[Senate Hearing 109-911]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-911
THE ROLES AND MISSIONS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD IN SUPPORT OF THE BUREAU
OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 17, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-878 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN WARNER, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CARL LEVIN, Michigan
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine JACK REED, Rhode Island
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri BILL NELSON, Florida
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana
JOHN CORNYN, Texas HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
Charles S. Abell, Staff Director
Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
The Roles and Missions of the National Guard in Support of the Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection
may 17, 2006
Page
McHale, Hon. Paul, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense........................................................ 6
Conway, Lt. Gen. James T., USMC, Director of Operations, J-3, The
Joint Staff.................................................... 7
Blum, LTG H. Steven, USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau........... 8
Aguilar, Chief David V., Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security......... 9
Craig, Senator Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho.... 27
(iii)
THE ROLES AND MISSIONS OF THE
NATIONAL GUARD IN SUPPORT OF THE
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:10 p.m. in room
SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Senator John Warner
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Warner, Collins,
Ensign, Talent, Thune, Byrd, Reed, Akaka, E. Benjamin Nelson,
Dayton, and Clinton.
Committee staff members present: Charles S. Abell, staff
director; Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk; and
John H. Quirk V, security clerk.
Majority staff members present: Regina A. Dubey,
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; Gregory T. Kiley, professional staff member; Sandra E.
Luff, professional staff member; Derek J. Maurer, professional
staff member; Elaine A. McCusker, professional staff member;
David M. Morriss, counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional
staff member; Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member; Sean
G. Stackley, professional staff member; Scott W. Stucky,
general counsel; and Kristine L. Svinicki, professional staff
member.
Minority staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes,
Democratic staff director; Evelyn N. Farkas, professional staff
member; Creighton Greene, professional staff member; Gerald J.
Leeling, minority counsel; Peter K. Levine, minority counsel;
and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
Staff assistants present: Jessica L. Kingston, Benjamin L.
Rubin, Jill L. Simodejka, and Pendred K. Wilson.
Committee members' assistants present: Arch Galloway II,
assistant to Senator Sessions; Mackenzie M. Eaglen, assistant
to Senator Collins; D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator
Ensign; Lindsey R. Neas, assistant to Senator Talent; Clyde A.
Taylor IV, assistant to Senator Chambliss; Greg Riels,
assistant to Senator Dole; Russell J. Thomasson, assistant to
Senator Cornyn; Christina Evans and Erik Raven, assistants to
Senator Byrd; Elizabeth King and Neil D. Campbell, assistants
to Senator Reed; Darcie Tokioka, assistant to Senator Akaka;
William K. Sutey, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Eric
Pierce, assistant to Senator Ben Nelson; Kimberly Jackson,
assistant to Senator Dayton; and Andrew Shapiro, assistant to
Senator Clinton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER, CHAIRMAN
Chairman Warner. Good afternoon, everyone.
I'll place my complete opening statement in the record, but
I would want to first acknowledge the most important fact here,
that today is your birthday, Senator Nelson. You may have an
extra minute or two. [Laughter.]
Senator Collins, I thank you for your cooperation. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), over which your
committee has jurisdiction--has provided us a witness because
there is a joint tasking, at the present time, between the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the DHS. Perhaps that chain of
command and tasking can be dealt with, Mr. Secretary in your
testimony.
The President, I think, has made a bold and a correct
decision--and I support the President in beginning to utilize
one of America's most valuable assets--its National Guard--
which goes back to the very origins of this republic, to come
to the forefront to help their fellow Americans provide a
greater measure of security on their borders. We're anxious to
receive such details as we can from our distinguished panel of
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator John Warner
Good afternoon, the Senate Armed Services Committee meets today to
receive testimony regarding the roles and missions of National Guard
Forces in support of civil authorities.
Specifically, we meet to discuss the recent announcement by
President Bush that National Guard units will be deployed, on a
temporary basis--in support of the Department of Homeland Security,
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.
We welcome our distinguished witnesses:
The Honorable Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Homeland Defense;
Chief David V. Aguilar, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection;
Lieutenant General James T. Conway, Director of Operations,
J-3, the Joint Staff; and,
Lieutenant General Steven Blum, Chief, National Guard
Bureau.
Over the past several weeks, there has been considerable debate
within Congress, and throughout our Nation, regarding how best to stem
the flow of illegal immigrants across our borders.
On Monday, May 15, our President addressed the Nation, and proposed
to employ the National Guard in support of the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection, to assist them with their border security mission.
Based on the initial reports and meetings, I believe this proposal
has considerable merit.
However, many unanswered questions remain.
Gentlemen, we seek your insight, as well as your own personal
assessments, regarding the following:
Under what statutory authority units and members of the
National Guard would be deployed?
What is the duration of this deployment?
When do you expect the first units will be deployed?
How will these deployments be funded?
How will unity of command, as well as, unity of effort be
accomplished? And,
What are the rules for ``the use of force'' for these units?
We have much ground to cover on this very important topic.
Again, we welcome our witnesses this afternoon and look forward to
their testimony.
Chairman Warner. Senator Nelson, do you have an opening
statement?
Senator Ben Nelson. I do, Mr. Chairman.
I have a statement that Senator Levin has asked me to
introduce, which I will insert into the record at this time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Carl Levin
Let me join the Chairman in welcoming Secretary McHale, General
Conway, General Blum, and Chief Aguilar. Let me thank the Chairman for
holding this hearing. Given the demands being placed on the National
Guard by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the global war on terrorism,
and the need to be prepared to respond to natural disasters in the
hurricane and fire seasons--which are upon us--it is incumbent upon
this committee to examine the implications of the President's border
security proposal for the U.S. military.
On Monday night, President Bush announced a plan to address illegal
immigration, which included using the National Guard for a transitional
period of time to strengthen border security. He stated that, starting
next month, and over the course of the next year, up to 6,000 National
Guard personnel will be helping border security and law enforcement
officials secure the border with Mexico. In a briefing yesterday,
Secretary McHale indicated that it is also possible that some--title
10--or Federal status--military personnel might also be assigned to
this border security mission.
While chapter 18 of title 10 of the U.S.C. provides authority for
military personnel to support law enforcement agencies under certain
circumstances, and Congress has since 1989 provided temporary authority
for the conduct of counterdrug activities in support of law enforcement
agencies and, most recently, for counterterrorism activities, this new
border security role does not appear to be specifically authorized by
U.S. law. I hope Secretary McHale can tell us about the specific legal
authority for this mission.
The President's plan has implications for our military, for the
States, and for our international relations. We need to know more about
how units and individuals will be affected. Some of the tasks that
Secretary McHale outlined in briefings yesterday--such as engineering
and aerial reconnaissance--involve so-called ``high demand, low
density'' assets that are sorely needed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for
counterterrorist and counterdrug missions. Moreover, on reconnaissance,
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report on Hurricane
Katrina and lessons for the military that was just released on Monday,
states that these same reconnaissance capabilities need to be better
integrated into disaster support missions of the U.S. military. Do we
have enough assets to meet all of the existing warfighting
requirements, disaster relief planning and operational requirements,
and now this new border support mission?
Our staff was informed that National Guard personnel returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan would not be assigned to the border support
mission for at least 6 months. Given that, will there be sufficient
National Guard personnel to rotate through the border patrol mission
for the next year at the levels envisioned by the plan? Also, what will
be the readiness impact on the National Guard units who have not
rotated through Iraq or Afghanistan, but do participate in the border
security mission? For some military specializations, this border
security mission will not provide them with training to maintain their
warfighting skills. Moreover, since our staff was advised that the
National Guard units would be acquiring training that equates to their
mission essential tasks, would that exclude the participation of units
such as most infantry and artillery and the like, whose skills do not
appear to match up with what might be helpful to the border patrol?
I also hope to hear more about whether this plan has been
coordinated with the governors of the southern States that would be
receiving personnel and the States that would be supplying National
Guard units and individuals, and how it will be executed in
coordination with them. Given the problems experienced in coordinating
large-scale, multi-State National Guard movements to assist the Gulf
States after Hurricane Katrina, can we be confident that the Northern
Command and the National Guard are now prepared to manage the
deployments associated with responding to catastrophic natural
disasters, and this new border security mission?
On the international front, the Mexican government stated yesterday
that it will file lawsuits in U.S. courts if U.S. troops directly
engage in detaining migrants. We have been told that this plan
specifically prohibits the National Guard from undertaking any law
enforcement missions, but I would like to hear more about where the
lines will be drawn. Exactly what rules will apply to the use of force?
In addition, it appears that the Mexican government was simply informed
of this plan, rather than consulted or coordinated with. I am
interested in hearing about whether there will be any coordination with
Mexican law enforcement and military officials in the execution of U.S.
missions.
Canadian officials have also expressed concern about the impact on
the northern border. I would like to know whether we consulted with the
Canadians on this initiative and what the impact will be on the
northern border.
Finally, of course, we need to know what this will cost for the
Department of Defense and how it will be paid for.
Thank you.
Senator Ben Nelson. Let me say that the 8 years that I was
Governor of Nebraska, with an Adjutant General of extraordinary
capabilities, Major General Stanley M. Heng, some of the
proudest and most important moments that I had during those 8
years were when I had to have the support of the National
Guard. On each and every occasion, when it was necessary,
unfortunately, to ask for their help, they responded in a way--
and I might say that General Heng has been experiencing some
less-than-great health lately, and I know our thoughts and our
prayers and best wishes go to him.
Let me join in welcoming Secretary McHale, General Conway,
and General Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and in such a timely manner, given the demands placed
on the National Guard by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the
global war on terrorism, and the need to be prepared to respond
to natural disasters in the hurricane and fire seasons, which
are, unfortunately, upon us.
It's incumbent upon this committee to examine the
implications of the President's border security proposal for
the U.S. military, even though many may be in total support of
that effort.
On Monday night, President Bush announced a plan to address
illegal immigration, which included using the National Guard
for a transitional period of time to strengthen border
security. He stated that, starting next month and over the
course of the next year, up to 6,000 National Guard personnel
will be helping border security and law enforcement officials
secure the border with Mexico. In a briefing yesterday,
Secretary McHale indicated that it is also possible that some
title 10 or Federal status military personnel might also be
assigned to this border security mission.
While chapter 18 of title 10 of the U.S. Code provides
authority for military personnel to support law enforcement
agencies under certain circumstances, and Congress has, since
1989, provided temporary authority for the conduct of
counterdrug activities in support of law enforcement agencies,
and most recently, for counterterrorism activities, this new
border security role doesn't appear to be specifically
authorized by U.S. law. I hope Secretary McHale can tell us
about the specific legal authority for this particular mission.
The President's plan has implications for our military, for
our States, and for our international relations. We need to
know more about how units and individuals will be affected.
Some of the tasks that Secretary McHale outlined in briefings
yesterday, such as engineering and aerial reconnaissance,
involve so-called high-demand, low-density assets that are
sorely needed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for counterterrorism
and counterdrug missions. Moreover, on reconnaissance, the
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report on Hurricane
Katrina and lessons for the military that was just released on
Monday, states that these same reconnaissance capabilities need
to be better integrated into disaster support missions of the
U.S. military. So, do we have enough assets to meet all of the
existing warfighting requirements, disaster relief planning,
and operational requirements, and now this new border support
mission? Those are questions that we'll have to address today.
Our staff was further informed that National Guard
personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be
assigned to the border support mission for at least 6 months.
Given that, will there be sufficient National Guard personnel
to rotate through the Border Patrol mission for the next year
at the levels envisioned by the plan? Also, what will the
readiness be for the impact on the National Guard units who
have not yet rotated through Iraq or Afghanistan, but do
participate in the border security mission? For some military
specializations, this border security mission will not provide
them with training to maintaining their warfighting skills.
Moreover, since our staff was advised that the National Guard
units would be acquiring training that equates to their
mission-essential tasks, would that exclude the participation
of units such as most infantry and artillery and the like whose
skills do not appear to match up with what might be helpful to
the Border Patrol?
I also hope to hear more about whether this plan has been
coordinated with the Governors of the southern States that
would be receiving personnel and the States that would be
supplying National Guard units and individuals, and how it will
be executed in coordination with them. Given the problems
experienced at coordinating large-scale multi-State National
Guard movements to assist the Gulf States after Hurricane
Katrina, can we be confident that the Northern Command
(NORTHCOM) and the National Guard are now prepared to manage
the deployments associated with responding to catastrophic
natural disasters and this new border security mission, and do
so at the same time?
On the international front, finally, the Mexican government
stated yesterday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if
U.S. troops directly engage in detaining migrants. We've been
told that this plan specifically prohibits the National Guard
from undertaking any law enforcement missions, but I'd like to
hear more about where the lines will be drawn, exactly what
rules will apply to the use of force. In addition, it appears
that the Mexican government was simply informed of this plan,
rather than consulted or coordinated with, so I'm interested in
hearing about whether there will be any coordination with
Mexican law enforcement and military officials in the execution
of U.S. missions.
Finally, Canadian officials have also expressed concern
about the impact on the northern border. So, we'd like to know
whether we've consulted with the Canadians on this initiative
and what will the impact be on the northern border?
Finally, as a matter of finances----
Chairman Warner. Whoa, that's three ``finallys.''
Senator Ben Nelson. Three finallys. We need to know what
it's going to cost the DOD, and how, ultimately, we'll pay for
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. The staff did quite a job. I'll remind
them next time. [Laughter.]
I put a statement in the record. I have a similar litany of
questions, which I thought I'd reserve. But I do want to
include, what are the rules for the use of force by our forces?
Senator Byrd, did you have a comment you'd like to make?
Senator Byrd. I could make it now or later.
Chairman Warner. Why don't we wait. Anyone else wish to
make opening comments?
Senator Byrd. All right.
Chairman Warner. If not, then, Secretary McHale, would you
please lead off?
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL McHALE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE
Mr. McHale. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner, Senator Nelson, Senator Byrd, Senator
Reed, Senator Dayton, Senator Collins, Senator Ensign, and
distinguished members of the committee, that was quite a litany
of questions presented by Senator Nelson. In the interest of
moving to those questions at the earliest opportunity, although
I don't have a formal statement--we were not asked to present
one to the committee--I have a very brief opening statement
that may frame some of the issues that were referenced in the
questions raised by Senator Nelson, and then, upon the
conclusion of the testimony presented initially by my
colleagues, we can move to those questions and others.
The task of maintaining the integrity of U.S. international
borders is assigned, by law, to the DHS. For that reason, the
deployment of military forces along the southwest border will
be in support of the DHS.
The military forces, as noted by a number of the Senators,
will be drawn largely from the National Guard. All National
Guard Forces will be under the command and control of the
Governor in whose State the forces are operating.
The initial commitment of up to 6,000 military forces, on a
rotational basis for up to 12 months, will be the first phase
of the operation. Military support will not exceed 3,000
personnel during a possible second year of deployments.
