Transcripts For CSPAN Politics Public Policy Today 20111111

at the c-span video library. vfw what is slated director ray kelly talked about recently passed legislation to provide tax credits for businesses that hire veterans. the senate passed by unanimous votes. moves on to the house. here is the headline in usa today. give us a sense of the jobs situation among veterans in the u.s., and the second question, will the legislation do anything to address that? guest: veterans joblessness is at, especially for young veterans, 18 to 24 year olds, is 12.1%. the national averages 9%. bonn that category increased, the rest of their cohorts decreased. that gap is widening and will continue to widen as we bring more troops home from iraq and afghanistan. the second part, will the piece of legislation help? absolutely. there are more parts to it, everyone is talking about the tax credit, but there are more parts to it. there are extensions to extension vocational rehabilitation, to make sure that they have job skills that are tangible, that they can use with disabilities they have to find work. veterans have tangible job skills. they have the leadership, the ability to show up on time in the bright uniform, and do the things they are asked to do. to incentivize that for employers in a down economy, after looking for people, they will toward veterans. there are those tenable skills. getting that tax credit would just identify them that much more. host: you know this town is consumed with deficit-reduction, what the special committee will produce. leon panetta yesterday was testifying about his concerns about sequestration and what might happen. we have a clip, if we could show that. that me ask you about congress. as someone who is responsible for lobbying congress, earlier, which showed a "usa today" story showing the lowest percentage of congress ever serving in the house of representatives and senate. how much does that affect what you do? >> there is a dual effect. there is a larger and growing disconnect between what the military does and what the public understands they do. congress is just another example of that. just at a lower level. if they do not understand the sacrifices, then they cannot be strong advocates. our job is to become even more difficult, not only bringing issues to light, but also using -- teaching those members of congress what the plans are for veterans and military personnel. >> the military has the organizational structure but lacks the people, training, and equipment it needs to actually get the job done. it is a ship without sailors. it is a brigade without bullets. it is an air wing without enough trained pilots. it is a paper tiger. an army of barracks, buildings, and bombs, without enough trained soldiers to be with to accomplish the mission. it is a force that suffers low morale, for readiness, and is unable to keep up with potential and a series. in effect, it invites aggression. host: that when leon panetta yesterday at a press conference at the pentagon. he talks about the existing service military. you raise concerns about existing veterans' benefits. what are your concerns? guest: for retirees, in defense of secretary panetta, his concern is the force readiness. part of that readiness is entering the military service members who dedicate 20-plus years to the military, are incentivized to stay that long. he talks about insuring we have well-trained pilots, personnel, without incentivizing that thurgood retirement package, try care benefits for health care. mid career service members will choose to leave. host: there are some skeptics. here is one of the work. he sees veterans as another massive group with an emotional appeal to raid the treasury. guest: i'd respectfully disagree. find another occupation that has a suicide rate of 18 people a day. find another occupation where less than 10% of the people stayed around for retirement. find another occupation where you have to incentivize through bonuses to get people to invest during hard times and tuesday during hard times. host: there are senators raising the question about whether or not we can afford the extent to which tricare and others brings and thousands of dependence and the military and are suggesting more copays and other things. what is wrong with asking and extending to people who did not serve, and a related to the service member, to pay more for the health care they get after service? guest: the families serve with the military personnel. their sacrifice is just as great as the military service member. when i was deployed, my wife's stress level was much more than mine. i knew when i was in danger. she thought i was in danger the whole time. her stress level was much higher than mine. these military spouses do not have the opportunity, because they move every four years, to sustain a career, they cannot build equities in homes. they will be in their fifties when they retire and will be tried to find their first home to find equity. to provide a solid benefits that would reduce the cost of medical expenses is important. host: the budget requested in 2011, $126 billion. that budget request in fiscal year 2012, $132 billion. what does the bulk of that spending go for? guest: the majority goes to making sure we have an infrastructure and doctors and equipment that veterans need for the health care issues that they have in regards to any disabilities they receive while on active duty. >> here is a pie chart of the fiscal 2012 veterans budget. 