[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM: STRENGTHENING U.S. SECURITY,
ONE PARTNERSHIP AT A TIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-714 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Kaity Wolfe, Deputy Director for Oversight
Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee On Military and Foreign Affairs
William Timmons, South Carolina, Chairman
Michael Turner, Ohio Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia,
Michael Cloud, Texas Ranking Minority Member
Andy Biggs, Arizona Stephen Lynch, Massachusetts
Byron Donalds, Florida Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Eli Crane, Arizona Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. William Timmons, U.S. Representative, Chairman.............. 1
Hon. Suhas Subramanyam, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member...... 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Christopher Mamaux, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Global Partnerships, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
Oral Statement................................................... 3
Major General William J. Edwards, Director, Strategic Plans and
Policy, and International Affairs (NGB J-5), National Guard
Bureau (NGB)
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Major General Robin B. Stilwell, Adjutant General, South Carolina
National Guard
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Article, CNN, ``Gabon Military Coup, What to Know About the
Overthrow''; submitted by Rep. Crane.
* Article, The Intercept, ``Niger Coup Leader Joins Long Line
of U.S.-Trained Mutineers''; submitted by Rep. Crane.
* Article, BBC, ``Sierra Leone Coup Attempt, What May Have
Sparked the Violence''; submitted by Rep. Crane.
* Article, The Intercept, ``U.S.-Trained Niger Junta Kicks Out
U.S. Troops, Drone Base''; submitted by Rep. Crane.
* Statement, May, 2025, NG SPP Map; submitted by Rep. Crane.
* Article, FoxNews, ``I Led National Guard and Regular Army
Units''; submitted by Rep. Subramanyam.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM: STRENGTHENING U.S. SECURITY,
ONE PARTNERSHIP AT A TIME
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs.
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in
room HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. William Timmons
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Timmons, Cloud, Luna, Crane,
McGuire, Subramanyam, and Lynch.
Mr. Timmons. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Military
and Foreign Affairs will come to order. Welcome, everyone.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN WILLIAM TIMMONS REPRESENTATIVE
FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Timmons. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today
to discuss one of the Department of Defense's most effective,
yet often overlooked, tools of soft power: the National Guard's
State Partnership Program, or SPP. Since its founding in 1993
as a post-cold war initiative, the SPP has been instrumental in
fostering close military relationships with foreign nations and
allies all around the world. Currently, the program boasts over
100 participants throughout every geographic combatant command.
From Eastern Europe to the islands in the South Pacific, the
State Partnership Program has helped the United States deter
our adversaries, enhance allied interoperability, and promote
regional stability. It is my hope that this hearing will
demonstrate the global impact of this essential program and to
provide Subcommittee Members the opportunity to have any
questions or concerns answered by the subject matter experts we
have before us today.
However, as with most defense programs, this program also
brings complexity and the opportunity for waste, fraud, and
abuse. A 2022 Government Accountability Office report found
that DOD and the National Guard Bureau face serious challenges
in tracking completed activities and clarifying legal
authorities to partner nations. While the Committee has been
assured that these issues have since been resolved and that the
Department has satisfied all GAO's recommendations, I am
curious about ways Congress can help continue the success of
this program and help prevent any future issues. Additionally,
I am curious to hear from our witnesses how these valuable
partnerships stay aligned with the Administration's national
security priorities as well as how successful outcomes are
tracked and measured.
Finally, we must assess the resources that are provided to
the program. Currently, the SPP's budget is just one percent of
the overall defense security cooperation budget but accounts
for almost 30 percent of all geographic combatant command
engagements with partners and allies. It is my hope that this
hearing will bring to light the need for enhanced funding for
the State Partnership Program and the vital mission it
supports. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today,
and I want to thank them again for appearing before us.
I now recognize Ranking Member Subramanyam for the purpose
of making an opening statement.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
all the witnesses for coming today. Thank you for being here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. Subramanyam. The National Guard is a unique branch of
the U.S. military with dual state and Federal missions, and I
have had the pleasure of working with the Virginia National
Guard in my time serving in Richmond and here in Congress, and
I appreciate the great work that they do to protect our
commonwealth as well as the Nation. And the State Partnership
Program is a critical component of the Guard's global military
readiness and America's partnerships around the world, and for
more than three decades, the program has built relationships
between the National Guard of every state, territory, and D.C.,
and 100 nations on every continent. It may even be more now.
And these partnerships support joint training exercises and
disaster response, humanitarian aid, counterterrorism and
counter-trafficking activities, and much more.
And the Virginia National Guard currently maintains two
relationships under the SPP. One is with Tajikistan since 2003.
Tajikistan is a former Soviet Republic, and the partnership has
helped both sides develop counterterrorism emergency response
and mountain warfare expertise as well, which has been
critical, and last year, Virginia also finalized a second
partnership with Finland. This builds upon a longstanding
relationship between Finland and Virginia. Our troops served
alongside each other in Bosnia in 2001 to 2002, and under this
new partnership, we are focused on cyber threats, cold weather
tactics, and much more, although we will not need those tactics
in this weather today. But this program is an important
component in America's diplomatic efforts, and these
relationships have proven crucial in improving cybersecurity,
disaster response, and even in the war in Ukraine as well.
And so, I want to thank our Virginia National Guard as well
as the National Guard around the country and thank the
witnesses for being here today. I look forward to today's
testimony as we look for how we can be helpful in Congress to
the National Guard and to the SPP program. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I am pleased to welcome an expert
panel of witnesses for today's discussion. I would first like
to welcome Mr. Christopher Mamaux, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Global Partnerships at the Department
of Defense. Second, I would like to welcome Major General
William Edwards, the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy and
International Affairs with the National Guard Bureau. Last, I
would like to welcome Major General Robin Stilwell, the
Adjutant General of the National Guard in my home state of
South Carolina. A special thank you, General, for being here
today.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. Let the record show that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please take your seat.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony.
Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written
statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing record.
Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. As a reminder,
please press the button on the microphone in front of you so
that it is on and the Members can hear you. When you begin to
speak, the light in front of you will turn green. After 4
minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the red light comes
on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask that you
please wrap up.
I now recognize Mr. Mamaux for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MAMAUX
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
Mr. Mamaux. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chairman
Timmons, Ranking Member, Mr. Subramanyam, distinguished Members
of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, this
Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide an overview of a vital element of United
States national security and global defense cooperation: the
National Guard State Partnership Program, which we colloquially
refer to as the SPP. It is my distinct honor to appear
alongside Major General Bill Edwards, the Director of Strategic
Plans and Policy/International Affairs at the National Guard
Bureau, J-5, in International Affairs; Major General Rob
Stilwell, the Adjutant General of the South Carolina National
Guard.