The DOD will pay the costs, on a reimbursable basis, and
perhaps we can get into that in some detail in response to
Senator Nelson's question.
The missions will include, for example, surveillance and
reconnaissance, engineering support, transportation support,
logistics support, vehicle dismantling, medical support,
barrier and infrastructure construction, roadbuilding, and
language support.
The DOD will play no role in the direct apprehension,
custodial care, or security associated with those who are
detained by civilian law enforcement authorities. Law
enforcement along the border will remain a civilian function.
The National Guard missions will be substantially similar
to the annual training missions executed as part of the
counterdrug program along the southwest border for the past 2
decades. The difference is that, in size of the force and the
commitment of resources, the scope will be far greater than
anything we have done in the past.
In short, we will be doing essentially what we have been
doing for 20 years, but with many more people, in many more
locations, with significantly greater resources.
The missions assigned to our soldiers and airmen will be
directly related to the military skills normally associated
with their warfighting and disaster response missions. In
addition, DOD and DHS will use civilian contractors, when
appropriate.
The National Guard deployment along the southwest border in
support of the DHS is an important, but temporary, bridge to
improved civilian security capabilities. We will draw down our
forces, consistent with ongoing mission requirements.
The men and women of the DOD will work diligently and
professionally to support the DHS, improving our land border
security while providing excellent training to our soldiers and
airmen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
General Conway?
STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JAMES T. CONWAY, USMC, DIRECTOR OF
OPERATIONS, J-3, THE JOINT STAFF
General Conway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, first of all, for your continued support to our
great young men and women in uniform, and second, for the
opportunity to be here today and to offer a Joint Staff
perspective on this pending deployment of our National Guard
Forces to the border.
Simply stated and upfront, the Joint Staff perspective does
not differ at all from that of Secretary McHale or what General
Blum will speak to you about. There's no daylight in our
positions. We've been engaged in the planning from the outset,
and we're fairly well-convinced that, with approved funding
request, that we will make these deployments successful, and
ultimately, improve the security along our borders.
Importantly, and partially, sir, to your question, Senator
Nelson, we have seen a decreasing number of National Guard and
Reserve in our recent deployment to--rotations to Iraq and to
Afghanistan. Therefore, I'm confident that these operations on
the border will not lessen our ability to continue to prosecute
this global war on terrorism.
There's still a lot of planning to do. We're fairly early
in the process, but we look forward to the planning with our
DOD and DHS counterparts, again, with ultimate confidence that
the mission will be a success.
Thank you for the opportunity, sir, and I look forward to
your questions.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, General.
General Blum.
STATEMENT OF LTG H. STEVEN BLUM, USA, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD
BUREAU
General Blum. Chairman Warner, Senator Nelson, happy
birthday.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you.
General Blum. Distinguished members of the committee, it's
an honor to be before you today to talk about the President's
southwest border support mission.
I will keep my remarks short, because most of you are very
familiar with the National Guard and what we're doing.
Secretary McHale and General Conway have outlined, very
clearly, the concept of operation. I think it is probably
useful to remind members that we are building on a long-
lasting, time-proving, effective model that we have used for
nearly 20 years on the southwest border. We are going to
leverage all of the relationships and experience that we've
gained since 1989 in the southwest border of our Nation with
support of the civilian law enforcement agencies, to include
Border Patrol, Immigration's Control and Enforcement, as well
as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).
The National Guard is superbly suited for this mission, in
my view, because of these relationships, and because of the
fact that the forces, while they will be paid for by the
Federal Government, and the resources will be provided by the
Federal Government, they will remain under the control of the
Governors. That is good because the Governors are very
concerned with what's happening within their State and the
border with Mexico.
At the same time, their National Guard Forces, while
federally supported, will be supporting a Federal law
enforcement agency for the DHS. So, in my view, it's the
perfect selection of a force that's going to have to walk a
balance between shared authorities and responsibilities between
the State and the Federal Government. The resources are
provided to the Governors. The flexibility is extended to the
Governors, yet the support is rendered to Chief Aguilar for the
Border Patrol in that area.
As far as the Mexican side of the border, the States of
California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas all have long-
lasting existing relationships between the State agencies and
their National Guard and the military and law enforcement
forces in Mexico. There's even some relationships that can be
leveraged between the Governors of the States and the governors
of the states of Mexico.
So, for all of these reasons, I am comfortable with the
mission. The resources have been identified that we will need,
and I'm comfortable they will be provided. I am absolutely
certain that the National Guard is up to the challenge to do
this, because it is nothing new for us. This is not a new
mission; it's just an existing mission that will be done at a
much grander scale than we have done in the past.
Sir, I await your questions.
Chairman Warner. Chief Aguilar?
STATEMENT OF CHIEF DAVID V. AGUILAR, OFFICE OF BORDER PATROL,
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. Aguilar. Chairman Warner, good afternoon distinguished
members. It's a great opportunity for me to be here, to be able
to speak to you and answer any questions that you might have
relative to this undertaking.
This undertaking is a continuing buildup of our partnership
that has existed for over 20 years with the DOD and with the
National Guard. That partnership has been a tremendous asset to
the protection of this country.
Off to my right here, I will point out, very quickly, the
type of help that the National Guard has been involved with in
the past in supporting us: building tactical infrastructure
such as bollard fencing, low water crossings in areas that are
very inaccessible to the Border Patrol. Accessibility and
mobility to our border are absolutely critical in augmenting
our capacity and our capabilities as we work towards protecting
our border.
As most of you have heard, our operations now are centered
very much in very rural and remote areas of our country. The
capabilities, the equipment, and the capacity that the National
Guard will be bringing to our support will be a tremendous
force multiplier. I, again, just want to revisit that the type
of work that they will be doing for us is engineering. They
will be playing the part of eyes and ears for our enforcement
personnel, thereby building up a tremendous capacity even for
the Border Patrol Agency that we now have currently on the
ground.
Now, this is an interim, it is a bridge, towards the
buildup of the 6,000 Border Patrol agents, between the
beginning of fiscal year 2007 and the end of calendar year
2008. So, there will be a melding and a transition, if you
will, of the resourcing on the borders between the National
Guard augmentation that's going to start and the actual
permanent resourcing of the Border Patrol assets that are being
continued to build through the end of calendar year 2008.
So, again, I thank the panel here for the opportunity, and
I will close out my oral statement just by saying that we are
very proud of our past partnership with DOD and the National
Guard, and we are very much looking forward to our continued
joint efforts in continuing to work to protect our country.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
We'll go into a round of 6 minutes each, and we'll invite
our distinguished colleague, Senator Craig, to join us in this.
Senator Craig was among the very first who recognized the
value of this option and spoke frequently about it, and,
indeed, did counsel the President on it. We thank you for
joining us.
I invited other Members of the Senate on border States, so
they may appear from time to time.
I'll go right into the questions.
You said, very clearly, that the role and mission of the
National Guard would not be law enforcement, even though under
the law of Posse Comitatus, they could perform law enforcement.
Then it was stated clearly that these troops will be under the
command and control with respect to Governors. The Governors
might take a different view as to whether or not they wish to
have their forces participate in some measure of law
enforcement. So, I think we'd better get it clear, if they have
command and control, how can we take away from them one of the
major features of that responsibility of guardsmen?
Mr. McHale. Sir, we can only do it by agreement with the
Governors. They have to voluntarily relinquish that power.
Chairman Warner. All right.
Mr. McHale. It's a prerequisite for Federal funding under
title 32. Your observation is correct. In title 32, these
forces could be used for law enforcement. A policy decision has
been made not to use our National Guard for law enforcement. In
order to receive the Federal funding for title 32, in a
memorandum of understanding, a draft of which is being prepared
now, the Governors would have to agree to use these forces in
support of Customs and Border Protection, and not for law
enforcement.
Chairman Warner. Is that generally understood, with all of
our witnesses? General Conway? General Blum?
General Blum. Yes, sir. Because it's federally funded, that
means what we do with those Federal funds, even while it is
under the command and control of the Governor, must be vetted
and approved by the Joint Director of Military Support (JDOMS)
or the DOD. So, the Governors, as long as they use their forces
operating----
Chairman Warner. You giveth with one hand, and taketh away
with the other, I think.
General Blum. Yes, sir. Now, if the----
Mr. McHale. Take a little bit away with the other.
General Blum. If the Governor----
Mr. McHale. If it's significant----
General Blum. If the Governor wants to----
Chairman Warner. I'm not arguing the point. I want to lay
it out clearly.
Mr. McHale. Yes, sir.
General Blum. You have it correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Senator Collins' committee, of which I am
a member, went into the command-and-control structure in
Hurricane Katrina and other situations, and there were clearly
some problems there.
Second, Chief, as you well know, better than all of us,
there's a variation in that border. There are variations in the
terrain, all types of situations there. One Governor might look
at how best to enforce that border in his or her perspective,
another may have a different view. Supposing two Governors are
of different views as to how this augmented border patrol by
the National Guard should perform in their respective States?
Mr. Aguilar. One of the things that I think we need to go
back on, Mr. Chairman, is the history. We have consistently
operated under these sets of rules that we're going to continue
to operate under. That has never occurred. Should that occur,
though, there is an understanding that the Customs and Border
Protection will basically build the strategy and the
implementation plan as to what will be followed in building the
tactical infrastructure.
Now, one of the things that we have done is, each one of
the Governors, and each one of their State homeland security
directors, has been briefed, in prior instances, on our plan,
on our strategy, on our requirements.
Chairman Warner. That's very helpful.
There's concern across America for the welfare of the
National Guard and their families. They have performed
brilliantly in operations--and still are--in Afghanistan and
Iraq. There's concern that they're stretched. I use that word
simply because it's the word in the discussions all across
America around the dinner table.
Mr. McHale. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. So, I want to first ask General Conway,
then General Blum, are you satisfied that this will not be
overtasking or stretching the National Guard?
General Conway. Sir, I am, for a couple of different
reasons. One, the National Guard and the Reserve----
Chairman Warner. Let me stop you--there are roughly 460,000
guardsmen. Is that correct?
General Conway. Yes, sir. 462,000--I think, was the figure
I saw this morning.
Chairman Warner. 462,000--and this initial cadre will
amount to somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000, correct?
General Blum. Yes, sir.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Chairman Warner. So, it's a relatively small part.
General Conway. Yes, sir.
Sir, from a larger picture, we have seen, as I mentioned in
the opening comment, a decreasing scale regards the employment
of the National Guard and the Reserve and the rotations into
Iraq and Afghanistan. For 2005-2007, it was roughly 40 percent.
For 2006-2008, it was 28 percent. For 2007-2009, it's going to
be down to about 19 percent. So, they have served their country
beautifully, and now the United States Army, with
modularization, doesn't put so much of a drain on them.
Senator Nelson did comment, where there is a requirement,
now persists more with the low-density/high-use types of folks,
and we're going to watch closely what this deployment means in
that context.
But the other thing that I would offer is that the period
of time that they will be employed on the border very much is
going to match up to their annual Active-Duty training
requirements to begin with. This is purposefully done this way
to help limit the stress on them and their families.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
I'm looking at that wife and two or three children around
their dinner table waiting for their guardsman to get back from
a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, and learning of this. Give
us the assurance that that individual, as he comes back, has,
at my understanding, at least 90 days to 6 months in which to
reunite with this family and his local National Guard unit
before any further deployments. As such, that individual case
will not exacerbate that family and its stress on it, at this
time.
Am I correct?
General Blum. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely correct. In
no case will a returning veteran from a global war on terrorism
or an extended deployment be required to be part of this
mission. This mission is designed to have great flexibility in
title 32, where we can help the employer and the family use the
skills of these citizen soldiers and air men and women in the
same model of their normal expectations. Their 15-days annual
training a year will be applied to this. Those that will be
part of a duration force, or those that will be there longer,
will be there with their own consent and will be volunteers.
We feel very comfortable there's enough of those out there.
Chairman Warner. While you've been drawing initially on the
guardsmen in the respective States, will those guardsmen,
first, work on their border, or will they be used on other
borders? Second, will you not be accessing guardsmen from the
other States, all across America, much like you did in Katrina?
General Blum. Sir, you again have it correct. The people
from California will mostly be working on their own borders. Of
course, they have a seam with their neighboring State. That's
why the rules of engagement (ROE) and rules for the use of
force (RUF) are going to be common amongst all four States and
are being vetted with the attorneys general and the DOD general
counsel to make sure that we don't have any contradictions in
the ROE or RUF. We're going to basically use the existing ROE
and RUF from the counternarcotics National Guard effort to use
that as our model, because we would like to keep them exactly
the same for both missions, if we possibly can.
Chairman Warner. Last question to you, Secretary McHale. In
listening to your opening statement very carefully, you said,
``They'll bring a lot of resources with them.'' Let's talk
about those resources because there's tremendous technological
advancements in how to detect and provide security on a border.
I think it would be wise if you shared with us a pretty full
menu of what you're going to bring. For instance, you have
motion detectors, you have infrared; indeed, you can utilize
satellites. You have the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). So,
let's talk about that. That's what a lot of these guardsmen
will bring with them not only the material itself, but the
knowledge as to how to use it.
Mr. McHale. Sir, I think you made a pretty good start in
listing the kinds of capabilities that we would expect to use
along the southwest border. Those are the same capabilities,
for the most part, that we have been using along the southwest
border and on other occasions at other locations throughout the
United States. Last year, we had Operation Winter Freeze along
the Canadian border and upstate New York and Vermont, and used
many of the same capabilities in that region at that time.
Let me just give you some examples. Because we do not
engage in law enforcement either in the counternarcotics
mission or in the mission that we propose, we provide support
to law enforcement agents within the Border Patrol. So, a
typical mission--I flew on one of these shortly after I became
the Assistant Secretary, went down to the Texas border with
Mexico. It was an Active-Duty unit, not a National Guard unit.
It was a Marine Reserve aviation unit, helicopter unit. We went
up at night. We had what's called a forward-looking infrared
(FLIR) capability, a really extraordinary capability. General
Conway can speak more authoritatively on it than I can. But,
just as a civilian, using the right kinds of goggles with an
infrared searchlight invisible to the naked eye, you can scan
vast areas of the desert and note any movement below, observe
that movement, and then get on the radio or by other means of
communication notify Customs and Border Protection where to
interdict, with that invisible observation capability, someone
illegally crossing the border. That's an example.
Chairman Warner. Basically technologically will provide a
virtual wall. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. McHale. I think that's a good way to describe it. I
don't want to give the false impression that it would be an
impenetrable wall, but certainly it is a major improvement for
border security.