41% of that. this large, green part of the circle, mandatory benefits, which is then that area? host: how many veterans are there in the country right now? castro about 20 million. vac is about 6 million veterans a year. host: we go to a phone call from tampa, florida. we're talking about veterans benefits. there is concern that there will be effort to diminish those benefits. albert, republican in tampa. caller: thank you for your hard work. why watched c-span in the house. host: we have lost the call. let me move to lance who is a veteran in west virginia. caller: i am a veteran. up until this year, i did not have to pay for my prescriptions or doctors' visits to the v.a. hospital. this year, i made $93 for the whole years so they charge me $8 for the prescription, $94 a month, and no travel pay. i was in a va hospital and i looked down the hallway and there was no american in sight. everyone working there was a -- from a foreign country. i asked a nurse what was going on. she said, i do not know. i am quitting and i will be going back to california. i have never gone back because i am afraid of all the foreigners. guest: the v.a. partners with medical universities for training new doctors. a lot of our medical personnel and our country come from foreign countries and are being trained at our medical facilities. it is a great partnership for the v.a. and is a great partnership for universities that are trading these medical personnel. it gives high quality at a low cost of service for our veterans. nearly no other way that we can do that. with prescription drugs, vfw is fighting hard to contain the cost of prescription drugs. you have earned the right, the benefit through your service and disability, to receive the services. we will continue to fight for that. host: on our sunday that program, this week's program is about a veteran who talks about his experience. his book is called "what it is like to go to war." he talks about what it was like to discover that he had ptsd. >> there was a group of psychologists doing a seminar on job stress. i went to that. i started telling this guy about my symptoms. jumping up in the middle of the night, running outside without knowing what is going on. a car honks behind me. i would be outside commack angry, attacking the car. he says to me, have you ever been in a war? that hit me so hard. i was in the middle of this room with 80 people. i started bawling. heavy ever been in a war? it was that simple. when i finally got back a semblance of control, he said, you have got ptsd. host: he is our guest this sunday. the experience he is describing, we have 45,000 veterans coming home from iraq over the next couple of months, adding to the 1 million-plus that have served over the past 10 years. what problem do they bring with them from the medical perspective? guest: i think he summarized it. we are going to continue to see -- we have a teen suicides a day with military veterans. that is unacceptable. that is a glaring example of how poorly we have done at reinterpreting our service members when they come back, being prepared to take care of the mental health care. we also have traumatic brain injury, and the signature sign from multiple blast injuries, that service members are encountering. i have not met any service member who ran patrols, that their convoy was not hit by an ied. it is an experience that nearly every person that has been in service in iraq or afghanistan understands. we need to get a better grasp of it. the f.w. is trying to find alternative treatments to ptsd and tbi. >> are you finding a willing partner in the v.a.? on the understanding the special needs of this generation of soldiers, finding ways to redirect funds to the issues you raise? guest: they have paid to have pushed hard to increase the number of mental health providers they have had. they are trying to find new research on traumatic brain injury and how to develop late that. i think we are still behind, unfortunately, when you come from a war where you have new things that we need to find out about, the signs is not quite caught up. we have a ways to go. we are working with congress and the v.a. to find some of these new treatments. host: next call from lawrence, georgia. chris is a democrat. caller: i have two comments. a graduate high school in 1993 and i watched a lot of my withnds go to war in 19991 debts of storm. now iraq. -- desert storm. one of the thing they told me, they did understand why they got their why they were fighting. a lot of the people over there had the same issue. when they came home, a lot of the issues, as far as posttraumatic stress, a lot of that, they were not getting treatment from the va. we are getting to a point in humanity where we see, just because they live in a different land or across water, what ever they are telling us in a news, we are coming to a point where we have to look at each other as brothers and sisters. war is not the answer, no matter how much you talk about it, no matter how much you try to give reason to it. more is not accomplishing anything. it only puts us in a position where more of our children will have to sacrifice, and for what? that is the primary problem. the reason we go to war, and when the soldiers come home, it gets to a point where if we cannot see this has to stop, then we have to look for different alternatives other than war, or we can start treating the actual cause, not the symptoms. we would be better off as a world, as human beings. sit down and were these issues out as men and women, as humans. host: thank you. caller: thanks for the call. there are two policy issues. one is whether or not we should go to war. that is for another discussion. taking care of veterans to come back, with posttraumatic stress, we need to continue to talk about this. we need to find alternative treatments. we do not need to medicaid veterans and sent them in a room and tell them they are getting better. we need to find real care. we need to have the public embrace this and find ways to solve this problem. host: this is a question of policy from wisconsin. harry asks -- talking about people called up in the reserves, i believe. guest: if you are a guard or reservist, there is protection for reservists, if they're called to active duty. their employer must hold the job for them. we need to do better and informing employers but those laws require. it also requires -- the reserve goes both ways. guard and reserve members need to know how to communicate what their orders are saying, when their requirements are through the reserve and then the employer needs to understand their and as well. host: abington, virginia. pat. good morning. caller: i am particularly interested in jobs for veterans when they come home. we have a big infrastructure problem, but we have no money to pay for it. i am suggesting that we start toll roads