soldiers, their families, and their employers have been a source of great pride for all americans. we are the best lead, best trained, best equipped, and most experienced force in our 375- year history. congressional support has contributed to our transformation and enhance our readiness. as a result, the army national guard is a ready and reliable force, fully accessible for contingencies both at home and abroad. we provide come equipped, and trained soldiers, giving the president and governors maximum flexibility in times of crisis.

we are a full partner with the active army. since september 11, 2001, the army national guard has completed all were a half million soldier mobilizations in support of domestic operations and overseas missions. we currently have 29,000 army national guard soldiers mobilized. last year, 45,000 army guardsmen were deployed in ongoing missions around the world. as an operational force, the army national guard provides a cost-effective solution to meet the new strategic guidance. for 12.3% of the army's base budget, the army national guard provides 39% of the armies operating forces. our soldiers represent nearly every zip code in the nation. they played a vital role in the department of defense first responders for national disasters and terrorist attacks

on our sorrow. today's army national guard soldiers continue the proud tradition of service to their states and to our nation. in 2011 alone, it was the citizen soldiers who provided 900,000 duty days in support to communities across our nation. that is the second-largest domestic response since 9/11 -- since hurricane katrina. we are attracting skilled soldiers and future leaders. with the nation at war as a backdrop, our year to date enlistment rate for fiscal year 2012 is in excess of 95%. our retention rate exceeds 130%. we are meeting our authorized strength of 58,000. national guard is equipping to

be 21st century challenges for your support of the necessary resources and for modernization. our 28 brigade combat teams that include one striker brigade, are combat aviation brigades, and our special forces group are well equipped. we understand our readiness level is dependent on the level of resources that we received. the overall army national guard equipment on hand for our deployable units is currently at 88%, an increase of over two- years ago -- over two years ago when we were at 85%. equipment on hand is that 92%, an increase from 86% two years ago, and a significant increase from the 65% in was during hurricane katrina. from december 2011 through june

2013, the army national guard is programmed to receive over 120,000 pieces of equipment from army procurement funding. army national guard armories or the foundation of our readiness. we have facilities in 2899 communities across the 50 states, territories, and the district. providing quality facilities, however, is an ongoing challenge. more than 46% of our armories or over 50 years old. many are unable to meet the needs of the 21st century operational force, while failing to meet modern building standards, and especially in terms of energy efficiency. the army national guard continues to make suicide prevention a top priority. our soldiers are our most precious resource. we are addressing high-risk behaviors and suicidal

tendencies through preventive measures. country -- country into training and a range of intervention programs. we are addressing sexual harassment and assault response and retention through an aggressive training program, executed at the state level. it is crucial that these behavioral health programs received funding in our base budget. in closing, i acknowledge the continued support that you have demonstrated through the budget process and program planning for operational national guard through 2015. i want to express the army national guard's sincere appreciation for the critical role your committee plays in reece sourcing and sustaining the most capable national guard that our nation has ever had. i appreciate the privilege of being here and invite your questions. >> thank you very much. general mckinley and general wyatt, as i indicated in my opening remarks, this past

march, the air force announced structure changes and strength reductions. the greatest reductions lost. my question is, were you involved in reaching this final decision? were you consulted? what was your involvement? >> i will let bud talk to them practical process, and traditionally in the national guard, the two directors have been totally involved with their services and how the budgets are built. i was involved in the final deliberations and discussions in the december time frame, in which i expressed our corporate you on behalf of the adjutant

general on the outcome that the air force was pursuing. following the holidays, a number of meetings with both secretary panetta, chairman dempsey, general schwartz and secretary donnelly, to continue to work out the end game strategies. i think give had general schwartz and secretary donnelly here to talk about their overall views of the size of the air force, that is the smallest air force in history. recapitalization is a major issue for of air force. as general why it will tell you -- and as generalwyatt will tell you, -- as general wyatt will tell you, i will let him cover the corporate process and then take any follow-up questions you may have about our involvement.

