We are fortunate to have witnesses today whose valuable experience and insight will help the subcommittee better understand the needs of those on the front lines. We want to hear about their capabilities and their challenges. And we want to know what the Federal Government can do to help. We welcome all of our witnesses and look forward to their testimony.

Mr. MORAN. Let me begin by thanking Chairman Horn for bringing his subcommittee and this important field hearing to the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene. It is a fitting tribute that we would discuss issues such as homeland security and defense at this location.

It was President Eisenhower who had the foresight to advocate for an interstate highway system. The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways now stretches for more than 46,000 miles and was part of Eisenhower's vision for nationwide defense should the United States face the prospect of atomic

war.

Eisenhower faced a threat very similar to the one we face today. The cold war, for which he prepared, was not won by a single decisive battle-it was not conventional or quick. It was a war that required detailed preparation and determination by every aspect of society-from the armed services, from elected officials and from everyday Americans. Just as Americans did not waver from their convictions to stop the spread of communism during the cold war, today, during this War on Terror, we must not waver from our conviction to stop the spread of terrorism.

Today, our enemies, the battlefields and the tactics of this war are much different from those in the past. But, the cause is the same. We fight, as Eisenhower fought, for the cause of freedom and the promise of peace.

We are here today to discuss the preparations we have made and the steps we will take to defend our way of life from those who would do us harm. We have a distinguished group of witnesses with us here today whose experience and insight is invaluable. Thank you for joining us. I look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jerry Moran follows:]

How Effectively is the Federal Government Assisting State and Local Governments in
Preparing for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Attack?

Congressman Jerry Moran
Opening Statement

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Hom for bringing his subcommittee and this important field hearing to the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Abilene. It is a fitting tribute that we would discuss issues such as homeland security and defense at this location.

It was President Eisenhower who had the foresight to advocate for an interstate highway system. The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways now stretches for more than 46,000 miles and was part of Eisenhower's vision for nationwide defense should the United States face the prospect of atomic war.

Eisenhower faced a threat very similar to the one we face today. The Cold War for which he prepared was not won by a single decisive battle - it was not conventional or quick. It was a war that required detailed preparation and determination by every aspect of society - from the armed services, from elected officials and from everyday Americans. Just as Americans did not waver from their conviction to stop the spread of

PRINTED ON RECYCLED FAMER

Page Two

communism during the Cold War, today, during this War on Terror, we must not waver from our conviction to stop the spread of terrorism.

Today, our enemies, the battlefields and the tactics of this war are much different from those in the past. But, the cause is the same. We fight, as Eisenhower fought, for the cause of freedom and the promise of peace.

We are here today to discuss the preparations we have made and the steps we will take to defend our way of life from those who would do us harm. We have a

distinguished group of witnesses with us here today whose experience and insight is

invaluable. Thank you for joining us. I look forward to your testimony.

Mr. HORN. We have read your testimony and it would go in automatically when we call on you and that would be in the report that goes to the Committee on Government Reform and then is part of a major report to the House of Representatives, so all your words that you have written will be taken and now we just need to get a summary of what those words are.

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL GREGORY GARDNER,

KANSAS ADJUTANT GENERAL

Mr. GARDNER. As the Adjutant General of Kansas, I serve in three roles; as commander of the Kansas Army and Air National Guard, Director of Emergency Management and since September 11th the Director of Homeland Security. Our department's two missions are to provide military capability for the Nation and protect life and property in the State. The Constitutional State and Federal roles caused confusion over time with the military. There are basically three primary ways to employ the Guard. State duty under Governor control using State dollars, Title 10 duty under Federal control, using Federal dollars and Title 32 duty under Governor control, using Federal dollars. We have served around the world in Title 10 in the last seceral years in 6 continents and 30 countries. Title 32, under Governor control is how we served at the airports, borders, in counter drugs and security. This is absolutely the best way for us to perform the homeland security mission. It provides advantages that other Title 10 status does not do.