For over 30 years, the SPP has been developing enduring
relationships, increasing cooperation across the globe. It is a
simple, yet effective concept: pairing a state or territory's
National Guard with a partner nation to foster long-term,
mutually beneficial relationships, while enhancing joint
military capabilities and readiness in combination with other
authorities. Today, the SPP boasts a network of 115 partner
nations, strategically aligned with the National Guard's
presence in all 54 states, territories, and the District of
Columbia. Working hand in hand with the State Department and
the geographic combatant commands, this extensive reach makes
the SPP a critical component of the United States national
security framework.
SPP contributes to deterrence, increasing partner
countries' burden-sharing capabilities, signaling a unified
front against potential adversaries, thereby making America
safer. Of critical importance is the SPP's alignment with the
Defense Department's Interim National Defense Strategic
Guidance to achieve President Trump's mandate of achieving
peace through strength. The SPP directly contributes to the
objective of ensuring partners can shoulder their share of the
burden in our collective defense. In a mark of its evolution
since the program began, it has gone beyond what was envisioned
and even resulted in numerous co-deployments hinted at earlier
with the National Guard soldiers and airmen deploying in harm's
way alongside of our partners.
The SPP's success lies in its multifaceted approach,
fostering enduring relationships born of a shared understanding
for mutual benefit. These partnerships extend beyond
traditional military training, encompassing disaster response,
border security, and cyber defense. A key example of the SPP's
strategic impact can be seen in our relationship with Colombia,
a strategic partner for the United States and South America and
instrumental in our shared efforts to counter transnational
organized crime, narcotics, and illegal migration. This
holistic approach allows the program to address a broader range
of security challenges, build resilience in partner nations.
Additionally, the SPP's brilliance in building interoperability
across partners while supporting shared responsibility across
the same is another hallmark of success in addressing global
security threats. The SPP builds more capable forces, helping
make America's alliances and partnerships stronger.
While the success and value of the SPP is evident, it is
paramount to ensure its alignment with the President's America
First agenda that every dollar we spend makes the American
people safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Responsible
stewardship requires us to consider an approach focused on
optimizing existing partnerships and a strict prioritization of
new partnerships to ensure strategic and effective use of
resources. Deepening existing relationships and prioritizing
partnerships aligned with key U.S. strategic objectives,
particularly in the Indo-Pacific, is a crucial step to ensuring
the SPP continues to deliver maximum value for the American
taxpayer.
A key element involves allocating resources toward
developing the most beneficial partnerships and facilitating
the development of lethal capabilities, when necessary, for
defending the homeland and deterring China. Such actions
guarantee the SPP remains a cornerstone of our National
Security Strategy. This targeted approach allows us to
capitalize on the existing network of SPP and expand in key
theaters, while also freeing up resources for other critical
defense priorities.
To conclude, I want to acknowledge the vital role to this
Committee in ensuring the SPP remains responsible and effective
beneficiary of taxpayer dollars. It is important to demonstrate
the value and effectiveness of our activities to the American
people, and we appreciate this Committee's dedication to
holding us to that very high standard. The SPP represents a
significant return on investment, fostering stability and
security around the world. Thank you for your continued
support, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. I now recognize General
Edwards for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM J. EDWARDS
DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY,
AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (NGB J-5)
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU (NGB)
Major General Edwards. Good afternoon. Chairman Timmons,
Ranking Member Subramanyam, distinguished Members of the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Military and
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing
me to speak on behalf of the National Guard Bureau and in
support of the State Partnership Program. I am honored to sit
alongside DASD, Mr. Christopher Mamaux, and Major General Rob
Stilwell for this hearing.
The State Partnership Program embodies a cost-effective and
collaborative approach to peace through strength. It improves
security capabilities of our partners and the readiness of our
units. Through face-to-face engagements and cooperative
training, the State Partnership Program cultivates essential
relationships with our partner nations. It improves
interoperability and facilitates a shared responsibility to
shoulder the regional security burdens of today's global
environment. The State Partnership Program is an OSD program
managed by the National Guard Bureau and executed by the
states. It is done in support of the regional combatant
commands' security cooperation strategy and the U.S. embassies'
integrated strategy plans for the partner nations. The National
Guard Bureau manages the program and resourcing, but the states
lead the partnerships, and they are directly responsible for
the success of those relationships. So, it is fitting to have
the Adjutant General of South Carolina here to showcase the
relationship that his state has developed with its partner.
In 2025, the total operating budget for the SPP is
approximately $55 million. This allocation enables the
execution of more than 1,000 engagements across all aspects of
international civil military affairs. It has also supported the
addition of eight new partner nations. The National Guard
Bureau uses a structured resource allocation model to portion
the funding to the states based off their partnership plans
that they develop in coordination with their partners. This
allocation model considers the priorities communicated in the
National Defense Strategy and the Interim National Defense
Strategic Guidance.
An important starting point for our discussion is the
program's growth. What began in 1993, and with 13 nations in
Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, has grown to
115 countries across every geographic combatant command, and
there is appetite for more continued growth. We see interest
from potential partner nations to join the program from
National Guard States, from OSD, and from the geographic
combatant commands. In fact, we are in the midst of pairing
eight new partner nations. This year, multiple states have
submitted applications for the opportunity to be paired with
these nations in a competitive process. The state and partner
nation pairing process includes a rigorous strategic and
comparative analysis based off the state's capabilities. And
with commensurate resourcing, the National Guard has the
capacity to continue to grow the program in support of the
Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance.
The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Steve
Nordhaus, testified earlier this month. He said, ``We cannot
overstate the value of these mutually beneficial security
cooperation relationships that are built on trust and shared
values.'' He continued to say that, ``For less than one percent
of the U.S. security cooperation budget, the SPP strengthens
partner capacity, addresses security challenges, and enhances
global stability.'' I am happy to share that since the 2022
Government Accountability Office report, we have made great
strides in improving the timely reporting of our State
Partnership Program activities using Socium, the Security
Cooperation Program of Record.
Our organization has worked with the Defense Security
Cooperation University to revamp the training course that we
provide to practitioners of the State Partnership Program, both
in the states and in my International Affairs Division. This
course provides clear guidance related to cradle-to-grave
reporting requirements and the process to appropriately pair
Section 341 SPP authorities with other appropriate security
cooperation authorities. The State Partnership Program is a
unique tool in the security cooperation toolbox. It is the only
security cooperation program that delivers sustained, enduring
relationships with our partners that our competitors simply
cannot match. Many of our adjutants general have engaged with
their partner nations' leaders, including their chiefs of
defense, throughout their careers.