>> mr. chairman, the air force decision making process is commonly referred to as the air force corporate process. there are several different steps along the way. the council level is three-star and recommendations are presented to the steep -- cheek and secretary at the four-star level. -- chief and secretary at the four-star level. we were encouraged to make our inputs, and we did so. in fact, we exercise that encouragement rather vociferously inside the air force corporate process. we did present alternatives to the 13-pb as it officially came out. general schwartz described the process and encouraged open debate.

i engaged openly in that the bakewell and made my inputs, but -- engaged openly in that debate. many of the recommendations and alternatives that we proposed were not adopted. we respect the difficult decisions that the chief and the secretary had to make, and once those decisions are made, as title 10 officers, we need to recognize that fact and proceed forward. we made several inputs, several alternatives, different ways of meeting the budget and the operational demands of the air force, some of which were accepted and a lot of which were not. >> thank you very much. during calendar year 2011, we were advised that 98 soldiers

took their own lives. can you tell us what is happening? >> chairman, any soldier or any person that takes their own life is a tragic experience. in the case of the army national guard, we are citizen soldiers. i don't have the exact statistics of how many of the soldiers in the army national guard committed suicide had never deployed, but there were quite a few. i am not sure whether the citizen or the soldier committed suicide. in some cases that we do a very thorough after action look at each case -- in those cases, we

take steps to prevent that from happening again, and we use that in our training. we have increased the level of training in suicide prevention, but it is an american problem as well as an army problem, as well as an army national our product -- problem. we are going to great lengths to prevent our soldiers either having suicidal tendencies or actually committing the act . >> thank you very much. >> general mckinley, the air force's restructure plan suggests that reductions in personnel and aircraft ought to be undertaken. you describe in your testimony the enhanced use of guard

forces that would provide capability in overseas missions. looking at our recent experience in libya, there were air force personnel and aircraft involved in the no-fly zone strategy. tell us what your impressions were of those who were engaged in that operation, what changes, if any, need to be made in terms of support for funding of different activities or equipment acquisition in light of those experiences. >> you rightfully point out that the air force is uniquely positioned to utilize its reserve components effectively and efficiently. for the entire time that i have been in the national guard, there has always been a close personal relationship between our acting force guard and its reserve.

that led to the capability that general why it may want to discuss, more intimately involved in the tanker commission and the mission that supported the no-fly zone in libya, to rapidly get volunteers in our communities who are associated with the requirements. and we got them overseas in record time, and they participated in the full, unified protector mission as you alluded to. that has been a tradition and a core competency of our air force. i am very proud of that. i don't think our air force can survive without the close cooperation and collaboration of its reserve component. i have heard secretary donnelly and john roy schwarz both make those statements in public rate wyatt talk general why ge

about how quickly they were deployed in successful but were in the libyan operation. >> i mentioned a little bit about the timeframe of the response early on. i will tell you especially in the refueling portion of odyssey , it was a joint effort with the active component, the guard, and reserve. the reserve had over 50% of the refueling capability in theater. the integration of the three components in the air force is a model. primarily because we are trained to the same standards. we use the same equipment. that is the way we fight and trained to fight. as we go forward in the future, i think the key for the air

force to maintain the capacity and capability and continued reliance on the reserve component guard and reserve as a couple of things. number one, concurrently with the active component and represented numbers, we can continue to be an operational force that can be called upon on a moment's notice. i would remind everyone that there was no mobilization authority available for odyssey dawn in the libyan no-fly zone. 100% of the guard and reserve is that showed up for that engagement were volunteers. the key, besides new equipment, across the reserve components -- the other key is in the baseline budget at the air force, there has to be sufficient equipment.