Chairman Warner. Right. I think we should close one gap
here, General Blum. Unfortunately, some of these people who are
coming in illegally carry weapons and pose a danger, whether
it's Border Patrol--the Chief can speak to that, because I--by
the way, I saw you on television. I thought you handled your
questions very well, Chief, in an in-depth interview.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. You addressed the fact that you had lost
some men, brave men, who are down there trying to defend that
border. But our guardsmen will have live ammunition in the
event they have to defend themselves, is that correct?
General Blum. Yes, sir. Everybody that is employed in this
mission that would be in a mission set where their life would
be threatened or we think that they could encounter danger will
have the right of self-protection, and will be armed and able
to do that.
Chairman Warner. Accordingly. Thank you.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Since I asked too many questions earlier, I'll try to limit
it right now.
Chairman Warner. Oh, no, you go ahead. It's your birthday.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ben Nelson. First of all, in terms of the number of
personnel that would be required, I believe you've stated,
General Blum, that as many as 156,000 troops would be required,
on a rotational basis, to deploy 6,000 in the first year and
3,000 in the second year, and that the approach would be to try
to have as many of the National Guard troops from the States
where the mission will be accomplished. If that's the case,
there are about 50,000 guardsmen in those States. So, with my
quick math, we're going to be taking people from other States,
no matter how many we try to keep locally involved. How are we
going to not be able to accomplish that?
General Blum. Sir, that'll be through prearrangement
agreements between the donor Governors and the recipient
Governors. It works exceedingly well. I think you saw it in
evidence in the crucible of time constraints and urgency in
Hurricane Katrina. We don't have those constraints. We have the
time to coordinate--precoordinate. There's great flexibility
here. If there is a reason that a Governor has a capability
that we desire that is not available, even at the worst case,
let's say it's 160,000 citizen soldiers and airmen--because I'm
going to leverage the capabilities of the Air National Guard,
as well--even if that were the case, I still have 300,000 other
soldiers to rotate through here. You have to remember that we
regenerate our force at about 60,000 a year. So, in a 2-year
period, we'll have an additional 50,000 or 60,000 trained
troops to add to the inventory that we already have. I don't
see this as an insurmountable challenge. I certainly don't see
less than 2 percent of the force being dedicated to this
mission, distracting from our ability to do hurricane relief or
flood relief or generate forces overseas.
Senator Ben Nelson. What does this do to the proposal that
we've considered from time to time so that somebody who signs
up for the National Guard could anticipate a deployment once
every 5 years, or for a multiple period of time where they
wouldn't expect a deployment? What does this do to that?
General Blum. It doesn't alter that contract in any way,
shape, or form, sir. Every National Guardsman knows they have
15 days of annual training that they're going to have to
perform during the year. The only difference is, they didn't
know they were going to have to perform it on the southwest
border. That will be a surprise for them, but probably a
welcome surprise, because engineers, as you well know, having
so many of them in your home State, like to do things that are
enduring. They like to build something that lasts after they
leave. To go to some training area and build a road and then
push the dirt back over when you leave is kind of demoralizing.
For them to leave enduring projects like this, actually gives
them a great deal of self-satisfaction. I think they'll welcome
this mission.
Senator Ben Nelson. What about the equipment shortage that
we've been dealing with as a result of the equipment that's
being left in Iraq and Afghanistan and the equipment shortage
we're trying to figure out a way to replenish? Are we going to
have the adequate equipment?
General Blum. That's clearly a challenge, but when Chief
Aguilar gives us the requirements, we will identify the
equipment one time, and we'll leave it in place for the
duration of the mission, so it won't require additional sets.
We will put a maintenance team down there to make sure that the
equipment stays operational. Then we'll just rotate the
soldiers and airmen onto the equipment, rather than to incur
the expense of moving the equipment for each rotation.
Senator Ben Nelson. What about the medical mission? That
seems like it's a new idea. It's not something that we've heard
of in conjunction with some of the other missions.
General Blum. Anytime we put soldiers and airmen in any
kind of an operational mission in any kind of numbers, we
provide medical support. The medical support would be required
for our own forces to maintain----
Senator Ben Nelson. For our own forces.
General Blum.--their health and in case they're injured in
the construction work or in--it is--as the chief said, it's a
rural--I mean, they could get a spider bite or a tarantula bite
or a snake bite, so we'll have medics there for that. The fact
that there are additional medical people there is not going to
be bad, either, because they can also render assistance to some
of these people that are in dire condition when they come
across the terrain that you see on these maps.
Senator Ben Nelson. I'm glad you've pre-warned them about
the spider bites.
General Blum. Yes, sir.
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Blum, some border State Governors have welcomed the
prospect of National Guard troops supporting border security
missions. For example, Arizona's Governor has welcomed this.
But others, such as California's Governor, have expressed
reservations. So, help us understand better what would happen
in a State where the Governor does not want to deploy National
Guard Forces? I understand that the Federal Government would
bear the financial burden of that decision, but would National
Guard troops from other States be sent in for border security
purposes, into a State where the Governor does not want that
mission assigned to the National Guard?
General Blum. No, ma'am. You've asked a very good and
difficult question. Here's my honest take on it. I've talked to
all of the Adjutants General who are appointed by the
Governors. So, they're fairly close to the Governors' thinking.
They welcome the mission, which tells me that the Governors,
once the mission is clearly explained to them and they
understand the parameters to it, will probably be receptive to
it. The Governors have their own prerogative. If a Governor
truly did not want this mission performed in their State, then
the option is there for the President and the Secretary of
Defense to federalize the National Guard, and then the mission
would be conducted, and then it would be without the control of
the Governor of their forces. Most of the Governors were most
concerned of who was going to pay for it--the Federal
Government's paying for it--who's going to provide the forces--
if it's going to be National Guard Forces, all of the Governors
that I have had any conversation with were very concerned that
they remain in charge of their forces within their State. This
proposal allows both of those to occur. I think once the
concept is well understood, because there's a lot of
misinformation out there, because we didn't have it all put
together until very recently--it is now time to make sure that
the information gets out to all concerned parties--and once
they see the goodness of it, I would be quite surprised if any
of the Governors balked at having this activity occur in their
State. All of the border State Governors are concerned that the
border is secure. They are the immediate recipients of the ill
effects of that nonsecure border. So, anything that we can do
to help the Federal law enforcement agency--in this case, the
Border Patrol and Customs--to do a better or a more effective
job on the border that happens to be part of their State, I
think they would welcome, especially when they don't incur the
cost to do it.
Senator Collins. General, another issue is that the plan
apparently envisions that the troops would deploy for 2 to 3
weeks at a time, as part of their annual training requirement.
Do you have concerns that you're going to be taking away from
the training that normally would occur during that sustained
training period, training that helps our troops be better
prepared if they're deployed overseas or if they're used in a
natural disaster? Aren't you taking away from vital training
time?
General Blum. I would be if we were not being selective on
the skill sets that we're using for this mission. Chief Aguilar
has outlined what he thinks he needs the National Guard to do,
and we will match the military's skill set. For instance, if he
needs medical support, we will put medical people in there. So,
the training that they are doing is equally applicable to their
overseas war mission as it is to their homeland defense mission
or their hurricane relief mission or the support to civilian
law enforcement mission. If there are communications
specialists that are needed to bridge some places where there
are communications gaps, that is exactly the same military
communications skills. This is a rather remote area. It really
represents a lot of our expeditionary locations that we operate
around the world. It's a perfect training area, frankly for
about three-fourths of our mission sets. So, helicopter
training will not be degraded by this. As a matter of fact, I
think they'll probably get more night-vision flying in this
mission than they would normally, because of the airspace along
the border and because of the mission-set requirement the
Border Patrol has. I could go on and on with this, but I--the
engineers, I already told you, normally we build things and
then knock them down, because they're just done at a training
area. To build something that's enduring and has an operational
purpose to it, to me, is a win-win for the taxpayer. You get
better military training, you have more motivation on the part
of the soldiers to do this, and they know that it's important
and it's going to make a difference in securing their national
borders. For the National Guard not to help guard the Nation
would be a little inconsistent. So, I think they can see the
wisdom of this, and they'll see it as a very worthwhile
mission.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Chief, you've previously told my committee that the Border
Patrol could not train more than 1,500 additional agents per
year. I know you're ramping that up, but that is the current
capacity. There are a lot of significant differences in how the
National Guard is trained, versus how Border Patrol agents are
trained. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Collins. I understand that this mission is going to
be structured in a way that you're not going to expect National
Guard units to perform the kind of enforcement activities that
Border Patrol agents perform. I think that's very important.
But I'm still very concerned about whether we're going to be
putting National Guard troops into positions for which Border
Patrol personnel train extensively and intensively over a great
period of time. We don't want people who aren't trained put in
positions where they're simply not equipped to deal with the
challenges. Do you have any concerns about that at all?
Mr. Aguilar. Absolutely, ma'am. But the beauty of this
mission is the following, right now, by the National Guard
supporting us, what it is going to allow us to do is take those
highly-trained, professional, and properly-trained Border
Patrol agents that are now not deployed, doing what they were
trained for, because we lack the capacity to resource, for
example, surveillance posts or missions, sensor missions, or
have them as spotters on some of our aviation flights, that
they are having to perform those duties. When the National
Guard steps in and does those jobs, not in the area of
detention or arresting and things of that nature--it will allow
us to place those properly-trained officers on the line, being
supported by the National Guard, and the National Guard acting
as a force multiplier, to give us greater capacity.
When the National Guard builds for us, engineering
missions--and the reason I put this fence up here, by the way,
this depicts the border in San Diego. This is what I call a
``mature border.'' Most of the tactical infrastructure that you
see here, the primary fence, the middle road, the lighting,
sensors that are in this area that you don't see, and remote
video systems, were actually placed by the National Guard. So,
that kind of placement of engineering work gives us a
tremendous amount of force multiplier. In the past, where it
would take us upwards of 100 agents in some areas to take care
of a mile of border, it's now taking us five or six, because of
this force multiplication factor.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Collins. Thank you.
General Blum. Senator, they were also done--those missions
were performed in the 2-week rotations.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes.
General Blum. So, as I say, I don't want to make this look
too simple, because it's not that simple. But it's not
something that's new and unusual to us. We're taking a time-
proven model and just expanding it. The Secretary of Defense
was very specific to General Conway, myself, and Secretary
McHale, that the National Guard would not be approved to
perform law enforcement operations where it would take a
trained Border Patrol or Customs enforcement officer to do the
training, because we're not trained to do what they do. So, we
don't do what they do. We are trained to do, that enables them
to do what they're trained to do, even better.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that the fine members of the National Guard can
handle virtually any mission that is thrown at them. Their
ability to adapt and perform extraordinary missions is
legendary, whether responding to disasters here at home--and
we've seen much of that in West Virginia--or fighting wars
overseas. But Congress has the responsibility to ask questions
about whether adding new missions to the National Guard is the
best use of these citizen soldiers.
Nine times, I have offered amendments in the Senate to
increase funding for border security and to hire thousands of
new Border Patrol agents. Nine times, the administration has
opposed my amendments as being extraneous, unnecessary spending
that would expand the size of government. If we had spent that
money beginning in 2002, we wouldn't be calling on the National
Guard for so much today. This latest proposal to send troops to
the border should not distract from the consistent record of
this administration of opposing my amendments to tighten our
borders.
What is the rationale, Secretary McHale, for determining
that 6,000 National Guard troops should be sent to the border?
How is that number justified? Was it pulled out of the air? How
did we reach that number?
Mr. McHale. Sir, the number that has appeared in the
proposal is up to 6,000. We don't know the precise number, at
this point, for the first year of deployment. For the second
year of deployment, it's up to 3,000, for a possible second
year. That number was a professional judgment based on a number
of factors, in close consultation, beginning the middle of last
week, with Customs and Border Protection. We have a joint
planning group that's working these issues. We viewed the
missions as an extension of the type that we had been
performing for counternarcotics over the past 2 decades. We
asked Customs and Border Protection, ``Beginning with those
missions, assuming you'd like us to ramp up our support for the
kinds of things that I referenced to Senator Warner a few
minutes ago, the aviation reconnaissance, what else would you
want us to do in order to free up those agents,'' that the
Chief talked about a few minutes ago, ``so they could do law
enforcement?'' They gave us some preliminary assessments as to
the mission sets.
We also look at deconfliction of those numbers to determine
what size of force we could sustain over a period of time
without adversely affecting the National Guard's ability to
contribute to overseas warfighting or a potential response,
let's say, to a hurricane in the Gulf coming up during this
summer's and fall's hurricane season.
So, we took our past experience from the counternarcotics
program, we built mission sets upon it that would be unique--
just a few, but would be unique to the missions that we now
have in mind, and then we tried to determine sustainability. We
came up with a professional judgment that was an approximation
of 6,000.
Senator Byrd. Were there any suggestions contrary to that?
Any proposal that it should be 8,000 or 5,000? Was there any
discussion or debate?
Mr. McHale. Sir, for due diligence, if we didn't have
alternative views presented, we wouldn't have been doing our
job. So, the answer to your question, sir, is yes, there were
alternative proposals presented, with different numbers. They
were considered. They were evaluated. At the end of the day, we
thought 6,000, or a number up to 6,000 in that first year, was
the most appropriate.
Senator Byrd. I'm told that the DHS is still trying to work
out what these 6,000 troops will actually be doing. Why did the
administration announce that troops should be sent to the
border, 6,000 of them--up to 6,000, as you say--before the
administration could plan for the mission?
Mr. McHale. Sir, I think an accurate way to describe that
is, while we didn't know how many roads we would build, or for
what distance, we knew for sure we'd be building roads. We
didn't know how many helicopters, precisely, we would put up
for aviation reconnaissance, but we knew we'd be putting a
substantial number up. I could go through the mission sets in
that manner. So, we knew the kinds of things we'd be doing, and
we knew it at approximately what level of activity we'd be
involved. But, sir, you are correct, by close of business
today, I believe, the DHS is to present to the DOD, coming out
of that joint planning group, a more detailed picture of these
missions. We have until Friday to finish our preliminary
assessment of how we, in DOD, working with the Joint Staff and
the National Guard Bureau, will match resources to the
requirements.
So, we expect a clearer picture by close of business today,
and we expect to have a DOD response by Friday.
Senator Byrd. General Conway, you're the expert in military
planning. Is it standard military procedure to determine how
many troops will be deployed before the military determines
what tasks need to be accomplished? Isn't this mission turning
the military planning process on its head?
General Conway. Sir, it may be atypical, but it's not
totally out of the ordinary or unusual. In this case, we have
been given a concept--a general concept--a verbal concept,
albeit, at this point. We have assessed what we thought might
be a rough troop-to-task associated with that, given the
various functions that the DHS and the Border Patrol thinks
that they would need. We continue to flesh it out as we go. So,
the answer is both yes and no, sir.
Senator Byrd. Do you have any questions about this number?
Are you satisfied?
General Conway. Sir, I think it's the high end. General
Blum could probably answer it better than I. But I think we
have the opportunity to employ up to 6,000. Whether or not
we'll actually come to that number will, again, be determined
as we examine the details. I don't think it will exceed 6,000.