I want to express my appreciation to Congress for their
enthusiastic support of this program. It is an honor to lead a
program that is so impactful in growing enduring security
relationships on behalf of the United States. I am thankful to
the 54 adjutants general and their soldiers and airmen who work
tirelessly to increase regional security across the world. It
is my pleasure to sit before this Committee, and I welcome your
questions.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. I now recognize General
Stilwell for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL ROBIN B. STILWELL ADJUTANT GENERAL,
SOUTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD
Major General Stilwell. Distinguished Members of the
Committee, Chairman Timmons, Ranking Member Subramanyam, thank
you for having us here today. I echo the sentiments of my
colleagues when I say it is a distinct privilege and honor to
receive your invitation to testify before you today. I sit
before you today as the Adjutant General of the State of South
Carolina, and hopefully I can lend a state's perspective to
this discussion and discuss the execution at the ground level
of the SPP program.
In South Carolina, we are privileged and honored to be
partnered with the Republic of Colombia. Our partnership with
Colombia began in 2012. It is an active and mutually beneficial
relationship built on shared commitment to military readiness,
regional security, and disaster preparedness. Our security
cooperation agreements are executed in accordance with the
Department of State and the Department of Defense directives,
U.S. Southern Command Theater Campaign Plan for USSOUTHCOM, our
partners' intermediate military objectives, and the U.S.
Embassy's Integrated Country Strategy. Our efforts align with
the President's priority of achieving peace through strength
and the Department's Interim National Defense Strategic
Guidance.
Areas of emphasis and concern include, first of all,
regional stability. A stable and secure Colombia is vital to
the security of the entire region. By integrating with and
strengthening Colombia's military forces, the SPP contributes
to regional stability and protects our national interests.
Second, countering transnational criminal organizations.
Recognizing Colombia's role as a transit point for illicit
activities and the presence of transnational criminal
organizations, we actively collaborate with the Colombia
military to enhance their capabilities in combating these
threats. Next, strategic access. Colombia is a geographically
significant location, bordering the Pacific Ocean to the west
and Panama to the north. As China persists in gaining a
foothold in commercial enterprise as well as trade and port
management across the region, our strong relationship ensures
continued access to and integration with Colombian military
facilities and other strategic access.
Next, engagements. On average, the State of South Carolina
and the National Guard participates in 40 SPP events annually.
These events will take place both in the United States, in
Colombia, and in other regions of the world and involve
multiple military organizations. By the end of Fiscal Year
2025, we will have completed 52 engagements, 29 of those in the
Country of Colombia. Our focus areas include rotary wing search
and rescue operations; aviation standardization, which includes
maintenance, safety, and readiness; vertical and horizontal
engineering; cyber defense; explosive ordnance, identification,
and remediation; disaster preparedness; courtroom procedures;
and professional military development.
Notably, ladies and gentlemen, our rotary wing maintenance
and readiness initiative just recently paired with the
Colombian Army and has helped to surge their helicopter rotary
wing aviation readiness from 20 percent to 60 percent, a
dramatic 40 percent increase since December 2024. This success
is a direct result of targeted engagements led by the U.S. Army
South and the South Carolina National Guard, who assisted the
Colombian Army to develop effective maintenance schedules,
streamline parts ordering, and standardize operating
procedures.
Our planning for all of these events begins two years in
advance with a series of conferences and bilateral staff talks
attended by senior leaders of the combatant command, the
embassy, South Carolina, and our Colombian partners. These
recurrent events fuel an evolving 5-year plan to identify,
improve, and achieve United States-Colombian security
cooperation objectives. Our exercises expand interoperability
with Colombia. We have worked closely with SOUTHCOM, ARSOUTH,
and U.S. Air Force's Southern to support a long and varied list
of military exercises and events.
For five years straight, we have supported exercise
Continuing Promise, a U.S. Naval Force's Southern Command-
hosted medical outreach exercise. Teams of 10 to 15 South
Carolina guardsmen, medics, and support staff serve remote
communities across Colombia, evaluating and treating more than
200 indigenous people over a 3-day period. In 2021, we embedded
a Colombian platoon with our infantry for a grueling deployment
to the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana.
The year preceding that, we sent those same infantrymen to
Colombia to conduct exercises at their chief training center at
Tolemaida. Also, we are in the planning processes to send
Colombian engineer units with our engineering brigade for a
deployment at Operation Spartan Shield in Kuwait, and we hope
that we can achieve that. As we meet here today, our 169th
Fighter Wing is making final preparations to participate in
next month's Relampago de los Andes. Four of our fighter jets
and about 150 Swamp Fox Airmen will participate in the
Colombian Air Force's largest air and medical outreach
exercise.
Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, I want to emphasize
the dual importance of this partnership, maintaining stability
with the region and maintaining readiness, recruiting,
retention, and relevance of the South Carolina National Guard.
Our mutually beneficial relationship with Colombia allows
soldiers and airmen invaluable career-enhancing opportunities
to share experiences and participating in meaningful exercises
in unique environments, while building lasting relationships
with our peers in the Colombian military.
Ladies and gentlemen, as the Adjutant General of the State
of South Carolina, my priority is to prepare combat soldiers to
meet their Federal mission set, and that is to deploy abroad
and engage the enemies of the United States in combat and win.
Anything else that I do as the Adjutant General of the State of
South Carolina is a distraction. And I can tell you that if
this program were not value-added and did not enhance the
readiness of my combat soldiers and airmen in the State of
South Carolina, I would not be here advocating for it. So, I
can tell you right now it enhances our readiness. It is value-
added to the readiness of the United States Armed Forces and
the National Guard writ large.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to be here
today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you
may have.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, General. I now recognize myself for
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Mamaux, security cooperation, like the State
Partnership Program, contributes to regional stability and
long-term prosperity both in the United States and in partner
nations. In a broader strategic context, how does sustained
military-to-military cooperation through the SPP help the
United States compete with adversaries like China and Russia?