immediately. there are all sorts of shell- ready projects around that can be billed as paul rhodes -- shovel-ready products around that can be billed as toll roads for our veterans. i wonder what mr. kelly things about that idea? guest: i do not have a policy stance on what infrastructure or transportation, how we can raise revenue to employ veterans. i know the bill the senate passed, the house will pick up this week, does provide a broad range of opportunities for veterans employers to connect with veterans. host: this is a comment on twitter. there is some discussion about entitlement program for civilians. medicare, social security. the concern is for future generations. in that spirit, doctors duncan writes -- guest: we have looked at this before. how can we change the way retirement is paid? cdo's report came back and said it was a bad idea. we tried to modify the military retirement pay within two years, they changed it again back to the old system. they know, to retain quality people and our military, they have to provide a quality benefit. host: at albert, tampa. good morning. caller: i suffer from ptsd and i am involved in the v.a. right now. host: albert, when did you fight? caller: i was not in a war. i was injured in an accident during service. people do not realize, if you are 50% disabled -- i have not worked since 2003. you only get $850. that is your benefits. i have to pay $400 of a month for outside medical insurance, and i have to pay all my co-pays for service. in the v.a. system -- you can see your doctor once every three months. also, they did not give you prescription drugs. i cannot get any of the good drugs because they are too expensive. i have also had to wait since 2003 to have my be a case go to appeals. i have had it shredded twice. i have had my kids go to the judge and it has been remanded three times. in the interim, my house had been foreclosed on, i have lost -- i have had to declare bankruptcy. everything has been lost, and i serve my country, and it is a shame. i appreciate the vfw and the other organizations, and i appreciate you all showing the committee meetings, but you have administrator is in the v.a. program -- host: i am going to jump in here. your comment is a leg of the appeals process guest: thank you for the call and your service. unfortunately, too many veterans are willing to long to get their care. i encourage all veterans who are struggling with the va to contact the f.w. service officers in the local community. albert, if he is unemployable, should be able to get other types of compensation through the va. i would encourage those of you who are struggling with the va to go ahead and contact the vfw. host: understanding that the vfw seeks support from the population at large, this dram asks -- viewer asks -- guest: wounded warriors is doing a lot, and changing the lives of a lot of injured veterans, military personnel. host: can you explain what it is, in general terms? guest: they help with reintegration, make sure they have the resources they need after they reintegrate. 100% of the donations that goes to the organization goes to the veterans. host: next phone call is from columbia, south carolina. good morning. paul, independent. caller: good morning. i am a military retiree. i spent 10 years in the marines, 10 in the air force. i fought in the korean war in the marine corps. as far as stress, two of the best things happen to me over there. a marine sergeant, i told him that i was getting down, depressed. he said, marines do not get depressed. get out of here and do your job. i remembered that the rest of my life. the next best thing was, i never was wounded, although i was in combat. but we knew who the enemy was and we were fighting against them, instead of people out of the village that may turn against us. but my main reason for calling is, after several years after i retired in 1968, i go to fort jackson for my medical treatment, which was promised to meet over the years. anyways, they kept sending in downtown, and finally, i started going to the v.a. one of the main things i keep thinking about is, people like me, who thank goodness are not on disability, get out, work 30 to 40 years in their life in another industry, and all of a sudden, when they get my age or younger, -- i will be 83 christmas day -- how they go back and get disability checks in the service? caller: thanks for your service. -- guest: thanks for your service. acceptance of posttraumatic stress, as we understand it better, acceptance has increased. i served in the marines as well. we have had top-level generals say that they suffer with post- traumatic stress. there is a better acceptance today. we hope it will help drive people away from that stigma of having issues and seek help. the second part, if you have a disability related to your service, contact your vfw service officer. you can find it on our website. they will walk you through the process and make sure you find your medical records and get disability payment for that. host: to give you a sense as we wrap up about the discussions in capitol hill about veterans benefits, this is report from the associated press. what does this all mean t organization? guest: fimian we have a fight on our hands. vfw is opposed to changing the way that tricare beneficiaries receive their care. any added fees, a pharmaceutical peace. this is an earned benefit, and a great recruitment and retention tool for the military, if we want to keep a strong military and key quality people in leadership positions. we must maintain these types of benefits. >> looking at the world war two memorial in washington, d.c., the newest war memorial, it was built with private donations. this design won out over 400 submitted by architects across the country. each of those credit colors represent the state or u.s. territory. the arches represent the two theaters, the pacific and atlantic. the memorial also have an inscription of a phrase that was popular during the second world war, kilroy was here. but they are not obvious. visitors have to look for them. >> extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. [applause] let me remind you also that moderation is