Senator Byrd. How do you feel about that, General Blum?
General Blum. I was asked early on, sir, as Secretary
McHale alluded to. The planners or the people considering the
employment of the National Guard were very sensitive to our
responsibilities with the upcoming hurricanes. They were very
sensitive to the ongoing weather patterns that we respond to
every year, whether they're hurricane seasons or not. They were
also mindful that we are absolutely essential to the deployment
of overseas Army and Air Force forces for the combatant
commanders. So, the question was asked, how many National
Guardsmen could we use, without mobilizing them, that would be
on a volunteer basis, where it would not interrupt their
civilian employment, where it would not interrupt or break the
contract with our one-in-six utilization for overseas, where it
would be a normal expectation on the part of the citizen
soldier, his family, and his employer, and still be able to do
all of these things? I told them that I could handle somewhere
on the high end of about 6,000. That may have been what drove
the number, ``up to 6,000,'' sir, but I am not absolutely
certain as to how that happened. But that is a very logical
outcome of how the number 6,000 took a life of its own.
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Thank you.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
I think it would be important if Chief Aguilar had an
opportunity to respond to the important line of questioning by
Senator Byrd. Did you have anything to contribute as to this
end strength? Were you consulted, and you're comfortable?
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir. I believe that the universe of 6,000
is where we started our conceptual planning. One of the things
that's very critical here, that, as the Secretary mentioned,
this afternoon we will start aligning the universe of 6,000
that's going to be available to us, our requirements and needs,
and how those two match up.
Chairman Warner. Good.
Mr. Aguilar. I feel pretty confident that we will be
utilizing up to 6,000, or close to it, in the first year.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Ensign.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this timely hearing, as the bill that we have on the
floor, obviously, dealing with immigration, makes this a very
timely hearing.
Chief, I went down to, about a little over a month ago,
Yuma, Arizona, and just a couple of observations. One, that the
Border Patrol--your folks are very professional and very
dedicated.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
Senator Ensign. One thing that really struck me was that
since September 11, and where the whole idea of terrorists
coming into our country--even the Border Patrol agents take
their jobs a lot more seriously than they did pre-September 11.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Senator Ensign. You can just see it in their attitudes and
hear it from them. I was very impressed by a lot of the work
that you all are doing down there. I was also impressed that
you're overwhelmed, that this help with the National Guard is
something that is very needed. A little over a month ago, I had
an amendment to the immigration bill for the States to be
reimbursed for their National Guard troops to be used on the
border down there, and I asked the question before all this
became public while I was down there, if you all could use the
help. We received similar responses to what you are doing
today. So, I think it is an initiative whose time has come. I
have an amendment to this current bill that hopefully will be
debated in the next couple of days. We're working with you all,
with the National Guard, with this committee and the
administration, trying to craft the exact language that what we
first had. But it basically will have the same effect as what
the President has called for.
One of the side benefits that I thought about, as you were
just talking--because when I was down there--you have
difficulty not only in training new Border Patrol agents, but
in recruiting.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Senator Ensign. It takes you, and I forget the numbers, it
was something like 300 recruits for going out there to get one
agent. It would seem to me that if you have people going
through down there for a 2-week period of time, you may end up
with recruits, somebody who said, ``You know what? This is a
line of work that I may want to go into,'' and they're part of
the National Guard, and now, as a citizen, they may want to be
part of the Border Patrol down there. I thought that would be a
very positive thing to do.
Chairman Warner. Senator, I have to tell you that, at
lunch, Senator Craig and I talked about that very concept. We
may try and formulate something by way of an incentive----
Senator Craig. The legislation is under writing.
Chairman Warner.--an incentive for people to look into
that.
Senator Ensign. Yes, it is desperately needed. Senator Byrd
mentioned--I know he's walking out of the room, but, Senator
Byrd, you mentioned your amendments the administration had
opposed on increasing the number of Border Patrol agents. I
offered the amendments to Senator Collins' intelligence reform
bill, for the 10,000. We had actually cooperation from the
administration. So, I don't know--I felt that there was a lot
of cooperation for increasing the number of Border Patrol
agents. The key now is to make sure that we continue to fund
the new ones that are going forward so that this National Guard
duty is temporary, it's not a permanent thing. I think it's
absolutely critical that we do that.
But, General Blum, I wanted to address with you the issue
of the National Guard, the willingness it would seem to me that
people who signed up from the National Guard are there, they
believe in what they're doing, because they want to help the
country. I think, across the country, what they saw with
Hurricane Katrina, those were all volunteers, as I remember you
coming in and briefing us and told us, ``Those were all
volunteers.'' It would seem to me that you would have a lot of
people in the National Guard--even if they weren't called up,
there would be a lot of people in the National Guard who
understand what a huge national problem this is--from a
security problem, from an immigration problem, from a drug
problem, from all kinds of problems--that they would even
cherish going down there, and look forward to this mission. Any
comments that you have on that?
General Blum. Senator, as I said a little bit earlier, it's
tough to call yourself to the National Guard or be a member of
the National Guard as a volunteer for a force with that label
that is not going to guard the Nation. All of our citizen
soldiers and airmen understand that this is a very serious
issue facing our Nation, and it has security implications.
There will be no problem supporting the numbers of citizen
soldiers that we've described here today, in a volunteer
status, in an annual training rotational status, where it
doesn't require involuntary mobilization and long periods away
from home. We can sustain this operation. I think, as I said,
they will walk away leaving their time on the southwest border
feeling a great sense of satisfaction that they did make a
difference and they did make the borders of their country
safer, or at least attempted to.
Senator Ensign. Right. You made a comment about the
Governors and the misunderstanding. I remember hearing
yesterday, I was watching the press, and I saw the Governor
from New Mexico on. He was talking that he needed his National
Guard for fighting wildfires and things like that. The
proposal--my proposal--and I know the administration's
proposal--isn't just Arizona's National Guard or just New
Mexico's National Guard or just Texas's National Guard. This is
the National Guard coming from all 50 States. So, no one
National Guard is going to be burdened tremendously, from what
I understand the administration's proposal, as well as mine.
So, I think you're correct--and, Secretary McHale, you may
want to comment on this--that if the Federal Government is
paying the bill, and they're coming as a volunteer basis from
all over the country, it would seem to me that most of the
concerns that the Governors, at least, have expressed in the
press would be taken care of. Would you like to comment on
that?
Mr. McHale. Senator, I think that's true. I want to be
absolutely candid with the members of the committee. This is an
evolving mission requirement. As we work through challenging
questions every day, we come up with additional answers that
appropriately modify the mission.
So, let me just give you a quick example. We had originally
thought that this mission would be performed overwhelmingly by
National Guard doing their annual duty. It then was brought to
our attention that some Governors, taking a point of view
different from that, apparently, of the Governor of New Mexico,
expressed an interest in using guardsmen from their States for
extended periods of time in greater numbers, beyond 2 or 3
weeks. The Secretary of Defense made a decision that we would
accommodate that. We want this to be a partnership. So, if
there's a Governor who says, ``I have additional National Guard
Forces. I want to bring them on Active-Duty for 6 weeks, or 2
months, from my State, on our own border with Mexico. Will DOD
work with us on that?'', the answer is yes.
Senator Ensign. In that evolving mission--I don't know if
you want to look at this, as well--because sometimes when
you're in the National Guard, you may actually be in between
jobs or something like that.
Mr. McHale. Yes, sir.
Senator Ensign. The accommodation--that's one of the
reasons some people do volunteer at various times. It would
seem to me that would also be a good thing to look into, not
just from a State perspective, but from an individual, that
maybe it would be a good kind of a bridge for them, as well.
Mr. McHale. I think that's true. At the end of the day,
this requires a partnership with the Governor, who will be the
commander of forces, all National Guard Forces, within his or
her State. So, if there are National Guard Forces from the
State that the Governor would like to roll into the task force
in greater numbers for a longer period of time, we'll try to
accommodate that. If there is a Governor who has a concern
similar to that of Governor Richardson where he feels that he
has a small number of forces and would prefer to have National
Guardsmen come in from outside the State on annual training
duty, we'll accommodate that, as well.
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Dayton and colleagues, would you permit the chair
to recognize Senator Craig for just 2 minutes, to put his
statement into the record?
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, thank you
for holding this hearing. It is so timely, as with the
President's announcement and the crafting of the mission that
this is at hand.
To you, Mr. Secretary, to the generals, to you, Chief,
thank you very much for what we have learned and gained today.
From the time that many of us looked at this, and I recognized,
as some clearly did, that this was not only an issue that would
allow us to shape a more comprehensive immigration reform bill,
with the satisfaction of the American people, that we were
working overtime to secure the border, but it really was a
national security issue--and the Chief knows it better than
anyone else--of the kind of OTMs, or other-than-Mexican
nationals, that are coming across the border at this moment.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Chief, let me go to what the Senator from
Nevada just said. The chairman and I had a dialogue today about
the potential of crafting legislation that created some degree
of incentive for those young men and women who will come to the
border in this new mission, who might see their life as a
member of your organization. Obviously, we would think they
would be a leg up from the beginning because of their
experience in the National Guard, in our military, and then to
move into your system. Your reaction to that idea?
Mr. Aguilar. I think it's absolutely great. We would
proudly welcome any members of the National Guard or the
military. We, in fact, have several members of the United
States Border Patrol that are actually in the National Guard,
and that are serving foreign as we speak. The training, the
experience that they bring, is in fact something that we
welcome, yes, sir.
Senator Craig. We'll work on that. I'll work on that with
the chairman and see if we can't offer that to our colleagues.
I'd ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made
part of the record.
Chairman Warner. Without objection.
Senator Craig. To the members of this committee, thank you
for the courtesy.
[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement by Senator Larry E. Craig
Chairman Warner, members of the committee, thank you for giving me
this opportunity to discuss with you the recent announcement by the
President to send National Guard troops to the southern border to
provide assistance to the Border Patrol.
Mr. Chairman, let me first remind the members of the committee of a
certain event in our recent history. On September 11, 2001, our Nation
was stunned. On that very day our National Guard was sent to secure
borders, airports, nuclear facilities, and other critically important
infrastructures. Further, we cannot forget that on the heels of
September 11, the National Guard stepped up and provided the security
for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
It was the National Guard who filled in the security gap at our
airports until the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) agents could be
stood up and trained. I cannot stress enough how this is the perfect
example of how well our National Guard can provide emergency assistance
and a stop-gap until more Border Patrol agents are trained and the
Nation reaches a solution for our borders and illegal immigration.
Simply put, the National Guard's performance during times of crisis and
emergency is indicative of their future performance on the border.
The National Guard, without question, already has the expertise and
capability to provide for this short-term mission and provide strong
support to Border Patrol agents. The National Guard's effective
communications, personnel, and command and control operations will
provide a quick boost to the Border Patrol.
As we look toward hiring more Border Patrol agents, I am hopeful
that many guardsmen and women, with expertise in the field, will look
at this opportunity to become full-time Border Patrol agents with the
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency. I would like to encourage
the Senate Armed Services Committee to work with the CBP on how to best
facilitate those guardsmen who may want to become Border Patrol agents.
Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that our National Guard will perform
admirably in this mission. It is a mission that is important to our
national security.
However, I must clarify that this idea must be implemented in a way
that does not make border presence a permanent mission of the National
Guard. The committee must make certain that the Department of Defense
(DOD) does not seize on this move and relegate the National Guard to a
permanent border mission of this type. Border Patrol and security must
remain a civilian law enforcement responsibility under the Department
of Homeland Security.
We know how critically important our National Guard is in fighting
the global war on terror overseas. Without the National Guard, our
missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world would be severely
hamstrung. Our National Guardsmen are proud of their role they are
playing in the war on terrorism and protecting our freedoms here at
home and abroad.
That being said, I am certain that our National Guard will welcome
this new, short-term, mission on the borders until the Border Patrol,
like TSA, is propped-up and meeting the needs and wills of United
States citizens. However, please be certain that I will be watching
with keen eyes how the DOD handles this mission and the National Guard.
Chairman Warner. I'll address that issue of stealing some
of your guardsmen for the Border Patrol later.
Senator Craig. Good, thank you.
Chairman Warner. Now, Senator Dayton.
Senator Dayton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also
thank you for holding this hearing so swiftly.
Chairman Warner. I thank you, all members, for attending.
We've had good attendance today.
Senator Dayton. I sympathize with your predicament,
gentlemen. I recall that we had in Minnesota once a very
innovative corporation, Control Data Corporation, with a very
creative chairman, and one of the senior vice presidents was
once asked, ``What is your job assignment?'' He said, ``The
chairman decrees that the corporate elephant and the corporate
mosquito will meet, and my job is to make it happen.'' I think
that's what you are--and I appreciate the best face you're
putting on what your Commander in Chief has declared will occur
here. But, I will echo what I think all of my colleagues have
said. I have the utmost respect in the National Guard, and
confidence that they will carry out superbly any mission that
they're assigned, as will other branches of the military, and,
I know, the Border Patrol will also. But I think that some real
questions need to be raised whether this is the most efficient
and effective way of responding to the lack of border control,
which I think we all agree, with the President, exists.
I would just point out--and I'm sorry that he left, but
Senator Ensign, since he amended what Senator Byrd had pointed
out. I believe Senator Ensign, according to my information, is
correct that the 2004 National Intelligence Reform Act, which
he says was his amendment with the support of the
administration, did authorize the additional hiring of 2,000
additional border agents each year from fiscal year 2006 to
fiscal year 2010. However, the President's 2006 budget included
funding to appropriate to hire only 1,000 of those 2,000
authorized agents for that fiscal year. Now it's incumbent on
Congress to make sure that the 2007 budget does include the
actual funding to fulfill that authorized complement of 2,000
additional agents.
I also note, if this information is correct, General Blum,
if it's not please correct it, but according to one report, the
National Guard's 400-strong force of full-time National Guard
members who are now assisting the border security personnel in
countering the drug trafficking in the four border States has
existed, as some of you have alluded, since 1989, that
operating partnership, but it is strung from about 1,000
National Guardsmen in 1999 to the 400-strong force today,
because of a 44-percent cut in its budget, according to the
National Guard figures. One National Guard counterdrug official
at the National Guard Bureau, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity, according to this report, said, ``We could very
quickly ramp up and double the effort if the funding was
available.'' So, on the one hand, it seems we've been depleting
those resources and that capability. Now we're in a position of
trying to catch up with ourselves and--in a related area, not
exactly counterdrug, but, as he said, you're asking--using the
same techniques to find illegal drug traffickers or to find a
person.