i think general stenner would back me up on this. the air force at goalie funds us to train and equip. but to use us in operational missions around the world, the air force needs to baseline budget so we can continue to be the operational force that is available on a moment's call. >> thus the dollar amount requested for this committee's approval beat those requirements -- does the dollar amount meet those requirements? next i think it does for the title 10 fight. i am a little bit concerned when i look at some of the domestic requirements for the air national guard. there are some pressures as the air force tries to do its part in reducing the deficit. i think the key is that as we go forward and look at the number of required days that would allow the air guard and reserve

to continue functioning, we take a look at what are the requirements and demands and then adequately budget for that, rather than just picking an arbitrary number and trying to cut. >> camp shelby in mississippi has been a site for army guardsmen reservists and others to mobilize and be deployed to areas of need. what is your impression of the funding requests for that facility, if there is money in their for any activities and programs there. what needs exist that should be brought to our attention if they are not requested? >> camp shelby has been a very viable production platform for

most of the war fight. there have been some improvements made there. the army funds those improvements out of the base budget. as we continue down the road, i think the appropriate needs it will be met by the army budget for camp shelby and several other predominately army national guard post camps and stations that are used as power projection platforms. >> thank you, senator alexander. >> thank you for being here. i want to ask about the announcement in february about with c-17's.a's

the house defense authorization bill includes a provision that would put the restructuring plan on hold for a year, so i understand. i want to try to understand from you what the consequences of that art. specifically, the idea, as you went through these difficult budget decisions, was to replace , which are expensive to maintain and which are not mission ready much of the time, with c-17's. the idea would be that would save a lot of money and produce a more efficient operation. what happens -- what does this one-year delay do in terms of

the cost of maintenance, for example? what does it do to the schedule for retraining personnel? what does it do to the guard's mission? >> a those are great questions that we are wrestling with right now. the transition into c-17's was actually a fiscal year 2012 action that was supposed to begin, but it continues into fy 2013. it requires dollars to be spent to make the conversion. i applaud that move on behalf of the air force because it does bring the air national guard more into the relevant aircraft of the future. it is something we have been pushing for for quite a long time in the air national guard.

>> we know we are going to get , so why woulda's we delay it a year? >> i hope we do not. that is one of the things i think is in the best interest of the country, that we continue with that part of it. if the ambition is to spend any fiscal year 2013 budgets on fy12 actions that need to be completed in 2013, then the dilemma is exactly as you have expressed. it would cause us to go back and take a look at the cost of maintaining them. are there appropriations to do so, if that is where we are going? it does cause us some uncertainty as we go forward pierre >> at a time when dollars are tight, many of your recommendations were not able to be accepted, but you are

saluting them. you are going to have to be spending money maintaining planes that you know you are going to get rid of, when you could be spending incurred on retraining guard personnel. you could be spending it on other aspects of mission readiness. is that not correct? >> yes, sir. the situation is exactly as you have described it. that was accepted by the united states air force and i applaud that because it did and still does make a whole lot of sense. the dilemma we are in right now is how you make that transition with the prohibitions on spending moneys in 2013. >> as we move through the process, we are trying to respect your stewardship of

scarce dollars and we see what that the late would do is really take money for planes that we know we are going to get rid of, maintain them, and money that could be used in other places. in the same light, the guard is preparing for a new unmanned aerial vehicle emissions, which got understand air force needs for that facility to assume. how will this one-year delay affect our military capabilities and the timeline for moving into national? >> a very similar situation. this was an fy 2012 action that is the gunning -- that is beginning. there is a ripple effect that we are facing. i have to applaud the adjutant

general for tennessee, very forward-looking. he volunteered to transfer into the rpa mission, one that will be around and keep the air guard relevant well into the future. but we face the same challenges their as we need to continue down that path toward transition. delays to make the transition a little bit more it difficult and costly. the cost of maintaining those aircraft would move to puerto rico, but if we are required to hold the puerto rico divestiture of any models we could have better that expensive, we would not normally have. >> i don't have much time left. toward the end of president