the pursuit of justice is no burden. >> he lost the presidential election to lyndon johnson and barry goldwater's ideas and candor galvanize the conservative movement. he is featured this week on "the contenders. from the goldwater institute in phoenix. see republican presidential candidate rick perry's remarks at the cnbc debate earlier this week. tonight at 8:00 eastern. we are working to show the entire debate with rick perry, mitt romney, herman cain, new gingrich, and other republican candidates. congress is looking to expand the joint chiefs of staff to include the national guard. all six members of the current joint chiefs of staff oppose the legislation, saying it would promote confusion and imbalance. military officials cap testified as to pay. -- it yesterday. the hearing is about two and half hours. i believe this hearing is the first time we have had every member of the joint chiefs of staff testified at a single hearing. each of them has appeared before us individually and in different combinations. never altogether. in addition to all the members of the joint chiefs, we have the department of defense general counsel and we have the chief of the national guard bureau with us today. we welcome each of you to this hearing. we look forward to your testimony on a very important issue. the role of the national guard, as well as the role of the other reserve components has grown significantly since 9/11. substantial numbers of national guardsmen and reservists have deployed to and continue to serve in combat operations in iraq and afghanistan. large numbers to serve multiple course, many have given their lives in service to our nation, and many more have returned with bones of war. their service has been outstanding and we commend them for their dedication, courage, and patriotism. the national guard has also arisen to the challenge by serving in the verse homeland defense and civil support missions. the reserve component have made a highly successful transition from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve. the question of whether to include the chief of the national journal bureau as a member of the members of the joint chiefs of staff is a complex issue with significant policy implications. to properly address this issue requires an understanding of the role of the national guard, the role of the joint chiefs of staff, and the role of the chief of the national guard broke. i believe we have the right witnesses before us today to help us understand all aspects of this issue. when individuals invest or accept a commission at a state national guard unit, they simultaneously in west in -- are commission in ash not part of the united states or the international guard of the united states, which are components of the army and air force. these individuals retain their status as state guard members, unless and until they are ordered to active federal service, and they revert to states that this upon being released from federal service. there is a third hybrid status commonly referred to as title 32 status, where the members are in a federally-funded state status. i understand mr. johnson, the dod general counsel, will discuss some of the ramifications of the different statices in which members of the national guard served. the composition of the joint chiefs of staff is defined by statute and consists of the chairman, vice-chairman, and military service chiefs of the army, navy, air force, and marine corps. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the principal military adviser to the president, national security council, homeland security council, and secretary of defense. the other members of the joint chiefs may submit to the chairman and vice in disagreement with caller: or in addition to the advice presented by the chairman and the chairman must present that advice at the same time that he presents his own advice. additionally, the other members of the joint chiefs provide military advice when requested by the president, national security council, homeland security council, or secretary of defense. a member of the joint chiefs may make recommendations to congress relating to the department of defense after, 1st informing the secretary of defense. i'm looking for to the testimony of the members of the joint chiefs of staff as they provide more information on the role that the joint chiefs play in our national security, how the interests of the army and international guard are addressed by the joint chiefs, and how the chief of the national guard bureau interfaces with the joint chiefs of staff and national guard bureau is a joint activity of the department of defense. by statute, it is the channel of communications on all matters pertaining to the national guard, and our national guard of the united states, and the international guard of the united states between the department of the army and the permit of the air force in several states. the chief of national guard bureau is a principal adviser to the secretary of defense through the chairman and joint chiefs of staff on matters involving non- federalized national guard forces and on other matters as determined by the secretary of defense. he is also the principal adviser to the secretary of the army and chief of staff for the army, and to the secretary of the airforce and to the chief of staff of the air force on matters relating to the national guard, army national guard of the united states, and international guard of the united states. beginning in 2009, when the position of the chief of the national guard bureau was increased to a four-star rank, the chief of the national guard pier was given a standing in the haitian to attend meetings of the joint chiefs. i look forward to in general mckinley's testimony to further elaborate on the role and function of the chief of the national guard bureau and how that relates to the role and function of the joint chiefs of staff. at congress's direction, the commission on the national guard and reserves address the issue that we are looking at today. they did so in its second report to congress dated march 1, 2007. the commission recommended against making the chief