I do have a question at the end of this, for Secretary
McHale or to General Blum--you talk about building on this
experience, this partnership between the National Guard and the
Border Patrol, but isn't it correct that these 400 people are a
full-time force there? Wouldn't that experience suggest, then,
that it's going to be--would be far more effective and
efficient to have--if we're going to need up to 6,000
additional, that that be a full-time force for that period of
time, rather than men and women who are rotating in and out
every 2 to 3 weeks, involving 156,000 guardsmen over the next 2
years because of that kind of rotational number? That just
seems like a very inefficient way to accomplish what you want
to do here.
Mr. McHale. Senator, I'm going to ask General Blum to
comment in just a moment, but it's my informed understanding
that the vast majority of the counternarcotics missions
executed since 1989 have been on a rotational basis identical,
or nearly identical, to what we propose here.
I think it may have been before you entered the room, it
was pointed out that the kinds of barriers that you see
depicted on the graphics to my right were (see previous
slides), in fact, constructed not only by National Guardsmen,
but utilizing their annual training in 2-week rotations. I'm
not sure. I guess I'll really have to ask General Blum. But it
had been my impression that the 400 soldiers--a little bit less
than 400 right now--but the 400 soldiers involved currently
along the southwest border in counterdrug operations were, for
the most part, involved in annual training status.
In any event, I can assure you that, over the last 20
years, the vast majority of counternarcotics missions funded by
Congress for the National Guard have involved the deployment of
National Guardsmen in 2-week rotational status.
Senator Dayton. General Blum.
General Blum. Both of you gentlemen are correct, but you'd
have to put, as you said, the mosquito and the elephant
together to get the whole picture. There are full-time people.
There will be full-time people in this mission. The duration
force, those that are the planners, the liaisons, those that
are the project managers, the leaders, the synchronizers and
coordinators of the plan, will probably be on extended duration
force so that we don't have to introduce Chief Aguilar and his
subordinates to new leaders every 2 weeks. However, for over 25
years, we have done these missions, not only on the southern
border, but the northern border. Right after September 11, the
National Guard was on the borders of this country. As soon as
the Border Patrol was able to develop their capabilities, we
came off. Right after September 11, we were in every airport in
this Nation, until the Transportation Security Agency could
stand up its capability; we're off. We did cargo inspection on
the southwest border for years, until Customs could develop
their own capability. Now, the National Guard is no longer
doing that. It is fully my intent that we work ourselves out of
a job on the southwest border as quickly as we can. Does that
mean there won't be some National Guard in the same kind of
arrangement that you're describing indefinitely? Yes. But not
nearly at the scope that we're talking about here this morning.
I might also add that in the United States Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM) there are no United States forces apportioned to
that combatant commander. Most of all of the work that has been
done in South and Central America has been done by National
Guard Forces, Army and Air, rotating down there for 2-week
periods of time. Of course, we had a duration force down there
to coordinate that.
So, we're going to leverage that successful model, the
successful 19-year model that we've seen on the southwest
border. We're going to take that combination of a smaller full-
time cadre and leverage the capabilities of our young men and
women citizen soldiers and airmen who already know that they
are going to have to perform 15 days of training, and just
target that training where it makes sense, where the right
skill meets the right requirement. The location will happen to
be the southwest border instead of Camp Swampy or some other
place this year.
Your comments are fair and accurate on counternarcotics.
There's great competition for--and for prioritizing the money
that we have, or the resources that we have in the DOD against
its mission array. So, there were some hard calls that had to
be made, and our counternarcotics contribution and budget has
been degraded or made smaller in the last several years because
of other pressures to do things that are absolutely essential
for the global war on terror.
So, there are hard calls to be made. If more resources are
applied, obviously we can regenerate those capabilities.
Mr. McHale. It's important to recognize that that figure of
156,000, while we believed it to be accurate at the time that
we first calculated it, has been coming down ever since.
General Blum has reached the correct conclusion, that, with the
rotation of forces in, you have to have a steady-state
leadership team in place. So, there will be personnel from the
National Guard on Active-Duty for periods of time beyond 2 or 3
weeks to maintain that continuity of leadership. In addition,
as I had mentioned earlier, we're going to try and accommodate
the desire of some Governors to call up their own forces from
within their States for an extended period of time, not in
annual training status, and for beyond a 2-week period of time.
So, as we keep the leadership team in place, as we try to
work with the Governors for longer periods of duty drawn from
the forces within the State, that affects the number of
guardsmen who have to rotate through in the 2- and 3-week
rotations. Frankly, we now anticipate that the number will be
substantially less than 156,000.
General Blum. The genius, if there is any in this plan, is
that it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. What happens in
California will be worked out between the Governor of
California and the supported lead Federal agency, the DHS or
the Border Patrol or Customs. Accommodations will be made for
both to make sure mission surety, but we're not going to
prescribe how it is done precisely.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
General Blum. What they do, we will.
Senator Dayton. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
gentlemen.
General Blum, I think the two precedents that you're
operating on are training exercises, either along the border or
in other areas, like Central America, and the counterdrug
operations. The counterdrug operations are authorized by
statute. What statute authorizes the surveillance activities,
the operating sensors, providing airlift, those things that
might be training, but are more like operations?
General Blum. I would--probably Secretary McHale is best to
answer this, but it's my understanding that we're going to use
title 32, U.S.C., section (f), which says, ``Other Duties,''
which means that the Secretary of Defense can prescribe the
other duties of the National Guard in a Federal-funded status.
Senator Reed. Is that your opinion?
Mr. McHale. I promised the General Counsel of the DOD that
I would not practice law while serving in my current position,
but urging much further review by appropriate attorneys here on
Capitol Hill, in consultation with DOD, the two sections that I
am told we are looking at are title 32, section 502(a), and
title 32, section 502(f), which is the one that General Blum
just referenced. Section 502(a) covers annual training. The
attorneys in DOD have concluded that that authority in 502(a)
for training allows us to execute missions in a training
status, so long as those missions are directly related to the
title 10 responsibilities that those forces would be assigned,
were they brought into Federal service. This is not the first
time that we've done that.
Senator Reed. No, that's not controversial.
Mr. McHale. Senator, you're right. There are times when the
use of a training status comes very close, or in fact, becomes
an operational status. In certain other areas of title 32, we
have amended title 32 to directly reflect the reality of the
employment of training in an operational status. Section 502(f)
deals with periods of duty exceeding the annual training, where
it is other duties, as, I think, prescribed by the Secretary.
That is likely the section that we would use to accommodate the
request of a Governor who might want to bring to Active-Duty,
in title 32 status, forces from within the State for periods of
time exceeding annual training--4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks.
Section 502(f) would likely be the authority that would allow
that to take place.
Senator Reed. I take it, then, you're not contemplating
requesting a specific legislative authority to conduct any of
these activities.
Mr. McHale. The advice that has been given to our office at
this point, from the General Counsel's Office, is that
additional authority is not required, and that sections 502(a)
and 502(f) meet the requirement.
Senator Reed. I wonder why you have specific authority for
the drug interdiction program, since it's very similar to what
you're practically doing on the ground now. Instead of
interdicting drugs, you are interdicting illegal entrants.
Mr. McHale. I'm hesitant to address that, in terms of how
close some of the activity in the past has been between
National Guard Forces and Customs and Border Protection in
certain kinds of counterdrug missions that come up to the line
of law enforcement activity. Also, I think the separate
authority reflects the history of the central transfer account,
where Congress has determined that those missions should be
funded directly and exclusively within a central transfer
account, subject to very tight limitations, in terms of how
that funding can be used, and can only be used for
counternarcotics.
Senator Reed. Let me slightly change the focus, because I
think it----
Chairman Warner. Senator, if I could interrupt. I think
those are important lines of questions, and I would ask our
witness if you would consult with counsel, let him review these
important questions, and such others that draw on it, and
provide this committee with a legal opinion.
Mr. McHale. Yes, sir. We will do that.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Blum, this potentially is a very convoluted command
structure. You have a National Guard supporting, directly, the
Border Patrol and Customs enforcement, yet the National Guard
is operationally under the control of a Governor. Does that
mean the Governor will somehow collaborate--direct border
patrolmen--how does it work, in practice?
General Blum. No, sir, it's not convoluted at all. Let me
try to describe it, because maybe we didn't do a good job of
that.
The Commander in Chief in California would be the Governor
of California, and the same for each State, moving east to
Texas. They have an Adjutant General. That is the senior
military leader of the National Guard. They have a Joint Force
Headquarters of Army and Air National Guard and others. They
have a Joint Task Force (JTF) commander, that is pre-schooled,
pre-trained, and pre-designated, that will be the military
commander of all of the National Guard Forces that are
supporting the law enforcement agency within that State. They
have no authority outside of that State boundary, political
boundary. So, the areas of operation will be drawn around the
political boundaries of the State. Each JTF will coordinate and
command and control the military forces that are in support of
the DHS mission.
The National Guard Bureau will coordinate with the Joint
Staff to make sure that all of those four State plans are
nested, coordinated, and do not contradict one another. If
there is a contradiction, I have liaison officers going to each
of the State Joint Force Headquarters to ensure that there is
no seam. We don't want seams in his border.
Senator Reed. Will there be a formal plan presented by the
Governor, through his military commanders in each State, to
you?
General Blum. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Senator Reed. But the Governor retains complete flexibility
in the final outline of that plan.
General Blum. No, he does not have complete flexibility. He
has--the plan will be approved with certain parameters, left
and right limits, certain rules of engagement, and certain
rules of use of force, certain mission sets that are authorized
by the Secretary of Defense, certain mission sets that are
prohibited by the Secretary of Defense, if they're going to use
Federal funding to do those missions. The Governor will also
have part of his National Guard that is not in Federal-funded
status that he or she can call under State Active-Duty to do--
to enforce the laws of that State if he or she so chooses. But
that will be paid for out of the resources of the State
coffers, not the Federal Government.
Senator Reed. So, essentially, even though the Governor is
formally in charge of these troops when they're not in a direct
Federal capacity; if he or she is to be reimbursed for their
use, they would have to agree to at least the outlines of the
plan that you propose and you approve.
General Blum. Yes, sir, except that it's even better than
that. They're getting the money upfront. But to accept that
money, they have to accept the conditions of the rules of
engagement, rules of use of force, and the approved mission.
Senator Reed. A final question. Will we see those plans
before they're finalized?
General Blum. Sir, if you desire to see them, absolutely.
Chairman Warner. That's correct, they'll be provided to
this committee.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Warner. Thank you.
I have a few questions, and then this hearing will
conclude, gentlemen. I know each of you have committed to the
committee a specified time. Thank you for your attendance.
I want you to be able to get back to work on those plans
that you're finishing up tonight.
General Blum. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Warner. Senator Akaka.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this timely hearing.
Secretary Chertoff has said that, ``Without a guest-worker
program, it is going to be extraordinarily difficult for Border
Patrol agents''--and I'm quoting him--``to stem the tide that
is driven by a huge economic engine of employers looking for
people to do work that won't be done by Americans.''
While providing more troops for the southwestern border,
the President's plan does not in any way address the underlying
issues spelled out by Secretary Chertoff. In fact, T.J. Bonner,
President of the National Border Patrol Council, the agent's
union, has called the administration's plan ``a smokescreen, a
diversion.''
Given that neither Secretary Chertoff nor the President of
the National Border Patrol Council seem to believe that this
plan will not result in any long-term solutions to the
immigration challenges facing this Nation, my question to you
is, how do you justify the costs of this program?
Mr. McHale. Sir, of course, I am the DOD, not the DHS. It's
our committed belief that the temporary use of National Guard
Forces over the next 1- or 2-year period of time will allow for
a substantial and permanent improvement within the law
enforcement and administrative capabilities of Customs and
Border Protection and elsewhere throughout the DHS. Our job is
to assist DHS in moving to a higher level of capability.
Although I can't speak for DHS, and perhaps the chief would
want to make a comment, I've been in Secretary Chertoff's
presence frequently in the last couple of days, on these
issues, and I have heard him speak with knowledge, conviction,
and passion about the opportunity that the use of National
Guard Forces will now provide, augmented by increased funding
to train and equip, and then deploy, a substantially larger
number of Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection
agents, as a direct result of the DOD assistance.
So, all I can really address is the fact that we're
offering a helping hand that I think will make a big difference
in the next 2 years. Utilizing that period of time, it is very
likely that we'll have a DHS that is then able to take the
baton and run forward at a more effective rate of speed to
secure our borders and ensure a comprehensive strategy for
immigration reform.
Chief, I don't know if you have comments on that.
Mr. Aguilar. The comments that I would make is that in the
President's speech he talked about immigration reform, and he
also talked--and I believe we need a comprehensive approach to
the issue of illegal immigration into this country, of which
this initiative supports one very important component of that
comprehensive approach, and that is nothing less than security
of our borders, security of our borders first, while, at the
same time, stemming that illegal flow of illegal incursions,
which includes many illegal aliens coming into this country,
and many tons of narcotics also coming into this country.
So, I think I am--like the Secretary, I speak to my
responsibility. My responsibility is the immediate border.
There are two other components that the President addressed.
One of them, I can speak to, on the periphery, is interior
enforcement, because our sister agency, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), will be addressing that. Then, of course,
any kind of potential regulatory issues having to do with
regulating the labor requirements of this country would also
help mitigate that illegal incursion flow between the ports of
entry.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General Blum, the President's plan to send 6,000 National
Guard troops to the border occurs just as we're getting ready
to face another hurricane season. I'm concerned that our
National Guard is already stretched thin by operations in Iraq
and Iran. Can you comment on whether sending our National
Guardsmen to the borders will, or will not, interfere with the
ability for troops to rapidly respond to natural disaster or
unanticipated national crisis?
General Blum. Senator Akaka, your concerns are valid. But
we are going to be very careful that the units, the personnel,
the capabilities, and the equipment that are sent in support of
DHS on the southwest border in no way reduce our effectiveness
to respond to what we know is inevitably going to come our way
in the next few months. The hurricanes are going to come.
Where? I don't know. But I know they're coming, and we are
prepared this year with more troops, more equipment, better
plans, and better-rehearsed plans than we were last year. This
mission will in no way undermine or lessen our ability to do
that, and it will also not impact negatively our ability to
generate Army and Air Force forces overseas, as our Nation
requires.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. General Blum, I'd like to correct
my question. When I said it is ``stretched thin by operations
in Iraq,'' I should have said, ``and Afghanistan.''
General Blum. Sir, I know what you meant to say.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
General Blum, the National Guard is facing severe equipment
shortfalls that hamper the Guard's ability to operate at full
capacity. In addition, at this time, the National Guard does
not have the funds available to do the necessary resetting of
its equipment. I'm concerned about that and about the cost that
would--sending National Guard troops and equipment to the
border would--and wonder whether it would hinder the ability of
the National Guard to replace and refurbish the equipment it
needs to respond to State emergencies.
What will be done to ensure the costs of this program do
not further exacerbate the National Guard's equipment
shortages?