Mr. Mamaux. Thank you, Chair. As you rightfully pointed
out, the strategic importance of the SPP is bar none. It is a
peerless program that is a strategic advantage, a competitive
advantage, if we use a little more business-term nomenclature
here, that benefits the United States of America with enduring
relationship building around the globe. Neither China nor
Russia have a program that is even remotely similar, and they
certainly do not have the relationships to call on when that
time arises. This is something that we see value in. This is
something that I think makes a lot of common sense to the
American people. As President Trump always underlines, and we
have in the Department as well, how does this translate to
success in a commonsense way for the average American citizen
out there and the walls that depend on us to make sure that we
are making the right choices and the right calls? And again,
the relationships that we have around the globe through the SPP
process for over 30 years of enduring relationships is just one
highlight of that example.
Mr. Timmons. I think we all see how China is using the Belt
and Road Initiative to try to create a stranglehold on
developing economies and developed economies alike. Would you
say that SPP, in addition to the IMF and World Bank, are kind
of our counterbalance to that effort?
Mr. Mamaux. I would presume that the SPP partnership
predates the actual implementation of the Belt and Road
Initiative that we have seen over the past couple of decades,
not nearly the 30-year process that SPP has been around the
globe. So, I would say there is a primacy there in terms of an
equal footing of a partnership, shared responsibility,
shouldering the burden together with our partner nations, and
making sure that there is a value add for both us and our
partner nations across the globe.
I think that it would not be too far to speak out that the
BRI initiative that China has been developing over decades now
is something that becomes a little more predatory in process,
so that once a critical mass point has been reached, the
tipping point is crossed, and then the, we will call it the
affected targeted nation, at that point no longer has the
ability to have any sort of equal footing. That is never the
case with the SPP. This is an enduring partnership that the
United States takes pride in, and we continue to develop it.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. General Edwards, how do
you envision the SPP evolving over the next five to ten years
to meet emerging security challenges?
Major General Edwards. Thank you for the question, Chair. I
think we are going to take the lead from the National Defense
Strategy. We have the Interim National Defense Strategic
Guidance now. I know the Administration is working on the
National Defense Strategy as we speak, expected to be published
end of the summer. What I expect to do in collaboration with
the geographic combatant commanders and their Security
Cooperation Office is to adapt the individual partnerships to
ensure that we are meeting those goals as directed from the
higher guidance and also support the readiness requirements of
the units that are involved in the partnership events.
And adjutant generals have a key role there, the Department
has a key role there, and my office, my team, gets to help
coordinate all that with our partners in the geographic
combatant command. So, we will take all of our guidance from
the Department. It is an OSD program, as I like to remind
everybody, and we do it to support the geographic combatant
command's goals.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. General Stilwell, you
spoke about this in your opening statement. Could you elaborate
on how the partnership with Colombia has enhanced the South
Carolina Guard's ability to operate in joint or multinational
environments?
Major General Stilwell. Of course. So, we have the
opportunity, we have the privilege of going to Colombia, of
course, and training in very real settings with foreign
militaries. They come to South Carolina and they do the same.
So, in any mission set that we have to prosecute in the United
States military, it is just a series of standard steps, and
that is mobilize; deploy; conduct sophisticated, complex
mission sets; redeploy; reorganize. And each and every time we
have the opportunity to do that, each and every time we have
the opportunity to take some swings in the batting cage, as it
were, we get better. It increases our readiness. Having the
ability to do that in a peacetime setting, in a controlled
setting with a foreign military, not only Army and Air, but
Navy and also security forces, it gives us the benefit of being
able to work in that joint environment.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you, gentlemen. With that, I now
recognize Mr. Subramanyam for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you. Major General Edwards, I know
the SPP program evolved from post-Soviet roots, or started from
post-Soviet roots, and how has the program evolved over the
years, and what changes do you think may happen in the future?
Major General Edwards. Ranking Member, thank you for the
question. I think, how has it evolved? It has had a steady
growth over the many years, the 32 years, since inception. That
first grouping of 13 nations, as we both, I think, discussed
earlier, came from the breakdown of the wall between East and
West. Since that time, it has continued to grow, on average,
about five countries a year. This year is kind of a less,
current year, we had eight new countries added to the program
from all across the world. If you go by geographic combatant
commands, SOUTHCOM, of which Colombia is in that area of
responsibility, that is a saturated market, so to speak. All
the countries in the SOUTHCOM AOR are in the State Partnership
Program and partnered with a state.
We are about 29 countries in the European and EUCOM area of
operations. We have got 18 in INDOPACOM and 25 in Africa. So,
the opportunity to kind of expand the program into, clearly,
the priority theater for the Administration is INDOPACOM, we
definitely want to support that. And I think there is also an
opportunity to grow the program, again, based off the
Department's priorities, to counter China, to counter our
adversaries in areas such as Africa and the Middle East. So,
without identifying countries that could join the program, I
would say we follow the priorities of the Administration that
starts in INDOPACOM and everywhere else that China has began to
expand its influence across the world, and I think we can
certainly match that with continuing to grow the State
Partnership Program.
Mr. Subramanyam. Yes, thank you, and, you know, I talked to
a lot of defense contractors in my district and across
Virginia, and they are saying that the future of warfare is
changing, right? It is certainly not horses and bayonets
anymore, but no longer even tanks or ground troops as much. A
lot of it is fought online with cybersecurity, hacks, and, you
know, offensive and defensive digital warfare. And so, has the
National Guard and the SPP, has that taken that into account?
Are there any programs to look at the future of warfare?
Major General Edwards. Absolutely. That is part of what we
do. As we adapt our forces and as the global environment
changes, we adapt to follow that. I will cite the Virginia's
partnership with Finland. I know there was a cyber exercise
recently, collaboration between the Virginia National Guard and
the Finnish cyber defense forces. And I think what is
particularly important about that, and I was once told, you
know, from a colleague in the Finnish Armed Forces that the
cold war never ended for them. So that exercise, focusing in
the cyber domain, happened, you know, on the door front of a
potential adversary and in that gray space, that hybrid warfare
environment that I think describes the situation as you stated.
Mr. Subramanyam. And we have talked a lot in this Committee
about, again, new tactics in warfare. And so, I know
Tajikistan, the program is looking at mountain warfare. We have
talked even about drones and drone warfare. I am curious what
other types of, kind of, cutting-edge initiatives are happening
in the SPP and how can Congress be helpful moving forward?