of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs. this is what that commission said. "the commission does not recommend that the chief of the national guard bureau be a member of the joint chiefs of staff on the grounds that the duties of the members of the joint chiefs of staff are greater than those of their great -- chief of national guard bureau. for example, they said the chief of national guard bureau is not responsible for organizing, manning, training, and equipping the national guard, to this extent as are the service chiefs of staff. the qualifications to be selected as a service chief of staff, they said, also are materially different from, and more rigorous than those for selection to be chief of the national guard bureau. moreover, they said that making the chief of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs of staff would run counter to intra and inter service integration and would reverse progress toward doing this and interoperability, making the chief of national guard bureau and member of the joint chiefs of staff would be fundamentally inconsistent with the status of the army and international guard as reserve components of the army and air force. finally, the commission concludes that this proposal would be counter to the carefully crafted organizational and advisory principles established in the goldwater- nichols legislation." i know, congress has implemented many of the recommendations of that commission, including the following. increasing the grade of the chief of the national guard bureau from lieutenant general to general, and making him a principal adviser to the secretary of defense, through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on matters involving non-federalized national guard forces. another recommendation which was implemented by congress was establishing the national guard bureau as a joint activity of the department of defense, enhancing the functions of the national guard bureau to include assisting the secretary of defense in coordinating with other federal agencies, the adjutant general's of the state, combat command with responsibility for the night states homeland, the u.s. northern command, we require that at least one deputy of the u.s. northern command, again the combat and men with responsibility for the united states, that at least one deputy be a national guard officer in the grid of lieutenant-general, and we have increased the number of unified and specified combat and commend commissions for a reserve component officer. we all are grateful to the witnesses, to the men and women with whom they serve, for service to our nation. we think the witnesses for being with us today. before calling on senator inhofe, will know that we had two votes today as scheduled for 12:05. senator inhofe? >> in my years in the house and senate, this is the first time that all members of the joint chiefs are here. this is a pretty neat deal. i think the greatest just -- provide for their security maintain a strong national defense. our constitution gives congress specific national security authorities to declare war, raise and support armies, provide navy, to establish rules and regulations for our military forces and organize armed militias in the state. >> i hate to interrupt the we do have a quorum now appeared we have some business we need to attend to. as a quorum is not present, we were about to lose the quorum, so that is why i interrupted. i asked the committee to consider a list of 4020 pending military nominations. all of these nominations have been before the committee. iroquois length of time. is there a motion to verily report these? all in favor say aye? the motion carried. thank you. >> anyways, let me just mention that we are all close to the military. the branches, and active, reserve, the guard. i do not think there is a person appear on this committee who has not had very close relationships with active duty, visiting quite often in the area where they are stationed and deployed. in my case, we have 3000 members in the oklahoma 45th infantry but did combat team, our of the national guard. i went down when they were deployed from mississippi, and talk to them, left three weeks later and talk to them over there. i know you have probably a closer relationship because they are in your hometown, and you visit with them. i know that that happens, and i have very close friends. in oklahoma, they were not deployed until july, and yet, we have lost 14 of our people over there. one of them, his wife worked in my office. i remember so well during the august recess, going into a small town in oklahoma where she was. we were making arrangements. i was getting ready to go to afghanistan so i could meet with her husband. two days before i left, he was killed in action. these are things that we are all very close to, people in all services. premiere this week, we did earlier this week, the oklahoma 45th help to capture a mid-level insurgent leader in afghanistan, his brother, as well as weapons, and the gains -- hand grenades, and they did it without firing a shot. their efforts will lead to a stable afghanistan and urban insurgent from gaining safe- haven. our national guard has transitioned from a strategic to an operational reserve force. this means the national guard has got to be trained and equipped the way -- the same as our active units. it also means that we must fully integrate our active and reserve components so that they can seamlessly execute any missions. i am proud of the contribution that are made and the secretaries of our military and their families and continue to make. we have been a lot of progress. general mckinley will probably have this. i read part of the statement. in terms of the relationship between the guard and active units. this might be the first time that i can ever remember coming to a committee hearing. i had a dinner the other nine with the air guard chief. he started talking about this. i said, leave me alone, we're going to have a hearing. mr. chairman, this might have been the only time where i have come to a hearing where i really open on this, and i want to hear the answers. i have specific questions, so i think this will be a very