GovernmentExecutive.com

Congressional investigators have found that the Defense Department does not adequately track National Guard equipment needs for domestic missions, raising questions about whether the state-run units have adequate supplies to respond to disasters and emergencies on U.S. soil.

In an unreleased reported dated Jan. 26, the Government Accountability Office concluded that defense officials have recognized the need to track the National Guard's stateside stocks of vehicles and other gear available to respond to domestic disasters, but those efforts have not yet yielded reliable information on the equipment units have at their disposal.

"Until DOD reaches agreement on a specific approach for measuring readiness for domestic missions and requirements are defined, it will remain unclear whether the Guard is equipped to respond effectively to the consequences of a large-scale terrorist attack or natural disaster," according to the report.

Over the last several months, many state Guard leaders have complained that their units took their best equipment with them when they deployed to Iraq, leaving the personnel at home short of trucks, radios and other equipment needed for domestic missions.

Indeed, Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau, told Congress last year that at least two-thirds of his units in the United States are not combat-ready.

The Army already has pledged $21 billion through 2011 to modernize Guard units. But GAO indicated in its report that Army leaders have not specified how much of that equipment will stay in the United States.

"In the absence of a specific plan that outlines how Army National Guard equipment will be allocated among non-deployed units, state National Guards may be hampered in their ability to plan for responding to large-scale domestic events," the GAO report said.

In its written response to the report, the Defense Department said it partially agreed with a GAO recommendation to report to Congress on the National Guard's ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

"Readiness reporting and tracking is critical to ensuring the execution of the [Defense] Department's Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support," wrote Thomas Hall, assistant secretary of Defense for reserve affairs. "This includes the readiness to perform domestic missions by all ten military components, not just the Army and Air National Guard."

But Hall bristled at other GAO recommendations, including one directing the Army secretary to file a report to Congress on how it will buy equipment for non-deployed Guard units. Such a report is "unnecessary," Hall said, adding that those discussions already occur for all parts of the military during the budget process.

The National Guard, which is commanded in each state by governors when not activated for federal service, has become a front-burner issue for many lawmakers concerned that the soldiers -- most of whom hold full-time civilian jobs -- have been overburdened by call-ups to active duty and deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere abroad.

Lawmakers in both chambers plan to reintroduce Tuesday the National Guard Empowerment Act, legislation that would raise the stature of the National Guard Bureau chief with a promotion to four-star rank and membership in the elite Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The legislation, which has significant bipartisan support, would also give the Guard new authority to identify disparities between reserve and active forces and validate its own technology and equipment needs.

Despite strong support for the legislation last year, supporters failed to get a watered-down version of the bill through the fiscal 2007 defense authorization conference. Instead, lawmakers instructed the independent Commission on National Guard and the Reserves to examine the legislation and provide recommendations in a report to Congress on March 1.

The commission plans to hold its last hearing on the issue of elevating the National Guard leadership Wednesday, with testimony expected from Army Secretary Francis Harvey and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace, both of whom opposed last year's bill.

This year's bill has some new provisions that would force greater accountability in Army and Air Force procurement for the National Guard, and improve planning and operational relationships between the Defense Department, National Guard Bureau, U.S. Northern Command and state governors.

COMMENTS

• Great article, but it was apparently written before the sad news story on the southern border, where National Guard troops ran away from armed Mexican criminals. Personally, I think that they did the smart thing, but they shouldn't be there in uniform without weapons, and ammunition in them! With all the lead flying around in the Middle East, maybe President Shrub can send a few crates of the above commodity out West, where it is really needed! GovExec.com reader Posted January 31, 2007 10:16 AM
• "Congressional investigators have found that the Defense Department does not adequately track National Guard equipment needs for domestic missions, raising questions about whether the state-run units have adequate supplies to respond to disasters and emergencies on U.S. soil." How stupid is this for a Congressional position? The Dept of Defense should handle issues of the military that involve the defense of the country. The DoD should have no role in decisions of preparedness for domestic issues. That is why the Guard is under the control of the states. This is another prime example of a democratic Congress that thinks the federal government can operate better than anyone else! The states should have the responsibility to make sure their guard units are prepared for domestic emergencies. This is not and should not be a role for DoD or any other federal agency. Guard gear should be provided for and paid for by the states and not the federal government! This simply is another bid by Congress to buy votes by providing funds to states again! taxpayer Posted January 31, 2007 7:11 AM
• I find it amazing that no governor has yet stood up to the President and questioned why National Guard units are continuing to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, when no declaration of war has been declared. This is King George's war, and his minions should have told him that the Court Jesters' [aka Donald Rummy] continuing degradation of the military had left it unable to fight the type of war it would be facing in these two far off locations. History should have taught King George that this was a war that could not be won, should not be fought, and will leave a lasting, albeit terrible, legacy for the US for many, many years. The National Guard's primary purpose is to protect the nation, serve the nation during national disasters, and augment the military in times when this nation faces an armed aggressor. Iraq does not fit this requirement, and King George's continued pursuit of "victory" in Iraq only serves to weaken this nation's defenses, and places young Americans in harms way, for no useful purpose. I fully support our young service men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do not respect or support the administration that lied about why we are there, and continues to lie about our prospect of success. JD Posted January 31, 2007 6:39 AM