Major General Edwards. Yes. I think as all our forces adapt
to the new character of war, as it has been called, and
include, you know, the transparency of the battlefield, which
is what drones and unmanned aerial systems provide. We adapt
our tactics. We adapt our formations. I know the Army is going
through a big adaptation right now. All of our forces are
anticipating the changes that will be required in this new
character of war. And so, as we change, it actually helps our
partners change with us. That maintaining interoperability with
the State Partnership Program, I think, is key. So, whether it
be through cyber operation, cyber exercises, unmanned aerial
surveillance systems or even ground maneuver with bayonets,
because I do not believe that will ever completely go away. But
we will adapt the ratios of those dimensions of warfare as the
situation requires, and we will share that and leverage some of
those insights that we gain from our partners. As I stated,
some of our partners who are closer to the adversary physically
than our forces are, they have a lot to share with us.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Cloud, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, and thank you for being here, and
thank you again for your service to our country.
I would like to hear a little more. I appreciate the
insight you have provided on the deployments, Colombia being an
example, and what we can learn in drug interdiction in working
with them, and also the lessons and how they are applicable,
but how often do these deployments happen? What are some other
examples in other countries? How do you prioritize which
mission to go to, especially in light of, you know, limited
budgets? And then what is on the stop doing list, as you are
looking for more capabilities with limited budgets, may have to
stop doing some things to increase our capabilities in other
areas?
Major General Stilwell. So, thank you for the question,
sir. What I would tell you is in our relationship with
Colombia, I have always said that that our operations, our
deployments, our engagements, are really only limited by
imagination and inclination. So, we are very active with
Colombia. You talk specifically about deployments. There have
been other states, and I will defer to General Edwards on those
other states who may have had deployment experiences, but we
are sending, again, as I mentioned before perhaps, and planning
to send some engineering assets from Colombian Army with our
engineer brigade. We have also had, again, those infantry units
marrying up and training together. In a lot of instances, the
way we determine who is going to train and/or deploy with whom,
is really looking at like units with like mission sets so that
they can marry up and they can prosecute the very same mission
set when they get into either a training environment or when
they get overseas.
I know, and this speaks a little bit to the Ranking
Member's question as well, but we are talking about
deployments. The cyber end of it is very active as well in
Colombia. We have a cyber battalion in the State of South
Carolina, and we have had three engagements with the Colombians
so far this year, and right now as I speak, we are engaging in
our fourth. We have begun to speak with the embassy about
perhaps sending some of our cyber personnel down there during
Colombia's elections that are upcoming as well just to perhaps
assist or advise to the extent that they may want that. So, we
are doing it continuously.
Mr. Cloud. If I could say, the remaining of the time, to
get you all's, your perspective on that, General Edwards and
Mr. Mamaux. Did I pronounce that all right?
Major General Edwards. Absolutely.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Major General Edwards. And I think, you know, the case
study with South Carolina and Colombia is a good one. I get to
read about the different programs from him and his 53
colleagues from the other states. And one of the things that I
would, I guess, offer from a comprehensive point of view is one
of the great things about the State Partnership Program is its
flexibility and adaptability. And what I mean by that is that
both the size of any given exchange or engagement from one or
two people conducting a shared subject matter exchange to
entire units conducting a combined exercise together, that
varies. And we have got 54 states, territories, and the
District of Columbia. We have got 115 partnerships, so you can
imagine the number of combinations that would ensue, and it is
flexible, it is adaptable, and so they vary in scale.
I think the prospect of a combined deployment came up that
General Stilwell mentioned, there is one going on right now.
The Iowa National Guard just completed a rotation from the
Joint Readiness Training Center and of its state partners,
Kosovo, had a platoon not only go through that exercise,
through that training event, but they are going to co-deploy
with the brigade from the Iowa National Guard to the Central
Command AOR in coming weeks. So, that is kind of on the high
end or the large scale of the potential combinations that could
ensue and varies all the way down to subject matter exchanges,
one, two, three, four people, for three, four days to a week to
two weeks. So, it varies incredibly and depends on, again, what
the geographic combatant commander is trying to achieve with
its security cooperation goals and what the readiness goals are
for the units conducting the exercise or exchange.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Subramanyam. Mr. Mamaux, Major General Edwards, Major
General Stilwell, and folks behind you, thank you so much for
your service to your country. I really appreciate you, and we
honor your service. Thanks for being here and being willing to
answer questions before the Committee and help us with our
work.
Originally, I had planned to address the refusal of
President Trump to consult with California Governor Gavin
Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass before making a
unilateral decision to deploy the National Guard and the United
States Marine Corps against the civilian population of Los
Angeles. Unfortunately, more recent events have now overtaken
and amplified this same problem of unilateral dictatorial
decisionmaking by our President. I am, of course, referring to
President Trump's refusal to include Congress in a meaningful
way on the decision to deploy U.S. forces in a military
operation against the Islamic Republic of Iran. I will not ask
you any questions about that. It would not be fair to you. You
are not prepared to address that issue, but I do want to get
this on the record.
So, this decision to deploy U.S. forces in a military
operation against the Islamic Republic of Iran where uranium
enrichment, potential nuclear weapons development, and the
custody of over 800 pounds of near weapons grade fissile
material remains unaccounted for. I think a lot of Democrats
and a lot of Republicans agree that should be the hearing we
are having.
Mr. Timmons. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lynch. Not yet. What is also deeply troubling is the
deliberate decision by the President to share less than
complete information with even some of my Republican
colleagues, especially senior Republican Members, while
completely concealing information and thereby misleading duly
elected Democratic Members of Congress who should have been
immediately and fully informed. And that is different in this
country. That is a real departure from how we usually deal with
moments of crisis in the country, especially when it involves
our military. We have not seen that before, because in the
past, from President Washington to Wilson to President
Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Johnson, to both President George H.
and George W. Bush, and up until the present day, every one of
those Presidents, Democrat and Republican, has kept faith with
the basic premise that on those very rare occasions when
diplomacy fails and our national security is threatened and we
need to send our sons and daughters into battle, that we do not
do so as Democrats or Republicans. We do it as a country, as
Americans. We go into battle together, fully informed.
That principle was abandoned last week when President Trump
allowed spiteful and small-minded mentality to get in the way
of a larger mission. And he divided this Congress, and he
divided the American people into those who were informed and
those who were misled. He once again treated a very serious
situation in an unserious way. We need to defend democracy. And
remember, while the President is Commander-in-Chief, he is not
a dictator and not a king, and Congress must be informed, and
that decision to deploy U.S. forces must meet a higher
standard. We owe that to our sons and daughters in uniform, and
we owe it to their families.
We do not want the U.S. military acting on the basis of
some alternate reality that has no basis in fact, or on cooked-
up intelligence, and that has happened before. There has to be
someone in that circle, in the Gang of Eight, who was not
afraid to point out to the President that he might be mistaken.