General Blum. Senator Akaka, again, very valid concern. I'm
glad you are concerned about it. This body, this Congress,
graciously provided the National Guard $800 million after
Hurricane Katrina. We requested $1.3 billion. We received $800
million. Because of that, those resources that Congress
provided, we now have much better capability in interoperable
communications and some transportation assets that we were
woefully short here at home last year for Hurricane Katrina.
So, that situation has improved.
I think the use of the National Guard overseas and at home
is right. That's what we exist for. But we need to be resourced
to, in fact, deliver these capabilities, because we are not
going to be held as a strategic reserve, an unlikely use, I
think, is very predictable that the use of the National Guard
will actually increase in future years, because we deliver
great capabilities at a bargain on the taxpayer's dollar. So,
the attention and assistance from Congress to equip the
National Guard as an operational force, not a strategic
reserve, is absolutely the right thing to do for this Nation.
We're moving in that direction as we speak. We're not going as
fast as I'd like, but the direction is correct. The Army has
$21 billion committed to re-equipping the Army National Guard.
That will make a huge difference if that money sticks across
the Future Years Defense Program and we really get all of it,
as it's programmed. If we don't, then our ability to do what
you're suggesting will be diminished, sir.
Chairman Warner. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Chairman Warner. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for an
excellent hearing, promptly coming forward and advising
Congress. I know each of you have to return and continue this
work this evening.
Senators Ensign, Craig, and I were looking at a concept
whereby people on Active service in the military, who have
received a lot of training, whether it's National Guard,
Reserve, or regular, who might be interested in this, we'll
look at it. I think it's something that has to be studied
pretty carefully. We will invite you, General Blum, and,
indeed, General Conway and the DOD, to look at it, in
conjunction with the DHS, because this is a very urgent need,
but, at the same time, we have to take note, General Blum, that
you fell short of your recruiting goals last month. Am I
correct on that?
General Blum. Sir, we set our goals very high. Yes, you're
correct, we fell short. But I might want to make sure, for the
record, that everyone knows that we have had the best 7
consecutive recruiting months in the last 13 years. We are
showing a net gain of over 1,000 every month, recruiting 1,000
more people than we're losing. We're retaining our soldiers.
We're re-enlisting our soldiers, still, at an unprecedented
rate. So, I am absolutely confident that you will not be able
to say that to me again in the future months, sir.
Chairman Warner. That's a magnificent measure of a great
patriotism that permeates this great land in which we're
privileged to live.
General Blum. Yes, sir, it is.
Chairman Warner. Thank you all. The hearing is now
adjourned.
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator John Cornyn
efficiency of use of the national guard
1. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, according to recent
statements, the deployment of 6,000 members of the National Guard to
the border will free up about 500 Border Patrol agents who could be
redeployed from administrative to front-line enforcement positions.
This is a 12-to-1 ratio of guardsmen to Border Patrol agents who could
be moved to more effective positions. Does this 12-to-1 ratio indicate
that use of the National Guard is efficient as a means to increase
enforcement resources for the Border Patrol?
Mr. McHale. The National Guard is augmenting and enhancing the U.S.
Border Patrol's ability to carry out its mission. The missions assigned
to the National Guard soldiers and airmen are directly related to their
military skills (e.g., medics, aviation, infantry, public affairs,
administrative and personnel, and maintenance personnel), normally
associated with their warfighting and disaster-response missions. The
National Guard is not replacing or performing the functions of the U.S.
Border Patrol or the Customs Enforcement Agency. In fact, the National
Guard will not be engaged in law enforcement duties. The National Guard
deployment along the southwest border in support of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is an important. but temporary bridge to
improve civilian security capabilities. This is not a new mission for
the National Guard; rather, we are building on a time-proven model that
has been in use on the southwest border now for almost two decades.
Since 1989, the National Guard has been conducting or performing
counternarcotics support to civilian law enforcement agencies such as
the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
(CBP). The National Guard personnel are performing this mission on a
much larger scale to provide the U.S. Border Patrol expanded
capabilities time while it is recruiting and training agents and
developing new capabilities of their own.
2. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, is there a more cost-effective
way to quickly increase the enforcement resources of the Border Patrol?
Mr. McHale. In the Department's view, providing the National Guard
with relevant training opportunities, while also enhancing the security
of our Nation's southwest border, is very cost-effective.
3. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, could other Federal and State
law enforcement resources, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the U.S. Marshals Service, and State Police, or recent retirees of
those law enforcement organizations, be used to better rapidly increase
the enforcement capability of the Border Patrol on a temporary basis?
Mr. McHale. National Guard personnel participating in Operation
Jump Start are not performing law enforcement duties. Nor are National
Guard personnel replacing or performing the functions of the U.S.
Border Patrol or ICE. The National Guard is augmenting and enhancing
the Border Patrol's ability to carry out its mission. The missions
assigned to the National Guard soldiers and airmen are related to their
military skills (e.g., medics, aviation, infantry, public affairs,
admin and personnel, and maintenance personnel), normally associated
with their warfighting and disaster-response missions. As to the
ability of other Federal and State law enforcement resources to
increase rapidly the law enforcement capability of the border patrol on
a temporary basis, this question would best be answered by the DHS.
plans for logistics support
4. Senator Cornyn. General Conway and General Blum, it has often
been noted in the study of the history of planning military operations
that ``Amateurs talk about tactics, but Professionals study
logistics.'' While the National Guard will be acting in a supporting
role for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, has the
Department of Defense (DOD) considered a plan for the housing, feeding,
and other logistical support for the 6,000 National Guardsmen to be
deployed in support of this mission?
General Conway. Logistics are always in the forefront of any
military commander's decision process when committing troops to the
field, whether it is the lieutenant in charge of his platoon or the
general in charge of the Army. The State Adjutants General, with the
assistance of Lieutenant General Blum, have the responsibility for
ensuring members of the National Guard deploy with the right amount of
logistical support. In addition, it should be noted annual training
usually entails field conditions, meaning billeting in less than
desirable accommodations. The southwest border will provide an
outstanding yet demanding training environment.
General Blum. Yes. The specifics of plan are being executed by the
Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ) of each of the southwest border States
(California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas). Their Joint Task Forces
are responsible for the planning and provisioning of the housing and
feeding of the troops who are responding to this mission in their
respective States. Each of the supported States has assumed
responsibility for these requirements and National Guard Bureau is
merely a coordinator for assistance to these States.
5. Senator Cornyn. General Conway and General Blum, who will be
responsible for the coordination of logistical support?
General Conway. The State Adjutants General, with the assistance of
the National Guard Bureau, are responsible for the coordination of
logistical support.
General Blum. The JFHQ of each of the States (California, New
Mexico, Arizona, and Texas), through their Joint Task Forces with
Liaison Officers from Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and
National Guard Bureau, will coordinate all logistic requirements, such
as provisioning of supplies and lodging.
6. Senator Cornyn. General Conway and General Blum, can you
describe the plan in terms of the types of facilities and
infrastructure, locations, and estimate of the costs to provide
logistical support for these personnel?
General Conway. I defer to Lieutenant General Blum in answering
this question.
General Blum. The JFHQ are still working on their assessments and
identifying requirements. Once those steps are completed, we will have
an accurate picture of the types of facilities and infrastructures,
locations, and cost estimates to provide logistical support for our
National Guard personnel.
7. Senator Cornyn. General Conway and General Blum, has a timeline
been established for the construction of these facilities?
General Conway. I defer this question to Lieutenant General Blum.
General Blum. A specific timeline cannot be established until the
full mission set, location, and numbers of personnel are identified. We
are still working on those requirements and anticipate having a better
timeline in the near future. However, we expect these facilities to be
up and running in a timely manner to meet requirements.
8. Senator Cornyn. General Conway and General Blum, will the
National Guard be required to bring vehicles and other equipment from
their home units to accomplish this mission?
General Conway. I defer this question to Lieutenant General Blum.
General Blum. Yes, in some cases. The vehicles and equipment
required will be situational dependent. Use of vehicles and other
equipment are not to negatively impact the readiness of units in those
States to perform their Federal mission. The Adjutant General for each
of the participating States will make a determination as to what
personnel and equipment it can provide to this mission without
negatively affecting their own ability to meet planned and anticipated
State and Federal missions.
use of the guard in annual training status
9. Senator Cornyn. General Blum, I understand it is proposed that
the National Guard units will provide this support as annual training
under section 502 of title 32, United States Code. How does the
National Guard Bureau expect that members will get the training
required by law and regulation while they are supporting Customs and
Border Protection?
General Blum. Members of the Army and Air National Guard are
required to conduct 2 weeks of annual training each year; therefore
we're simply changing the location of this scheduled training in many
cases. So, we'll be looking to move the appropriate numbers of soldiers
and airmen to the border States--New Mexico, California, Texas, and
Arizona--to conduct their annual training. While the environment may be
different, the training will be the same, and you can rest assured that
your National Guard will receive all the appropriate/required training
during this mission. Your National Guard is well-suited for this
mission on the border
10. Senator Cornyn. General Blum, does the National Guard Bureau
regard this as appropriate training duty?
General Blum. This training is very appropriate. Again, the
soldiers and airmen are not changing their training regiment only the
environment. They will be able to hone the skills that they have been
trained to do within the military. I might add that this is the very
reason your National Guard is the best solution for conducting this
mission. First of all, we have the `hometown' connection, and second,
this mission will simply allow our soldiers and airmen to receive real-
world training. Real-world training is always beneficial to the troops
because it allows them to hone their skills and it also gives them a
sense of pride and purpose in knowing they are doing something to help
the country.
11. Senator Cornyn. General Blum, how many National Guard troops
would be involved at any one time?
General Blum. The President has authorized your National Guard to
provide 6,000 personnel in the first year of the operation and then
tapering off to 3,000 in the second year of the operation.
12. Senator Cornyn. General Blum, how many National Guard troops
would be required over the course of rotations to support the mission?
General Blum. The President has authorized 6,000 personnel for the
first year of the operation. We'll support this mission request by
taking advantage of the 2-week annual training rotation for the most
part, with a percentage of the total force package there on a longer-
term rotation. The intent of the long-term rotation is to ensure
continuity for the operation as well as a smooth rotation for the
troops that are rotating every 2 weeks. We want to be sure that our
contacts within the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection are seeing
the same faces, in regards to leadership, to avoid issues. We're very
confident this will ensure the overall success of the mission.
13. Senator Cornyn. General Blum, if Guard members will only be
assigned for short rotations, how will this impact the cost of
providing the support?
General Blum. National Guard personnel will not only be in short
rotations; as previously stated, we will have a contingent of long-term
troops in each of the four border States--New Mexico, Arizona, Texas,
and California--to ensure that we are providing the support that the
President and Bureau of Customs and Border Protection envisioned when
the call was made to the National Guard.
14. Senator Cornyn. General Blum, how will the National Guard be
able to come up to speed fast enough to make a lasting contribution on
long-term projects with such short rotations?
General Blum. The National Guard will be able to make a lasting
contribution to long-term projects through the use of short-term unit
rotations because the units will be performing tasks for which they
have long trained as units or individuals. We have long experience in
doing this successfully. Short rotations of National Guard engineer
units have very successfully contributed to the construction of fencing
along the southwest border for years. This is possible because the
units and the people rotating in for short periods arrive with a set of
skills which can be put to work effectively right away. Additionally,
their contribution will be assured by the oversight and leadership of
our long-term headquarters element that will be in place in each State.
restrictions on utilization of the guard in annual training status
15. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, if National Guard troops are
deployed along the border to accomplish their annual training, will
they be able to lawfully conduct surveillance and intelligence analysis
that results in actionable intelligence that leads to arrests and
detention of individuals?
Mr. McHale. Yes. There is no Federal prohibition against the
National Guard, acting under the command and control of a State
Governor, providing this type of information. The intelligence plan
that supports this mission was reviewed carefully to ensure that
National Guard personnel are in strict compliance with all applicable
laws and procedures. Of note, National Guard personnel participating in
Operation Jump Start are not conducting domestic intelligence
collection activities.
16. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, are there restrictions on the
surveillance and intelligence analysis that National Guard personnel
will be able to perform?
Mr. McHale. Yes. The intelligence plan that supports this mission
was reviewed carefully to ensure that National Guard personnel are in
strict compliance with all applicable laws and procedures. Of note,
National Guard personnel participating in Operation Jump Start are not
conducting domestic intelligence collection activities.
National Guard personnel collection, retention, and dissemination
of information on U.S. persons (e.g., a United States citizen, an alien
known to be a permanent resident alien, an unincorporated association
substantially composed of United States citizens or permanent resident
aliens, at a corporation incorporated in the United States, except for
a corporation directed and controlled by a foreign government or
governments) is limited to specific exceptions related to foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence; international terrorist
activities; international narcotic activities; the protection of DOD
employees, property, facilities, and information systems; or violations
of Federal, State, or local law.
17. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, will National Guard personnel
be gathering intelligence on U.S. citizens who cross the border, or who
provide support to illegal aliens?
Mr. McHale. National Guard personnel are not gathering intelligence
on U.S. persons. However, current law, executive orders, and
regulations do permit collection, retention, and dissemination of
incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in
activities that may violate Federal, State, local, or foreign laws.
National Guard personnel participating in Operation Jump Start provide
to U.S. Border Patrol agents any incidentally obtained information on
suspected violations of the law.
preparation of national guard units for the mission
18. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, will the
National Guard Forces be armed?
Mr. McHale. As National Guard personnel operating in the border
States are under State control, the decision to arm them is made by the
Governors of the border States. In the Department's view, the
Governors' decisions have been largely dependent on the nature and
location of the mission that National Guard personnel are performing.
For instance, the majority of missions that are performed by National
Guard personnel do not place them in any physical danger or jeopardy.
As such, the majority of National Guard personnel have not been armed.
However, to the best of our knowledge, the Governors have ensured that
National Guard personnel operating in dangerous areas along the
southwest border are properly armed.
General Blum. Some will be armed. Some will not. Their arming
status will be determined by their mission. All Operation Jump Start
National Guard Forces are subject to Rules for Use of Force (RUF) which
are common to all four southwest border States. As drafted and adopted,
the RUF complies with the laws of the four States, and it has been
agreed to by their Governors and the DOD. Prior to its adoption the RUF
was reviewed by the White House, DHS, and Department of Justice. The
RUF permits National Guard Forces to be armed for self-defense as well
as the defense of others. The decision to arm National Guard Forces is
in the hands of the Adjutant General of each border State or his
designee.
19. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum,
understanding that National Guard troops would not be involved in
direct law enforcement duties, what are the rules for use of force for
the troops deployed in support of this initiative?