helpful hearing. >> thank you, senator inhofe. we are hearing from members of our family. these witnesses are part of our family, our american family. the senate committee's family. we are kurt -- personally close to each of you, so we have difficult policy decisions to deal with. we do that as family members. while there may be differences, and there obviously are, that is what democracy is about, and we need to consider these as members of one unit with all having the same mission, which is the security of this country. you all have that mission and we all have that mission. we are going to call on our witnesses today in the following order. first will be the general counsel to the department of defense j johnson. then will be the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey. then will be the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. then will be the chief of staff of the army, and general odierno. chief of naval operations. the commandant of the marine corps. the chief of staff of the air force general shorts. and the chief national guard bureau in general mckinley. let's start with you, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. you have asked me to discuss a provision of the proposed legislation that we make the chairman -- chief of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs of staff. at the outset, i will tell you, there are no doubt right legal barriers to enacting this legislation. nothing in the constitution prohibits that and the joint chiefs are 8-toward creation. congress can therefore change the membership of the cheese by statute, if it so desires. i believe it is important, however, that the committee be aware of this up -- some of the legislation, legal implications, and complexities. before i get to those, here are some general legal background on the national guard, chief of the national guard bureau, an joint chiefs of staff. mr. chairman, you alluded to some of this in your remarks. the national guard is a unique entity that operates at different times under federal and state authorities. all members of the guard are members of both the state and national guard, and the federal national guard of the united states. the army and international guards of the united states are two of the six reserve components of the department of defense. the army, navy, air force, and marine corps reserves are the other four deserve components. members of the national guard can serve in three distinct statices, each of which has differing responsibilities and authorities. first, national guard members may serve in what is known as state active duty. state law dictates when guard members assume the status typical state active duty missions include first responder after a naturalilities disaster. the state pays for and the governor of the state commands national guard when it is on state active duty. the department of defense played no direct role in that status. second, national guard members may be ordered to dirty under -- duty under title 2 of the code, title 32 duty. when the guard perform title 32 duty, it is performing federally funded military training is subject to federal standards, or domestic missions, both of which are under the command and control of the state governor. examples of title 32 missions include post-9/11 airport security, southwest border security, and counter drug support. third, the department of defense mccall the national guard to federal service, including in times of national emergency, as authorized by law. national guard members ordered to active duty lose their status as members of the national guard and become members of the reserves of the army, or the reserves of the air force. for example, this is the status of guard members who have been called to serve in iraq and afghanistan. the department of defense both commands and funds the guard when is in federal service. thus, at different times, the national guard may act as either a state or federal entity. indeed, many of the functions the carper forms are under neither the command or the control of the department of defense. rather, for much of what the guard does, state governors are in command. and when the national guard does act in federal service, it does so as part of the reserves of the army or the air force. the chief of the national guard bureau does not command the national guard, acting in any of these three statices. rather, by federal statute, the chief of the national guard bureau acts as a principal adviser to the secretary of defense on all matters involving federalized national guard forces, and he also has the statutory duty to advise the secretaries and chief of staff of the army and air force on all national guard matters. our department of defense directive further explains the chief of the national guard bureau's authorities and responsibilities consistent guidance provided by congress. now, some legal background on the joint chiefs of staff. the joint chiefs of staff surf as the senior military advisers to the president, national security council, homeland security council, and secretary of defense. the joint chiefs are currently composed of six statutory members. the chairman, vice-chairman, and chief of the four services. the service chiefs have a broad range of leadership and command responsibilities that extend from their respective services, encompassing both be active and reserve components of the service. each of the service chiefs is the senior military officer in their respective service. against this backdrop, i turn to the proposed legislation, which would make the chief of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs of staff. as a matter of practice, the chief of the national guard bureau currently attends meetings of the joint chiefs, as the commandant of the coast guard. the purpose of the proposed legislation is best to make the chief of the guard bureau's attendance at joint chiefs meeting a statutory entitlement, with his attendance-torah authorities and responsibilities. in connection with the legislation, i make two points. first, goldwater-nichols department of defense reorganization act of 1986 struck many carefully crafted balances