And to be completely honest, there is very little risk today
than anything Trump says would be challenged by a Republican
Member because they seem to be unwilling to do so.
In a press conference yesterday, Senate Majority Leader
Thune could not even answer basic questions about the attacks
because he had not been fully informed. In fact, it became
apparent that there was more communication between Trump and
the officials in Iran than there was between U.S. elected
officials in this government. At present, Members of Congress
only have access to Defense Intelligence Agency after action
battle damage assessment. Having read that battle damage
assessment, there seems to be great difference, huge
difference, between what the President has told us and what the
Defense Intelligence Agency says about those same attacks.
Again, I do not want this to reflect on the current
Chairman of the Subcommittee or the current Ranking Member.
They do serious work, bipartisan work, and I greatly appreciate
that because it is rare. But those were facts that I just
wanted to get on the record. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. I now recognize the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today. Thank you to our panelists for coming.
It is interesting when I looked up to find out whether
Representative Lynch, who just went off on the President for
not notifying Congress, I could not find any public comments of
him condemning the Obama Administration for bombing Iraq,
Syria, or Yemen without notifying Congress. So, I would just
say, if you are going to be critical, at least be consistent. I
also wanted to say thank you to you gentlemen for coming. Thank
you for your service. My staff and I recently toured Camp
Navajo in Arizona. We had a great experience out there and
really appreciate everybody who represents and serves out
there. Mr. Mamaux, is that how you say it?
Mr. Mamaux. Mamaux, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Crane. Mr. Mamaux, based on the information I could
find, it looks like the National Guard State Partnership
Program supports roughly 25 African nations. Does that sound
about right?
Mr. Mamaux. That is correct, to my knowledge, yes.
Mr. Crane. The program provides tactical training, correct?
Mr. Mamaux. It certainly can encompass that, yes.
Mr. Crane. Do you vet or disqualify participants in this
training, or do you simply train whoever State Department sends
your way?
Major General Edwards. Thank you for the question, Mr.
Congressman. The vetting piece is an interesting component of
this, and it makes sure that America's sons and daughters are,
in fact, safe when we have these partnership engagements.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. I am going to read you guys a list of
National Guard units and their deployments, and I would like to
see if any of you can tell me what they have in common. Indiana
National Guard deployed to Niger in 2017, D.C. Guard deployed
to Burkina Faso in 2018, Michigan National Guard deployed to
Sierra Leone in 2024, and the Wyoming National Guard deployed
to Tunisia in 2004. Either of the generals, would you like to
take a stab at what they have in common?
Major General Edwards. Go ahead, Congressman.
Mr. Crane. All these nations experience military coups at
some point after U.S. military training: Niger coup in 2023,
Burkina Faso coup in 2022, Sierra Leone attempted coup in 2023,
and Tunisia coup in 2021. Can we put up the image please?
That is U.S. Army Captain Michael Tu, on the left,
Commander 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in support of State
Partnership Program with Niger Special Forces Commander,
Brigadier General Moussa Barmou, to the right, who conducted a
coup in 2023. Obviously, you guys, I am sure you are well aware
that the American people are getting pretty tired of some of
our efforts overseas leading to increased volatility in regions
like this. And I know that you guys are just trying to do your
jobs. And when I talked to the some of you guys in my office
just yesterday, I realized that you are good men. You are
trying to serve your country, and, like when I served in the
military, you guys follow orders like I did. Can you tell me
what, if anything, are you guys doing to make sure that when
you go in and train some of these partner states or countries,
it does not lead to whoever you are training going ahead and
launching a coup? I will start with you, Major General Edwards.
Major General Edwards. Thank you for the question,
Congressman. I guess what I would start with is, all our
activities are in line with the geographic combatant
commanders' cooperation strategy, so we take a lead from them.
All our events are coordinated with their international affairs
folks, their security cooperation goals, and they are the
experts on the region. While our soldiers and airmen do have
some experience, historical experience, all our activities and
events are harmonized with the GCC. So, in the case of----
Mr. Crane. I understand that, sir. But does it feel to you,
looking at the record that I just presented to you, go ahead,
can you poke holes in any of what I just read you?
Major General Edwards. With respect, Congressman, the only
thing I would offer is the State Partnership Program is one
tool available to----
Mr. Crane. Right. I understand there are several other
tools, but does it bother you that often when we send our units
in to train some of these countries and partner forces, these
partner forces often take the training that we are giving them
and launch coups against their elected governments? I yield
back.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I now recognize----
Mr. Crane. Can you answer the question?
Mr. Timmons. I am sorry.
Major General Edwards. What I am certainly concerned about,
Congressman, is a program that is designed to promote regional
stability and when regional stability may not follow that, but
as I would say, SPP is not the sole factor that may contribute
to that. That is all I would say in response, sir.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. McGuire, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. You know, we would not have a
country without our men and women who protect our freedom at
home and abroad, so to all of you, thank you for your service.
As a veteran myself, I see this as a way to continue service to
our country.
The Virginia National Guard, by the way, has been in
partnership with Tajikistan for over 22 years, I think, and the
relationship has benefited all parties and has resulted in
shared subject-matter expertise during 200 military-to-military
engagements. Those engagements helped counterterrorism, deter
violent extremism, expand emergency response capabilities,
develop professionalism among leaders and staff, and promote
shared values and national sovereignty and security. As of last
year, Virginia is now partnering with Finland as well, and,
General, I think you mentioned the Cyber Shield exercise in
Virginia Beach. I actually was there witnessing 13 countries,
and it was amazing what they can do, and obviously, God forbid
we need to have that collaboration. That was great.
You know, one thing, I, when I was talking with the folks
in Finland, they called themselves a frontline country, so I
would say, General--I am sorry, if I cannot say your name
right--is it Edwards? Why would they call themselves a
frontline country?
Major General Edwards. They have the largest land border
with the Russian Federation, so they view that as their
frontier.
Mr. McGuire. Yes, and Finland has closed their border ever
since they joined NATO because Russia has weaponized
immigration, and I believe that is what is happening in our
Southern border, and thank God we have got folks like you
making sure that we can secure that border and keep Americans
safe. Major General Edwards, how would you describe the
benefits that Virginia, the United States, and Finland may
expect to see as a result of this new partnership with Finland?