For example, when a family member has a problem, we can swap out the Guradsman. The same with an employer. If an employer calls and says we will out of business if you don't come back, we can swap the Guardsman out. We can train the guardsmen in their home unit and maintain combat readiness and it also is a lower cost way of doing business and finally, we're not restricted by the Posse Comitatus law and are able to do law enforcement. For all these reasons, we believe the Title 32 is the best way to do the homeland security mission.

The role of the National Guard has seen a lot of debate nationally. Some have said why don't you make homeland security a primary or only mission? That would be the worst possible thing Congress could do. To date, beyond the Civil Support Teams and the National Guard counter-drug program, no Federal funds have been focussed on equipping or training National Guard forces for Homeland Security missions to support local responders preparing for biological chemical or nuclear attack. Some level of Federal funding needs to be dedicated specifically for this Federal mission performed in the States.

The Governors employ The Guard usining approximately 250,000 man-days per year State status. Combatant commanders use 2 million man-days per year around the world. Our readiness to do the war fighting mission around the world is what enables us to do the mission at home so we don't want you to give away that war fighting mission. Some say there's too much to do; therefore, the Guard shouldn't be able to do them both. Well, actually, the Guard has done both simultaneously throughout history and since September 11th we have 60,000 guardsmen on duty: 40,000 serving in Title 10; 13,000 serving in Title 32 status and 8,000 in serving State

duty. That meant that at any one time only 13 percent of 450,000 in the Guard was being used. That allows us to rotate the people in peacetime and surge for the major theater of war.

Civil support teams, you have given the Nation 32. We respectfully request you give one to every State and because that's a unique mission that is not maintained by the active duty military. We need your continued support to maintain the attention and dollars. Anytime you have a unique mission, it is unlikely to get the highest priority from the military.

As to Posse Comitatus, that law basically reflects our American belief in the limits on an active duty military in representative democracy. The law prohibits the Army and Air Force from enforcing civil law. It doesn't apply to the National Guard because it is one of the missions prescribed for us in the Constitution; to execute the laws of the Nation. In Posse Comitatus, my comments are please leave it the way it is. The spirit of the law is correct. It's anathema to a freedom-loving America to alter the spirit of this law.

Emergency management. We have been preparing for terrorism for almost a decade. Osama bin Laden was the culprit in a Kansas Emergency Management exercise in 1993. Since then we have been preparing for terrorism without much money. Funds from the Nunn-Luger and the MMRS and HHS have been very helpful in preparing us but that provides only spotty capability in our State and left the rest of the State uncovered.

The DOJ grants. We identified a $20 million equipment requirement. We got $2.3 million in the first 3 years. This year $4.1 million is coming and equipment coverage has expanded. The program is improving but the best thing about that grant is it's 100 percent Federal.

From EPA water treatment facilities, $460,000 for four Kansas plants. That covers 35 percent of the population but leaves the rural part of our State completely uncovered and the rules of that grant language don't allow it in the rural areas.

Federal distribution, dollars that come from grants. Most of them have come directly to cities or directly to locals. As you can see, all of Nunn-Luger and MMRS, HHS, DOJ, 97 percent of the DOJ grant funds went directly to locals. However, Kansas is a rural State. Fifty percent of our State is served by volunteer or part-time emergency managers and first responders and so a regional approach is the most effective way to distribute the dollars in Kansas. What we ask is that you let the Governors distribute the dollars based on our State's strategic plan.

Matching funds. We match every dollar we have from emergency management and State funds to FEMA funds now. We don't have anymore State funds available to match and are unlikely to get more because of the status of the State budget. Without being pejorative, I would like to share a perspective. If terrorism is a response to our Nation's foreign policy, then perhaps terrorism dollars and preparedness should be primarily a Federal responsibility. Bottom line, please give us 100 percent Federal dollars and if you can't, use a broad definition of what soft or in kind matches are so that we can actually do something with it.