bush's a ministration, national guardsmen were deployed along the border to assist with immigration issues. you made a slight reference to that. i wonder if you could tell me how successful that was and whether that is still going on or not in terms of our border patrol activities. i think it was in support of those whose job is to secure the border. >> you are correct. it is in support of the customs and border patrol. that mission has changed slightly this year. changed from 1200 people to 300 people and move from a ground mission to an aerial mission. 300 soldiers lying 19 helicopters and one fixed wing aircraft, along with analysts on the ground to help interpret the data for the border patrol from

the information gained from those aircraft. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i just want to follow-up on senator alexander's question relative to the a-10. the decision has been made to retire a certain model aircraft and replace it with others. i know there have been negotiations between the guard and the air force, and then referencing the action that the house recently took to delay all this for your. what is the status of those negotiations? is this a done deal? has the final decision been made, or are there more considerations that will be

undertaken? >> a very similar situation to tennessee, significantly different input from the air national guard. are in print in the corporate process was to suggest alternative ways to meet the emerging strategy with a-10's. we have them in the air right now as we speak. -- we have the mentheater -- we have them in theater right now as we speak. additional changes were proposed in fort wayne, indiana and they are included in pb-13.

at any point in time, the secretary has the prerogative with the council of governors, the dialogue to read engaged. i think -- the dialog to re engage. my understanding is that the council of governors have respectfully declined the offer of secretary panetta to reach a compromise. we are waiting to see what happens with pb-13. in the meantime, we need to start moving toward taking a look at implementing the pb as it has been proposed, unless we are told something different like congress. >> if what the house passed becomes law, what do you anticipate the status of the

current fleet being? no mission for them, just waiting out the year? what is your take on what will happen. >> if that happens, we would hope there would be sufficient funds to keep operating. that is a great unit in fort wayne. they are already trained and they rendered great support to the operations in iraq and afghanistan. our intention would be to continue training, keeping at unit operational for as long as possible. we might have to dial down the level of continuation training, which would be very difficult to do and maintain our combat status ready to go. it would be a difficult thing to do, but we would give it our best shot, depending on the level of funding that came along with the house proposal. >> that is something that will have to be decided by the

secretary and the chief of the air force. i guess there is a possibility that they would not be operational during that holding period. i wonder what effect that might have on the plant on follow-on for the next aircraft. >> it would be obviously delayed. the part i am concerned about is the people. as i go out and visit units, the thing i am hearing is concerned about an indefinite future, about what is the future of my unit, the future of my job. is it going to be the same, different, is it going to be here at all? i mentioned about the volunteerism we have in the air national guard. recruiting and retention continues to be strong.

where i am starting to see some stress on my post is in our retention numbers. they are beginning to drop. i attribute that to the air force's 13-pb. i think that 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 may be changing their mission. >> the humvee was mentioned at 60% 20 years old or more. what is the take on what you

need? you mentioned it modernization. some mention upgrading the existing fleet and some say is more cost-effective to just go to a more modernized vehicle. i am not sure who is the best one to answer this. >> first of all, thanks for the question. i am in receipt of letters from 17 adjutant general in support of purchasing new humvees. i am the telecommunication between the department and the states, so we have forwarded those letters of support. general ingram can talk about the percentages. i would say strategically across board the air and our regard, this generation of soldiers and airmen have joined the services 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 air force. recapitalization across our fleet to include ground vehicles has got to be factored in. we have defined our with our services to make sure -- we have to fight hard to make sure the balance and proportions are right. bill will comment specifically on your question. >> we have some of the oldest humvees in the inventory for the army. the question at this moment is coming due week recapitalize the ones that we have -- the question of the moment is, do we recapitalize the ones we have? we should get a proportional share of the vehicles.