Mr. McHale. There are uniform rules for the use of force (attached)
across the southwest border in support of this operation. All National
Guard personnel are informed fully in advance on the rules for the use
of force, including their right of self-defense. These rules for the
use of force have been incorporated into a memorandum of understanding
among the State Governors under whose command and control these forces
will be serving.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
General Blum. The RUF permits National Guard Forces to defend
themselves and others in a manner that is acceptable under the law of
each southwest border State. You are respectfully referred to the RUF
below. A laminated copy of the RUF will be distributed to each National
Guard soldier and airman performing law enforcement support duly in
support of Operation Jump Start.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
20. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, what happens
when National Guard troops witness what appears to be unlawful activity
by illegal aliens?
Mr. McHale. What happens will depend on the circumstances of the
unlawful activity witnessed by National Guard personnel.
National Guard personnel who witness illegal activity that directly
and immediately threatens the life of a person (or persons) are
permitted by State law to intercede to protect the life of that person
(or persons).
National Guard personnel conducting activities to enhance the
security of the southwestern border report, as part of their routine
reporting procedures, any suspected illegal activities taking place on
the territory of the United Mexican States that they detect.
National Guard personnel conducting activities to enhance the
security of the southwestern border report immediately any information
regarding suspected illegal activities taking place on the territory of
the United States to U.S. Border Patrol agents operating in their
sector.
General Blum. The National Guard soldier or airman is expected to
report the activity to law enforcement personnel.
21. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, what
training will servicemembers, as well as their chain of command,
receive prior to employment regarding rules for use of force?
Mr. McHale. National Guard personnel, who are scheduled to deploy
to conduct activities to enhance the security of the southwestern
border, receive careful training in the uniform rules for the use of
force prior to their deployment. In addition, each member is provided
with a laminated card containing the rules for the use of force for
their ready reference when they are in the area of operations.
General Blum. All National Guard Forces supporting Operation Jump
Start will be issued a laminated copy of the RUF upon entering upon
duty. Further, all National Guard Forces will be trained on the RUF,
and will be required to keep a copy of the RUF on his or her person at
all times while on duty.
22. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, are State
rules for use of force across all southwestern border States the same?
Mr. McHale. Yes. The Governors of the southwestern border States
agreed to uniform rules for the use of force that apply to all National
Guard Forces conducting border support duties in those States.
General Blum. Yes. The Regional RUF is common to all four southwest
border States.
consistency with national guard authority for counterdrug operations
23. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, under section 112 of title
32, the National Guard is authorized to provide support to States under
an approved State drug interdiction and counterdrug activities plan.
This includes, for example, authority for the National Guard to assist
in the transportation of aliens who have violated Federal or State law
regarding the possession, use, or distribution of a controlled
substance. How is the new plan for use of the National Guard consistent
with existing statutory authority to assist the States for counterdrug
operations, and do the requirements and limitations of the existing
authority for National Guard support for counterdrug operations
indicate a need for specific statutory authority for this mission?
Mr. McHale. Although National Guard missions conducted in support
of the security of the southwest U.S. border are substantially similar
to the annual training missions executed as part of the counterdrug
program along the southwest border since 1989, these missions are
conducted not under the authority of section 112 of title 32, U.S.C.,
but under the authorities of section 502(a) and section 502(f) of title
32, U.S.C. The former authorizes training activities, and the latter
authorizes a member of the National Guard to be ordered, with or
without his or her consent, to perform training or other duties.
support to civilian law enforcement under title 10
24. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, chapter 18 of title 10
provides authority to use the Armed Forces to support civilian law
enforcement. Since it is not expected that members of the National
Guard will engage in searches, seizures, arrests, or other activity
that Active-Duty Forces are prohibited from engaging in under title 10,
why not use the National Guard in title 10 status?
Mr. McHale. We are building on a long history of very successful
military activities that have worked. Since 1989, military activities
conducted at the southwest border in support of the counterdrug mission
have largely been carried out by National Guard personnel under the
command and control of State Governors. Additionally, National Guard
personnel have provided military support to civil authorities for many
years in the normal course of military training or in activities that
have resulted in a benefit to a military unit or to military personnel
providing such support that is substantially equivalent to that which
would otherwise be obtained from military training (e.g., medics,
aviation, infantry, public affairs, admin and personnel, and
maintenance personnel). Nation Guard personnel require training to
prepare for the Federal mission, and this operation will not only
provide them realistic training opportunities but will also serve to
improve our Nation's land border security.
involvement of the governors and the adjutants general of the states
25. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, were the
Governors of the southwestern border States and the Adjutants General
of those States involved in the discussion and planning of this
proposal?
Mr. McHale. The Governors and the Adjutants General of the
supported southwestern border States have been closely involved in the
planning of this operation. The deployment and operation of their
National Guard personnel, as well as those of supporting States, to
enhance the security of our border has been conducted with their full
consent and cooperation.
General Blum. Yes, we have included the Adjutants General and
Governor of each of the supported States as well as the States being
asked to supply troops in all planning and coordination.
26. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, have the
Governors and the Adjutants General of the States that may be asked to
contribute National Guard troops been consulted?
Mr. McHale. The Governors and the Adjutants General of the
supporting States--those States that may be asked to provide National
Guard personnel to southwestern border States--have been consulted, and
the deployment and operations of their National Guard personnel in
support of the security of our border has been conducted with their
full consent and cooperation.
General Blum. Yes, we have included the Adjutants General and
Governor of each of the supported States as well as the States being
asked to supply troops in all planning and coordination.
role of u.s. northern command
27. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Conway, U.S.
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was established in 2002 with the mission of
planning, organizing, and executing homeland defense and civil support
missions within the continental United States, Alaska, and our
territorial waters. NORTHCOM is also responsible for the DOD's security
cooperation efforts with Canada and Mexico. That said, what will
NORTHCOM's role be in this operation?
Mr. McHale. U.S. NORTHCOM's role in border security has been to
provide support to civilian authorities, principally the DHS, when
directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense. For the current
effort, military support is provided by National Guard Forces operating
under the command and control of the State Governors. The National
Guard emphasis is not new to efforts to support CBP.
Currently, there are no plans to deploy additional Active-Duty
personnel to the border. However, as we gain more information related
to the mission, there may be some capabilities found in Active-Duty
units that can be employed to gain and maintain increased security
along the border. If Active-Duty personnel are used, their employment
would be on a very limited and reimbursable basis to provide specific
skills and capabilities. These personnel would operate under the
command and control authority of the Commander, U.S. NORTHCOM.
Additionally, Joint Task Force North, a subordinate command of U.S.
NORTHCOM, has, for the last 2 years, supported CBP on border security
operations in numerous northern and southern U.S. Border Patrol
sectors. Since it is likely that Joint Task Force North will continue
to conduct such operations, U.S. NORTHCOM will liaise closely with the
National Guard Bureau to ensure that Federal and State military forces
involved in border security operations have a common understanding of
the locations, tasks, and purposes of all military forces providing
military support in the vicinity of the borders.
General Conway. NORTHCOM will continue to provide support to DOJ
and DHS in regard to counternarcotic operations. These missions will,
as they have in the past, be accomplished with title 10 members and are
completely separate from the National Guard support to Operation Jump
Start. These missions may be complementary but are separate from
Operation Jump Start.
While there are no plans currently to do so, if Active-Duty
personnel were required, due to their unique capabilities, to support
Operation Jump Start, they would deploy and operate under the command
and control of the Commander, NORTHCOM. NORTHCOM will synchronize
missions with the State National Guard Joint Task Force Headquarters to
ensure operations are synchronized.
28. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Conway, will a
joint task force be established to coordinate the efforts of the
National Guard in each State, and if so, who will command the joint
task force, and how will that officer coordinate with the Governors,
the Adjutants General, and Bureau of Customs and Border Protection?
Mr. McHale. Each of the four southwest border States (California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas) have established a joint task force
that is responsible, under the authority of the Governor and the
Adjutant General of that State, for operational control of all National
Guard personnel executing missions in support of border security within
that State.
General Conway. I defer this question to Lieutenant General Blum.
department of homeland security identification of missions sets
29. Senator Cornyn. Chief Aguilar, it is my understanding that the
DHS intended to submit a set of missions to the DOD regarding the type
of support the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection will require.
Has that list of missions been finalized, and, if so, has it been
relayed to the DOD? If not, when is this expected to occur?
Chief Aguilar. Since the inception of Operation Jump Start, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, Office of Border Patrol, has worked
hand-in-hand with the National Guard Bureau to identify the personnel
requirements, the mission sets, and critical skills needed to reach the
ultimate goal of deploying 6,000 National Guard troops to the border.
Under the Operations Plans, developed by the Border Patrol, all of the
missions place the National Guard in supporting roles to augment Border
Patrol operations.
Mission sets were established around like job skills that would
augment Border Patrol operations. One such mission set was command,
control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C\4\I), which
included the following job skills: joint task force headquarters;
intelligence support; communications support; electronics maintenance;
mapping and imagery support; and data and voice support.
In conjunction with the Nation's Governors, the National Guard has
deployed 6,000 soldiers to the southwest border and they are currently
filling the mission requirements of Customs and Border Protection.
30. Senator Cornyn. Chief Aguilar, can you elaborate on the
specific missions by State that the National Guard will be asked to
perform?
Chief Aguilar. All four States have National Guard performing jobs
that fall into a variety of mission sets. Each sector, however, has
some variation in the way guardsmen are employed and deployed. In Rio
Grande Valley, Texas, for example, more guardsmen are utilized at
checkpoint operations, unloading vehicles, and dismantling cars for
drugs, than they are being used in New Mexico, where the Guard is
deployed in entry identification teams in the desert searching for
illegal aliens. On any given day the jobs performed vary. The majority
of missions conducted applied to all four States.
The specific missions outlined in the Border Patrol Operations
Plans for Operation Jump Start include: fence maintenance; general
maintenance; law enforcement communications assistance; infra red scope
operators; remote video surveillance camera operators; entry
identification teams; intelligence/statistical analysis; aviation
support; engineering of vehicle barriers and fencing; vehicle
mechanics; transportation support; sensor monitoring; training support;
road maintenance; IT support; command and control elements; and brush
removal. Jump Start Operations Plans envision that the National Guard
will perform these missions in all four States on the southwest border
where they are deployed.
31. Senator Cornyn. Chief Aguilar, do you have a cost estimate of
these support operations?
Chief Aguilar. The recent supplemental budgeted $708 million for
the current fiscal year and fiscal year 2007 to the National Guard to
support Operation Jump Start.
32. Senator Cornyn. Chief Aguilar, will DHS reimburse DOD for costs
that are beyond the National Guard's normal annual training
requirements?
Chief Aguilar. The recent supplemental provided $708 million for
this current fiscal year and fiscal year 2007, in direct funding to the
National Guard for Operation Jump Start.
use of unmanned aerial vehicles
33. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, do you
envision the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) as part of the
effort? If so, to what extent?
Mr. McHale. To date, the Bureau of CBP has not requested DOD UAV
support for activities to enhance the security of the southwest border
of the United States.
In the past, DOD has provided UAV support through Joint Task Force
North at the United States. Additionally, DOD has provided Hunter and
Hermes UAV support to DHS for the Arizona Border Control Initiative in
the summer and fall of 2004.
If UAV support is requested, the request would be subject to
approval by the Secretary of Defense.
General Blum. To date, Bureau of CBP has not requested DOD UAV
support for Operation Jump Start. The National Guard has limited
inventory of UAVs. However, if the request is made by CBP and approved
by the Secretary of Defense, the UAVs would most likely come from the
Federal Active-Duty inventory. If the request is made and approved, a
mission analysis will be conducted to determine the appropriate
platform and quantity required to accomplish the mission.
34. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, do you
anticipate any problems getting timely authorization from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)?
Mr. McHale. FAA requires that DOD submit a Certificate of
Authorization (COA), no later than 60 days in advance, in order to fly
UAVs in the National Airspace System. Both DOD and FAA have recognized
the need for, and are working on, expedited procedures to meet short
notice operational requirements.
General Blum. No request for UAV support has been made at this
time. However, in the event of such a request, the DOD will request a
COA from the FAA to fly UAVs in the National Airspace System. Requests
are made as far in advance as possible, but no later than 60 days prior
to the operational dates, based on current FAA requirements. Both DOD
and FAA have recognized a need for expedited procedures to meet short
notice operational requirements.
35. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, where would
such units be based?
Mr. McHale. As noted in the response to question 33, CBP has not
requested DOD UAV support. If UAV support is requested by CBP, and
approved by the Secretary of Defense, the Department will, at that
time, determine the optimal basing locations for UAV operations.
In the past, when DOD has provided UAV support to CBP at the
southwest border, we have based UAV operations out of Fort Huachuca's
Libby Army Airfield and Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona.
General Blum. No request for UAV support has been received.
Presumably, any basing decisions that may have to be made in the future
would be heavily shaped by the nature of the support mission requested.
As a result, it is impossible to provide a specific basing plan now. As
a general matter, however, the southwest border region has many
military and civilian air fields from which such operations could be
mounted should the need arise.
36. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale and General Blum, would
additional support facilities be needed?
Mr. McHale. If CBP requests UAV support, and the Secretary of
Defense approves this request, DOD will evaluate the operational
requirements of the request and, on that basis, determine what support
facilities are needed.
General Blum. Probably not, but it is impossible to say for certain
since no mission has been requested.
hot pursuit
37. Senator Cornyn. Secretary McHale, General Blum, and Chief
Aguilar, will surveillance of suspected illegal activity that begins
outside U.S. territory continue within U.S. territory? If so, for how
far, for how long, and what are the rules?
Mr. McHale. National Guard personnel surveillance of suspected
illegal activities that originate outside U.S. territory may continue
within U.S. territory until such time as U.S. Border Patrol agents or
other appropriate law enforcement authorities are able to apprehend the
suspects.
National Guard personnel collection, retention, and dissemination
of information on U.S. persons (e.g., a U.S. citizen, an alien known to
be a permanent resident alien, an unincorporated association
substantially composed of U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens,
or a corporation incorporated in the United States, except for a
corporation directed and controlled by a foreign government or
governments) is limited to specific exceptions related to foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence; international terrorist
activities; international narcotics activities; the protection of DOD
employees, property, facilities, and information systems; or violations
of Federal, State, or local law.
The intelligence collection plan that supports this mission was
reviewed carefully to ensure that we are in strict compliance with all
applicable laws and procedures, as they relate to the domestic
collection of information by military authorities.
General Blum. National Guard personnel are providing support to
Federal law enforcement authorities. In that context, if a suspected
illegal activity outside the United Slates, under the surveillance of
National Guard assets, appears about to enter into the United States,
the appropriate law enforcement agency will be notified at once. The
precise rules and procedures will vary from location to location and
from means to means.
Chief Aguilar. The National Guard will maintain observation of
those persons/vehicles observed in Mexico that enter illegally into the
United States.