Major General Edwards. Thank you for the question. I think
I described one of the contextual benefits earlier. The fact
that they are collaborating with a partner that has that front
line, as you described, living in that hybrid gray zone space,
I think that provides a useful context and an environment to
help provide the realism needed for Virginia National Guard
units. The other thing I would say is that I have heard General
Ring talk about, Adjutant General for Virginia, is the
opportunity to employ portions of the 29th Infantry Division,
which is between Virginia and Maryland, to conduct Arctic
operations and, you know, whether it be the command post or on
the ground level, in partnership with the Finnish military. So,
those are two vignettes, I guess, I would offer that help
provide readiness improvements for the Virginia National Guard.
Mr. McGuire. I just spent a day at Fort Pickett with
General Ring. I think he is doing an excellent job, and he
probably should write a book about the 29th ID. I think they
have a very storied, a very patriotic history. Major General
Stilwell, the United States and Colombia have recently had some
disagreements over deportation flights. Has this impacted your
operations with them?
Major General Stilwell. No, sir. It has not altered or
amended any of our plans, any of our engagements. Many of our
engagements are at the company grades, senior-field grade, or,
excuse me, middle-field grade levels, so those engagements have
continued to go on just as normal. We have not seen any
appreciable change in the relationship between the State of
South Carolina, SOUTHCOM, or the Republic of Colombia.
Mr. McGuire. Okay. I have got a question for anyone up
here. If one of these partnership nations begins to work
against American interests, is there a plan to sever that
partnership?
Mr. Mamaux. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Severance is not something that the SPP has a mechanism for now
because we have never had to use it. I can give you some
examples of Venezuela, which, obviously, is no longer a
favorable nation and has not been for some time. What happens
in those country partnerships, Mr. Representative, is they
become dormant. So, there are no more funds, there is no more
training, there is no more allocation of American talent,
treasure, or material that flows to those partner nations, and
they become dormant, for lack of a better term.
Mr. McGuire. That makes sense, and last question is, for
the partners that we do have and then we have a good
relationship, how is the funding? Do we have enough funding for
those relationships?
Mr. Mamaux. Thank you for the question. The funding, I
think, is an issue where we have a true partnership,
specifically with the various components that we have already
listed here before, but the funding is a both-sides-of-the-
coin-type deal, right? We have some funding that we put toward
capabilities. The partner countries have funding that puts
toward capabilities. A highlight, I think, would be the State
of Vermont and the Country of Austria where they both opened
separate, but sort of similar centers, sort of you come to
visit me, I come to visit you, and that is just a great
highlight of what this looks like for actual burden sharing
with true partnerships across the SPP.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. In closing, I want to thank our
witnesses once again for their testimony today. I now yield to
Ranking Member Subramanyam for his closing remarks.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you. Thank you so much to our
witnesses for coming today and for all your work and all you
are doing for our country. I think the SPP program shows that
not only are you focused on defending our Nation and our
states, and you are also focused on seeing how we can be better
all the time and using that collaboration and that diplomacy
through the SPP program to strengthen ties with countries
around the world. And, you know, something was mentioned
earlier about, you know, regime change. I think these programs
have, in pretty much every case, predated quite a bit some of
those regime changes, and just because the National Guard is
there does not mean the National Guard was the reason for that
regime change.
I think what is happening here with those programs, we are
simply working with every country that is willing to work with
us, and that makes sense to work with, to try to improve our
own defenses as well as to work collaboratively with them. And
as mentioned, you know, in another meeting with some of the
witnesses, these collaborations have ended in really important
ties and even individual relationships that have been crucial
to our diplomacy with some of these countries and around the
world. And so, I think it is a great program. It is something
that Congress should continue to support.
And one last thing. It is not related, but I think I have
to bring it up. You know, the recent events in California with
the National Guard being deployed there, you know, it was the
first time in 60 years that a President has deployed the
National Guard without request from the state's Governor, and
it was unnecessary and escalatory. And one of the things that
really bothers me about that is, you know, our folks in the
National Guard are doing their jobs, and they are serving our
country, and by the time that they were deployed, those
protests had been under control, and it was completely
unnecessary. And what ended up happening was, according to one
report, the troops reportedly arrived without lodging or
Federal funds for food, water, or other supplies, and it was
unclear whether additional troops would stay or how enough
portable bathrooms would be supplied. And only 300 troops were
actually deployed, and the rest were sitting unused in Federal
buildings without orders.
And, you know, I think what was happening was, we were
making a political point when the President sent the National
Guard there, and the upshot of it was it cost taxpayers tens of
millions of dollars. I think one estimate put it at $134
million, and so it was completely unnecessary. And I think the
weaponization of the National Guard and of our military is
wrong, and we should stand up against it. So, I will yield
back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Timmons. We will stand at recess for one second.
[Recess.]
Mr. Timmons. Thank you. And I now recognize the gentlewoman
from Florida, Mrs. Luna for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Luna. Hey, Generals. How are you doing? Major? Nice to
see you guys. First and foremost, thank you so much for coming
in today. You know, I love it when we get lectured on the Guard
from people that have never served in the Guard and/or provide
context. I am just saying that. Not to ask you to respond to
that.
Anyways, I wanted to give you time, though, today to
explain to me exactly the purpose of the National Guard and
your mission because I think a lot of people overlook how
effective the Guard has been, especially in mission readiness.
Specifically, in regards to there has been a lot of talk with
DOGE, but from what I gather, the Guard has been doing great.
Specifically, with limited resources, we would like to get you
more but being able to accomplish the mission at hand. So, I am
actually going to just give this to you, Major General. I have
about 4 minutes and 21 seconds. Respond, Major General
Stilwell, if you want to jump in, but this floor is yours.
Major General Stilwell. Thank you very much for the
question, and I answer this question a lot in our communities
because a lot of people do not necessarily know what the role
of the National Guard is, but the National Guard is the combat
reserve of the active Army and the active Air Force. We have a
Federal mission set, which is to deploy abroad and in the
homeland, and to engage with the enemies of the United States
in combat and win. We are man trained and equipped by the
Federal Government for that mission set. We also have a second
state mission set, a corresponding mission set, which is to
respond to emergencies, crises, or other catastrophes at the
direction of the Governor of the several states. And in that
capacity, we are the only military organization that has that
dual state role and operates under state active duty for and on
behalf of the Governor and the citizens of the several states.
So we are, more or less, the Swiss army knife of the
Department of Defense. We do a lot of things that other parts
of the military simply cannot do because of legal restraints
and because of proximity. One of the great strengths of the
National Guard is that our soldiers are in the communities, and
because they are in the communities, they have great support
from the population, but they are also there and ready to
respond in their communities when there is a crisis. So, I
could go on for hours talking about the National Guard and our
role and who we are, but I will leave it at that, ma'am, and
answer any additional questions that you have.