do we keep a number of humvees not recapitalized to turn in or trade in? obviously we would like to upgrade the fleet, but we want to be frugal with our resources and do the right thing. at the moment there is a tradeoff there. the longer we wait, the older the vehicles become and the more need there is for new vehicles. >> one last quick question, if i could. my preference has always been that we direct money for recruiting to you, and you decide how best to utilize that money. i know you are sponsoring in the cards --indy cars and nascar. you do that in areas where the potential for recruiting is very

high. , but't like to micromanage is this still of value to you in terms of recruiting, and whatever other gains you might get from it, or is this something that's time has come and gone? >> is really a matter of branding, and being associated with a national brand, we do get recruits and we do run recruiting booths at sporting events, both motor sports and other sports. people don't necessarily buy tide laundry detergent because of the sports car that sports the tide hood. the army national guard,

because the target audience we are looking at 4 or band of recruits -- looking at for our band of recruits, when they watch sports on television and they see army national guard, it is to the national branding opportunity that is of great value. the fact that the teams that the army national guard sponsors do some very, very good things for the nation, and they are held in high esteem by that group of people, it does lead to recruits for the army national guard. >> i would hope we would not micromanage that process. let the guard decide how best to utilize what are we give them corps recruiting and so forth.

i think it ought to be left up to the people who are involved in the process. >> now i would like to recognize the chairman of the senate national guard caucus, senator leahy. >> we saw on the news where a plane diverted and had to the jets were deployed. >> the they were. >> it leads to a question i have . a couple of lesser known cuts at the national guard, an issue

that concerns me deeply had to do with the explosive ordinance, the air control alert. it is safe to say without going into anything of classified briefings, it is safe to say that commercial airlines are still a target of terrorists. is that not a fair statement? >> that is correct. >> it would be one thing if we could see the threat strategy, but dealing with threats to the united states had changed with the drive reductions. i am worried we're just seeing a budget drill. i did not see the thread going down -- threat of going down.

i think we should have the air alert locations. it looks to me like what they did was just hand you a bill and then had to make state local cuts to meet the targets. do you think the air force considered the state and local impact of getting rid of our bomb squads? i know governors all over the country use it when they need a bomb squad. i have seen that in my own state of vermont. do you think they thought of that, if it impacts the state's pretty badly? >> i will try to address the other question first. that threat is still there. i think that probably the discussion was according to

studies you have reference that are classified, it could the nation assume a little additional risks by cutting two of the aca units. >> what i worry about is the discussion driven more by budgetary issues and not by reality. >> certainly, the budget comes into play. we have to talk about what we can afford to provide. are there opportunities or places where we can take additional risk? whether this additional risk is whetheworth the money is up for debate. the bomb squads, what we did there was we looked at the situation in iraq and afghanistan, recognizing we

would be coming home from those wars. we did have some budget of bogeys to meet. we tried to look at the capabilities that the united states needed that would be supplied by the international guard. that is one of those capabilities that is a dual use. it has a function entitled 10 and also for the governors. i think the issue that has been highlighted with the council of governor's involvement under the new process is that we have inside dod, we need to do a better job of communicating with the generals and governors to get the effect of title 10 decisions on the governor's ability to respond to things like explosive ordinance disposal. >> i think that the air force has cut into the reserves far more than the army or the navy.

i worried that they are not listening to some of the concerns. >> i get that from governors, both parties. >> senator gramm does, too. i wonder if you see any analysis on relying more on the active component will save money or provide the air force with more capability? >> no, sir. i am not seeing that. >> had been asked to see that analysis? have you asked to see that analysis? >> ps. >> that bothers me. you are the director. you should see it before the air force presented the budget proposal that substantially cut your force base on the claims that they have and they have not

shown you. >> i agree, sir. as we have gone through this process, the thing that i have come to the conclusion is that the analysis that i have been able to see, the answer is sometimes important. the conclusion is important. as important are the initial going in assumptions and the methods methodologies used in te metric of what you're trying to measure. i do not think that is sufficient. you need to go back and look at the process of the methodology and assumptions. that is the thing that concerns me. how we got to some of that. >> i agree with you. i do not think these cuts in the air guard reserves is going to save us money. i think it is going to cost us a

lot more. we saw how important they were to was in iraq and afghanistan. that is not a capability you can turn on and off like a switch. that is not even going into the continental u.s. i share the concern of a lot of the governors. they were not listened to. we will talk about that more. you have always been very available to me and my staff when we have had questions. i thank you for your distinguished service as chief of the national guard bureau. i think this could be our last hearing before your retirement. you and i have been good friends. you're going to be the first chief with four stars.