There is no set answer as to how far or long observation will
continue in the above situation. If National Guard Air support observes
traffic they could maintain observation for quite some time and
distance until a BP interdiction occurs. An Entry Identification Team
(EIT) working near the border would be overtly positioned, probably
well within a mile of the border. They would maintain observation as
long and as far as they could, dependent upon the terrain and whatever
vision enhancing device they have. Generally, observation is maintained
and limited to 5 miles. Interdictions would probably occur within a few
miles of the border. An EIT could observe the traffic for some time
until a Border Patrol unit was directed in, especially if the traffic
tried to hide. Border Patrol ``mobile enforcement response'' maintains
``line of sight support'' for an EIT. A response to an EIT alert
typically occurs within 5 minutes, so foot traffic shouldn't get too
far off but a vehicle could probably travel several miles from the
border before it was out of sight.
``Rules'': The National Guard will not interdict, detain, or arrest
anyone.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
comparison to counterdrug authority
38. Senator Levin. Secretary McHale, the counterdrug activities of
the National Guard authorized by section 112 of title 32, United States
Code, are in support of a State drug interdiction and counterdrug plan
developed by the State Governor and approved by the Secretary of
Defense. The border security operation is in support of a Federal
agency--the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--not the State,
even though the National Guard would be under the operational control
of the Governor. Isn't there something inconsistent about National
Guard in a State status under the operational control of a Governor
performing a Federal mission in support of a Federal agency? Wouldn't
it be more appropriate to perform Federal missions in a Federal status?
Mr. McHale. We are building on a long history of very successful
military activities that have worked. Since 1989, military activities
conducted at the southwest border in support of the counterdrug mission
have largely been carried out by National Guard personnel under the
command and control of State Governors. Additionally, National Guard
personnel have provided military support to civil authorities for many
years in the normal course of military training or in activities that
have resulted in a benefit to a military unit or to military personnel
providing such support that is substantially equivalent to that which
would otherwise be obtained from military training (e.g., medics,
aviation, infantry, public affairs, admin and personnel, and
maintenance personnel). National Guard personnel require training to
prepare for the Federal mission, and this operation will not only
provide them realistic training opportunities but will also serve to
improve our Nation's land border security.
39. Senator Levin. Secretary McHale, will the DHS, the State
Governors, or any other agency submit a plan similar to the plan
required by the statute authorizing counterdrug activities?
Mr. McHale. No, DOD, DHS, State Governors, and the Adjutants
General have worked together to develop a single, comprehensive plan
for National Guard border security operations.
annual training
40. Senator Levin. General Blum, one of the underlying principles
of using annual training to perform this border security mission is
that the National Guard personnel involved will receive training in
mission essential tasks for their military occupational specialty. Do
you anticipate that infantry and other combat units may be asked to
perform their annual training in support of this border security
mission, or will this duty be restricted to combat support and combat
service support units?
General Blum. I really see no restriction to the type of units that
will be sent to support Operation Jump Start. Every soldier is trained
in basic soldier skills to include camouflage, map reading, medical
aid, and communication techniques regardless of their specific military
occupation, and these skills will be needed on the border as well as
specific skills such as engineers and mechanics.
41. Senator Levin. General Blum, if combat troops will be used,
what mission essential tasks will infantry soldiers train for? How will
this affect artillery units? What percentage, if any, of their mission
essential tasks will they be able to perform? What training for
warfighting missions will these Guard units receive?
General Blum. Mission essential tasks will be specific to the
southwest border mission, not specific to a certain Military
Occupational Specialty (MOS). Those mission sets are varied and diverse
enough that each type of MOS will bring certain capabilities to the
table. While an infantry platoon may have a higher compliment of
collective and individual tasks satisfied by an EIT mission, the basic
skills needed to accomplish that mission (navigation, movement,
observation, etc.) are all baseline skill sets to guardsmen of any MOS.
42. Senator Levin. General Blum, if you are not going to use combat
troops, but will be diverting only the supporting units, such as
engineering and logistics, to this mission, won't this prevent the Army
Guard's enhanced separate brigades from training together as a brigade,
which would run exactly counter to the intent of the Army's
``modularity'' program to embed all the support forces necessary to
sustain a deployment into a unified brigade structure?
General Blum. There is no specific MOS that will be targeted for
this mission. There will be a mixture of Combat Arms, Combat Support,
and Combat Service Support units.
national guard personnel requirement
43. Senator Levin. General Blum, Secretary McHale was quoted in the
press last week saying that the force ``will consist mainly of National
Guard troops from California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.''
According to the DOD talking points, these four States currently have a
combined total of about 50,000 guardsmen assigned. Have you determined
how many of these 50,000 guardsmen in these four States are in the
military occupational specialty areas that you will need for the
mission?
General Blum. Approximately half of the forces required will be
performing EIT missions. This involves basic soldier skills that all of
our combat arms troops are capable of performing. Approximately 25
percent of the force will be engineers assisting the border patrol with
development and improvement of tactical infrastructure. Approximately
10 percent of the force will be aviation (primarily rotary wing). The
remaining 15 percent will consist of troops assisting with command,
control, administrative support, logistics, and maintenance. Each State
has identified the portion of the mission they expect to complete with
their own forces. We currently anticipate a requirement to source
combat arms, engineering, and aviation from those supporting States.
availability of assets and personnel
44. Senator Levin. General Blum, the administration's proposal
relies heavily on using the National Guard to operate surveillance
systems and analyzing intelligence. Aren't these the same skill sets
that have been extensively utilized in the global war on terror and in
counterdrug activities? Do we have enough personnel with these skills
to keep asking more and more from them?
General Blum. The skills you speak of--operation of surveillance
systems and intelligence analysis--are indeed very valuable skill sets
to this mission, counterdrug missions, and the global war on terror.
While specialized in their scope, we are confident that we can continue
to fill each of the mission areas you speak of with qualified, capable,
and ready guardsmen. We accomplish this by spreading those mission
sets, when appropriate, to several different capabilities that can
deliver the desired end state. For example, surveillance can be
conducted by dismounted entry identification teams, rotor aircraft, or
by fixed wing aircraft. We are able to fill those critical positions
when needed, but we can also spread a given requirement across a myriad
of capabilities that can deliver the desired end result.
45. Senator Levin. General Blum, both the Army and Air Force
National Guard fell short of their recruiting goals in April, the last
reports we have received. Are you concerned about recruiting and
retention of personnel with these critical specialties if we continue
to use them at the current rates?
General Blum. I always pay particular attention to recruiting and
retention, as our soldiers and airmen are our most important asset, and
I'm encouraged at the most recent numbers that I've seen. For example,
the Army National Guard has attained over 15,000 more accessions than
at the same time last year. Retention rates continue at an all-time
high for the Army National Guard at more than 117 percent of our goal.
I'm also encouraged by the fact that the Army National Guard had a net
increase in end strength of nearly 7,000 soldiers year to date, which
is the largest growth in recent history. I'm equally pleased with the
results in the Air National Guard, which has exceeded recruiting goals
by attaining nearly 113 percent of our goal.
army guard equipment
46. Senator Levin. General Blum, earlier this year you stated
repeatedly that the Army Guard was short of equipment to perform all
its assigned missions. The total Army does not have enough equipment to
do all its required training at home and missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan while performing the maintenance needed to counter the
impact of all this wear and tear from this heavy usage of our
equipment. So where is the Army Guard going to get the equipment you
plan to leave as an equipment set on the southern border to support
these guard rotations over the next 2 years?
General Blum. Equipment and funding issues have and will continue
to be an issue for the National Guard. We have received some funding to
address some of our equipment shortfalls over the last year; however,
the issue is ongoing. Our biggest equipment shortfall from last year,
which was identified during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, involved
interoperability of our communications assets. We have addressed the
issue and are prepared for the hurricane season; we will continue to
work to identify these issues and address the needs with the
appropriate people.
coordination with governors
47. Senator Levin. Secretary McHale and General Blum, please
describe any pre-decisional coordination and consultation with the
Nation's Governors about use of their National Guard's annual training
to support the Border Patrol to secure our southern border. We know
from the Hurricane Katrina response that coordinating a large multi-
State Guard operation like this is something that the States and
National Guard had problems with just in the last year. Who will
coordinate this effort, and how will it be de-conflicted with other
missions that may emerge like disaster assistance during this hurricane
season?
Mr. McHale. The Governors and the Adjutants General of the
supported southwestern border States, as well as those States that may
be asked to provide National Guard personnel to the southwestern border
States, have been closely involved in the planning of this operation,
and the activities of their National Guard personnel in this operation
have been conducted with their full consent.
The National Guard Bureau, in accordance with sections 10501 and
10503 of title 10, U.S.C., is coordinating this effort with the
Adjutants General and assisting in de-conflicting the demands of this
effort with those of overseas operations and domestic emergencies such
us hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, floods, and wildfires.
General Blum. I'll first start with the issue of command and
control. Each ``supported'' State--New Mexico, Arizona, California, and
Texas--has created a Joint Task Force (JTF) which will be responsible
for the command and control of all forces related to this operation.
This includes forces that are coming in from ``supporting'' States. The
``supporting'' States will retain administrative control of the troops
to ensure pay and other support needs are met. The ``supported'' State
JTF commander, however, will own the operational/tactical control.
Since we will employ our soldiers and airmen in title 32 status, the
Governor of each respective State will have total control of these
National Guard Forces. The National Guard Bureau will work with each of
the States to provide any assistance necessary, as well as serving as
the conduit to NORTHCOM.
48. Senator Levin. Secretary McHale and General Blum, what will be
the role for the NORTHCOM, and what changes have been made to the
system and arrangements that were used to respond to Hurricane Katrina?
Mr. McHale. U.S. NORTHCOM's role in border security has been to
provide support to civilian authorities, principally the DHS, when
directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense. For the current
effort, military support is provided by National Guard Forces operating
under the command and control of the State Governors. The National
Guard emphasis is not new to efforts to support CBP.
Currently, there are no plans to deploy additional Active-Duty
personnel to the border. However, as we gain more information related
to the mission, there may be some capabilities found in Active-Duty
units that can be employed to gain and maintain increased security
along the border. If Active-Duty personnel are used their employment
would be on a very limited and reimbursable basis, to provide specific
skills and capabilities. These personnel would operate under the
command and control authority of the Commander, U.S. NORTHCOM.
Additionally, Joint Task Force North, a subordinate command of U.S.
NORTHCOM, has, for the last 2 years, supported CBP on border security
operations in numerous northern and southern U.S. Border Patrol
Sectors. Since it is likely that Joint Task Force North will continue
to conduct such operations, U.S. NORTHCOM will liaise closely with the
National Guard Bureau to ensure that Federal and State military forces
involved in border security operations have a common understanding of
the locations, tasks, and purposes of all military forces providing
military support in the vicinity of the borders.
General Blum. The relationship between the National Guard Bureau
and NORTHCOM has only strengthened since Hurricane Katrina. The
National Guard Bureau will continue to coordinate with the NORTHCOM to
ensure they have the ``common operating picture'' of this mission and
understand the amount and types of troops that are on the ground to
conduct this mission. With that said, I want to reiterate that the
State Governors own the command and control of these soldiers and
airmen since they will be in either title 32 or State status, not title
10.
coordination and role of the joint staff
49. Senator Levin. General Conway, one of the problems involved
with the deployment of National Guard units in connection with
Hurricane Katrina was that the receiving States and the Joint Task
Force Commander did not know the skill sets of the units that were
deploying to support them. The Joint Staff has been deploying units for
decades and has honed the process to a fine art. What role will the
Joint Staff play, if any, in the identification and deployment of
National Guard units to the border States?
General Conway. National Guard personnel deploying to and operating
in the border States will be doing so under the authority of title 32,
U.S.C. The State Adjutants General, with the assistance of the National
Guard Bureau and in accordance with the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact and a State-to-State memorandum of agreement, will coordinate
the identification, deployment, and redeployment of National Guard
personnel in support of this activity. Command and control of these
personnel will be exercised by State Governors. The Joint Staff will
not have a role in this process.
50. Senator Levin. General Conway, has any thought been given to
the impact that the deployment of National Guard units to the border
States could have on combatant command war plans?
General Conway. This limited, temporary deployment will not
adversely affect operational readiness or DOD's ability to conduct the
global war on terrorism, nor hinder the National Guard's ability or
capacity to aid their States in the event of a natural disaster or
other emergency. It will, however, provide Guard forces with realistic
training opportunities, while also providing support to the DHS.
51. Senator Levin. General Conway, another problem related to
Hurricane Katrina was the lack of a single chain of command and the
impact on unity of effort. What will the command relationship be
between the National Guard units and the Active units that will be
involved in this effort?
General Conway. There are currently no Active-Duty title 10 forces
involved in this mission. NORTHCOM, with the assistance of the National
Guard Bureau, will coordinate missions with the National Guard Joint
Task Forces operating in the four southwestern border States to ensure
operations are synchronized.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
uavs operating in domestic airspace
52. Senator Clinton. Secretary McHale, one of the difficulties in
using many of the UAVs that are used by our military forces is in using
airspace that also is used by commercial or civilian aircraft. At this
point, DOD forces must seek permission for individual flights from the
FAA to use such airspace well ahead when they intend to operate the
UAVs. As I understand it, granting this permission can require up to 60
days or more. If we are to have the National Guard employ UAVs
effectively in this mission, it would seem to me that this
administrative lead time would be unworkable. What steps are the FAA
and DOD taking to reduce or eliminate such lead times in being able to
fly UAVs regularly along the border in support of this initiative?
Mr. McHale. FAA requires that DOD submit a COA, no later than 60
days in advance, in order to fly UAVs in the National Airspace System.
Both DOD and FAA have recognized the need for, and are working on,
expedited procedures to meet short notice operational requirements.
To date, CBP has not requested DOD UAV support as part of the
effort to enhance the security of the southwestern border.
In the past, DOD has provided UAV support through Joint Task Force
North at the request of CBP in support of its counterdrug mission on
the southern border of the United States. Additionally, DOD has
provided Hunter and Hermes UAV support to DHS for the Arizona Border
Control Initiative in the summer and fall of 2004.
If CBP does request UAV support, that request would be subject to
approval by the Secretary of Defense.
predator uav systems
53. Senator Clinton. General Conway, one of the systems that has
been in short supply in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters has been the
Predator UAV providing streaming video capability. Will the DOD be
diverting Predator UAV systems that had been scheduled to support
forces deployed to U.S. Central Command in favor of sending them to the
southwest border?
General Conway. To date, the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection has not requested DOD UAV support for activities to enhance
the security of the southwest border of the United States. If DOD were
to receive such a request, we are required by section 376 of title 10,
U.S.C., to ensure that the provision of any such military support to
law enforcement does not adversely affect the military preparedness of
the United States. Right now, there is no plan to pull any UAV assets
away from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for use on the southwest
border. As the President stated earlier, the mission on the southwest
border will have no impact on the global war on terror.
[Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the committee adjourned.]