Mrs. Luna. Excuse me. They turned off my mic. Major General
Edwards, I know that I actually had the privilege of talking
with you prior to this hearing. You have a lot of good things
to say about specifically what the Guard has been able to do in
regards to back filling for active duty and maybe reserves. Can
you please elaborate on certain programs and also where you
need help from Congress? You had figured this would be more of
a bipartisan issue. I apologize if people made it partisan
while you guys are being questioned.
Major General Edwards. Well, I think General Stilwell
summed it up quite well, and especially in his position as an
adjutant general, who actually is responsible for the manning,
training, and equipping of his formations, both Air and Army.
But if I were to just, kind of, maybe complement his words, you
know, we are citizen-soldier force, over 80-some-odd-percent of
our soldiers and airmen, they have a civilian career outside of
uniform. Using myself as an example, I worked at HP for 25
years before retiring, and through that entire time, I was a
citizen-soldier, working at HP and also serving in the Army
National Guard, and in my case, in the State of Oregon for
those 25 years.
Mrs. Luna. You and I both were at Oregon.
Major General Edwards. Excellent.
Mrs. Luna. So, former Guard member here.
Major General Edwards. Excellent.
Mrs. Luna. Just real quick. What do you guys need? If you
could do a magic wand on an appropriation request to help the
National Guard, what would it be? We only have about a minute
left.
Major General Edwards. I am not going to cite a number, but
I will cite----
Mrs. Luna. Smart man.
Major General Edwards [continuing]. Predictability.
Mrs. Luna. Okay.
Major General Edwards. Predictability, and coming back to
the State Partnership Program, which I think is, you know, our
focus today, the ability to properly plan and execute the
engagements of the variety that I described to Congressman
Cloud earlier, that requires time, and knowing you have the
resources and in time to have that exercise or that event is
key. So that predictability is that would be the one thing I
would ask for your help with, Representative, to ensure
predictable funding.
Mrs. Luna. Got it. Okay. And then I just have one more
question. So, I got badly hit with hurricanes this past
hurricane season, and, obviously, we have been pushing really,
fairly hard with the Secretary of Defense for a Guard unit's
Special Tactics Squadron. I know that that is Air National
Guard purview, but you guys are the Guards, so I just figured I
would ask you while you are here. I mean, since when does the
Guard say no to another STS unit? You guys are obviously in
support of more funding and more bases, but would you support
an additional Guard unit, just out of curiosity.
Major General Stilwell. So, I would be ill-advised to
answer for the enterprise writ large. We are always looking for
additional capacity. Being the Adjutant General of the State of
South Carolina, I am very familiar with hurricanes, and what we
find, again, is that we have been successful in working with
what we have. If you come to me and you tell me, I am going to
give you additional force structure, and I am going to give you
additional capacity, and I am going to give you additional
funding, then I would say thank you very much.
Mrs. Luna. Well, thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate you
guys being here. Honestly, it has been a pleasure. You guys
make me miss the uniform, but I am glad you guys are here
serving continuously. Thank you.
Mr. Timmons. Thank you for that. I appreciate the Ranking
Member allowing us to yield to Mrs. Luna. I now yield to the
Ranking Member again for as much time as he needs.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to,
based on a previous comment, cite an article by the former
number two of the National Guard, Randy Manner. He said, ``I
led the National Guard and regular Army units, and using the
military to intimidate Americans is 100 percent wrong.'' And I
will enter to the record with unanimous consent a Fox News
article entitled, by Randy Manner, ``I led the National Guard
and regular Army units, and using the military to intimidate
Americans is 100 percent wrong.'' And in it, he says a lot of
important things, which is that, ``by setting this precedent,
we are taking away our military readiness, and we are instead
using our own military against our own civilians, our own
people, and so I think this is a dangerous precedent.'' And I
agree with Mr. Randy Manner that it is wrong, so I yield back.
Mr. Timmons. Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for closing remarks.
I guess, first, law and order is important. Keeping
property safe, keeping people safe is important, and when
elected heads of our individual states are unwilling to protect
life and property, if the President wants to step in, he has
the authority, and I would argue the obligation, to do so.
Second note, as far as I am aware, two Republicans disapproved
of the President's decision to strategically bomb Iran's
nuclear capacity, and has, according to the Iranian
intelligence unit, set them back years, if not decades. Ninety-
nine percent of the House and Senate Republicans fully approved
it and embraced it. Interestingly, about half of my colleagues
across the aisle in the Senate and the House agreed with the
President's decision. And finally, in the eight years of the
Obama Administration, 27,000 bombs were dropped on seven
countries. I could make arguments that the 2001 AUMF applied to
some of those, but I cannot make that argument for all. So,
again, I think my colleague from Arizona said it best: we have
got to be consistent with our critique of different
administrations.
All right. Back to the subject at hand. We talked about it
a little bit, but I want to expand on it. The National Guard is
very unique in that people can serve for decades in a single
Guard unit. My friend and mentor, General Butch Bowers, I think
he is at 45 years, and, you know, he has been to Colombia
dozens and dozens of times. He has built bonds with his fellow
officers in the Colombian military. And if you think about it,
all the State Department officials, they come, they go. They
are there for a year or two. Elected officials come and go, but
the military leadership of different countries and of different
Guard units lasts, and those relationships last, and I think
that is something that is extremely valuable that we cannot get
anywhere else. I mean, you know, even tours of duty for the
military, you are there for a year, two, three years at most.
So, the National Guard and the State Partnership Program is
really one of the only areas that we build lasting
relationships. We build the trust and the respect of our
counterparts, and I think that that has immense value and that
we need to appreciate that and to continue to invest in it. I
have seen firsthand the value of the State Partnership Program
in South Carolina. I am one of four Members of Congress still
serving in the Guard. I am a captain, most are very senior,
but, you know, it is really just incredible, as General
Stilwell said, there are not many opportunities to have real-
world training exercises where you are going to be forced to go
hours and hours away and engage in real-world training. I mean,
we just do not get this kind of opportunity in many other
capacities, and the bang for the buck is enormous.
So, I think that we need to make sure that everyone in
Congress appreciates the importance of the investment we are
making. The return on the investment is enormous relative to
the cost, and I will do everything I can to continue to
prioritize our spending on the State Partnership Program and
expand it wherever possible. And, gentlemen, I cannot thank you
enough for taking the time to be with us today. And I said 90
minutes, and I am 17 minutes early, so look at that.
With that, and without objection, all Members have five
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]