i know senator gramm and i and the very large a bipartisan coalition of senators take pleasure in that. he made history by changing the guard to the operational force. i just have to say. you can say whatever you want to say. do you think the guard has been a very good position if we did not keep the pressure on the way we do? >> you do not have to ask that. >> most of us in this room prefer not to build our own gallows. in order not to do that, i will reserve some of my comments for

meeting with you before i leave. thank you for steadfastly supporting the national guard through the senate guard caucus. 375 years of history have seen the effectiveness of the national guard ed and slow. i can only say to you because you know it's so well -- ebb and flow. i can only say to you because you know it so well how capable and competent and well lead these people are. quite frankly, it the support we have had over decades from our two services. what i worried about most to get your specific question, will the title to an world find a way as it has not over the past involvement in contingencies to

include world war ii by the way to maintain a balance to keep the national guard? how do we keep this magnificent capability, at this low-cost, high impact force of citizen air men and soldiers in the game? to keep us viable. to keep the investment in our competency at a level that the nation may need to sustain as a hedge for future operations. we have to find a way to convince our services and the department that this investment has been a a wise investment. this nation deserves to have a national guard that is trained, equipped, because there will be significant challenges in the future. to you and your colleagues, i can not thank you enough for

what you have done to make us who we are today. we are proud to serve the nation. thank you. >> as long as i am co-chair of the national guard pockets, you're not going to be ignored. -- caucus, you're not going to be ignored. i applaud all three of you for your service. thank you. >> thank you. i joined the rest of my colleagues in thanking you for your leadership on so many different issues. i want to ask you about the recent air force proposal which would move the 18th squadron down to joint base. right now, this proposal looks like it'll have an impact on a 168 air refueling wing to the extent that an operation that is

currently a 24 hour a day operation, at 365 days a week, that with this proposal as it may result in operations being diminished to a 12 hour day, five days a week. certainly not the kind of hours that will be required for this pretty incredible refueling wing up there. the general keeps reminded me of the significance. we had 23 millions of gas of there. it is important to the overall mission. to my question to you is, what did this proposal that would reduce the operations there, how will this impact the guards mission there? >> i have asked that same

question. when you stop and think about the importance of that refueling wing, at the strategic location, and some of the other activity that is happening over the arctic as we look westward, you can quickly recognize the importance of the 168 in the role that it plays in the air controller missions. that is one of the first questions i asked. if the f-16s are moved and the level of support goes down, will there be sufficient capability at that air base for the international guard to continue functioning at the level it is now? a lot of the dollar bills that are controlled for some of the base support that is required or my international guard are

there. it would be sufficient funds and services to keep the 168 playing the title role that it does. the decision whether to go from a 24/hour alert to something less than that is a call that is left to the general in consultation with northcom. i cannot get into the operational decisions. my concern would be that we have in the future as capable a wink as we do right now. i watched closely in the attempt that would diminish their ability to perform a mission. i wish i had a better answer. >> if you did have to go to reduce hours operation, 12 hours, it could you do the mission that you believe you have to do and are required to do there in the arctic?

>> the mission requirements are set by the war fighters. if they were to make the conclusion that a 12 hour alert to be sufficient for mission accomplishment, we can do that. that is a judgment call that will need to be made by the commander that would take into consideration the additional risks than not having that units on alert for 12 hours a day mission.e to the hcaca >> the 168 is operating at its capacity. they have reported having to decline certain missions even within the 24/our day time frame they are operating. the 168 has asked for additional aircraft and active association. they have been doing so for several years. it can effectively do more for the mission. can you give me the status of

this request? >> part of the recent basic criteria that was released to congress evolved from what we be called the board's composition analysis for the entire refueling analysis. one of the recommendations that came out of that study was that as we go forward in the refueling enterprise, and that all of the units at some point in time transition to either active associations in the case of the 168 or classic associations, 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 and how robust that association would be. would it bring additional airplanes as part of the active

association that would bring active-duty pilots -- association? would it bring active-duty pilots? those are questions to be answered. >> no. timeline that we may expect those answers? >> no time line that i am aware of other than a push to go to active associations and classic associations across the air mobility fleet. >> let me ask you about the c- 23s. last year the army proposed the elimination of the sherpas with the belief they would replace that capabilities. they are now propose to go away. are we reconsidering the future of the c-23s?

>> the army has taking the funding away. detesttent is to those by the end of fy14. there is no reconsideration. >> what i am told is there is a wide numbers of the generals that deal the c-23 is important to the mission. the air force is looking. are you satisfied that it can be served? to beis the right thing doing? >> i feel that domestic airlift is a concern that should be addressed. i am not sure that it has been adequately addressed for the

domestic mission. i know the army has taken the air force position that the air force will support inter-theatre airlift. >> any ideas as to how we can address the domestic airlift? >> northcom is -- he views looking at the homelands as a viewer of operations. i think his perspective will be very important in determining requirements for all homeland defense or homeland operations.

>> thank you. >> thank you very much. i thank you for your testimony this morning. i thank you for your service to our nation. any further questions? >> i have no further questions. i do want to congratulate our panel for the leadership you are providing for our armed forces. thank you very much. >> i will be submitting some questions and ask for your response. now the committee asks general stultz, debbink, hummer, and stenner to come forward for their testimony. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> gentlemen, i thank you for joining us this morning. shall we start with admiral debbink? >> thank you for it a privilege to speak with you about the capabilities and readiness of our 63,988 men and women who are serving in our navy reserve today. we have performed nearly 64,000

year-long mobilizations to active duty on the front lines of freedom. it exemplifies our navy core values of courage and commitment. as our motto proudly claim, we are ready now, anytime, anywhere. they established three tenants for the navy. fighting, operating forward, and be ready. this fully alliance with directions. our sailors are eager to do their part to ensure the navy remains the world premiere of maritime service. we provide full-time and part- time operational capabilities and strategic step for maritime missions to insure the navy is always ready to respond globally while maintaining fiscal efficiency across our whole spectrum. thanks to the work of this

congress, the service secretaries have assured access to reserve component units. this will allow the navy to decide missions to the navy reserve from peace to war. while we will first have the opportunity to budget for such use in fiscal year 2014, i want you to know how important this was to our future force while i have the opportunity. i appreciate your support for the purchase of our 14 c48 for our essential airlift. a congressional support is allowing our lived to be more cost effective and more relevant in the future. our 2013 budget request will allow to support operations while maximizing the strategic force with its readiness and

accessibility. the truth price for our sailors will be the real and meaningful work as part of the global force for good. they assumed 100 term of the oaugment. min the reserve much be asked and required to do those missions we're able to do so the active company can focus on the missions that they must do for our national security. this is my fourth and final year of appearing before your committee. i am proud of the accomplishments and am thankful for the support of this congress. on behalf of our sailors and their families and civilians, thank you for your continued support and commitment to our

navy blazer. >> thank you. >> first of all, it is an honor to be here. thank you for all the support you continue to give our soldiers and nation. on behalf of the 205,000 soldiers that are serving our nation, what epitomizes what the soldiers are all about is the young soldier i brought with me today. is it being very eloquent in an open statement, i wanted to introduce him to you. seated to my left is sergeant burgess and his wife. he is from ohio and belongs to the psychological unit. last year, he was in afghanistan. he was in southern afghanistan,

attached to the marines. out on a mission,