of both intra and inter-service equities. the chief of the national guard bureau represents only the army and international guards and the proposed legislation would alter some of goldwater-nichols carol for balances by, for example, altering the fact of each service is-for early represented by one service chief in the joint chiefs come and providing only two of the department of the the defense's sixth step toward reserve components with additional joint chiefs for presentation. second, elevating the chief of the national guard bureau to represent national guard equities, to the joint chiefs, could create the confusion as to whether the army and air force chief of staff continue to represent their total force. current law requires the chief of the national guard bureau to advise the army and air force chief of staff on on national guard matters. finally, i note that you have already received letters from the chairman of the joint chiefs and service chiefs that detail their concerns with the proposed legislations. the chairman, vice-chairman, and service chiefs are far more conversant respect to the operational and administrative consequences of adding the national guard chief to the joint chiefs. from my perspective, i hope that any legislation does not add ambiguity with respect to authorities in the place where we can tolerate such ambiguity the least, at the top of the service hierarchies, especially in a time of war. thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. johnson. general dempsey? >> thank you, chairman levin, senator inhofe. before we begin, i appreciate the spirit of the family metaphor used for this. i do want to make a point, as we have talked about this, craig mckinley has been in the room in every instance. so everything we have done to try to talk about this among ourselves has been done with the chief of the national guard bureau present. so i think for the opportunity to continue that discussion here with you today. i would also like to thank my colleagues at the table. we share a bond of trust with each other and with the nation that will be sustained, regardless of how we answer the question before us today. let me be clear, i am both an admirer and advocate for the national guard. our entire reserve component makes an indispensable contribution to our national security. threat our nation's history, certainly in the decade before 9/11, we depended on our citizens soldiers and airmen to defend us, our allies, and interests. home and abroad, national guard search with courage, discipline, skill, and distinction. i am proud to be there chairman. the chairman of our total joint force, active and reserve, civilian and families, and i take seriously my responsibility to give voice to their achievements and needs. i am sure their voice, including the voice of the chief of national guard bureau is heard. this said, i join the service chiefs in counseling against making the chief of the national guard a statutory member of the joint chiefs of staff here there is no need to support this historic change. two primary concerns me to this conclusion. representation and accountability. first, our success as a joint force is due in large measure to our ability to integrate the active and reserve components so that they are indistinguishable on the battlefield. i believe this is because -- i believe we have accomplished this because the service chiefs of the army and air force are the single voice for their respective services. with the service secretaries, they bear sole responsibility for making the key resource decisions that produce an organized and trained and equipped force. this includes the national guard and reserve components. the proposed change could undermine the unity of the effort. as you know, each of our services has a reserve component, but only the army and air force have a national guard. this proposal will also create a situation among our reserve components are -- forces were two of the six, as mr. johnson mentioned, would be represented differently, creating what could be the perception of inequity. my more important concern is one of accountability. each of the joint chiefs is subject to civilian oversight of a single appointed and confirmed secretary. the chief of the national guard bureau has no such oversight. elevation to the joint chiefs of staff would make an equal to achieve without a commensurate accountability. this seems to be counter to the carefully crafted organizational and advisory principles established by goldwater- nichols i do not find the argument to change the composition of the j.c. as compelling. it is not clear what problem we are trying to solve. here is what i do know with certainty. the chief of national guard bureau has and will continue to attend meetings of the joint chiefs that i chair. i want and need him to thank. i -- cheaper rides bible experience for the matter is important to national guard and the nation. this advice is also carefully considered when the army and air force chief make decisions that affect their service. the chief the chief of the national guard service has a voice and is heard. the components have grown into a well-integrated fighting force. you cannot spot the difference between active and reserve components. we are and will remain at one force. i would like to thank the committee for its continued support to our men and women in uniform and their families. >> lycee how deep appreciation i have for the men and women of our forces and national guard for their incredible contributions to our defense and security and the considerable sacrifices they make at home and abroad. am a should be no doubt i huge supporter of an believer in the national guard. i have a personal connection to the guard. when i was nominated to be the commander, my first call was to my friend and soon-to-be partner, general mckinley. i worked closely with my guard partners and council of governors to bring to light the dual status commanders concept. we brought more response to the guard while i was there. with the response of the national guard bureau, we brought more guardsmen into the headquarters, including doubling the national flag officers. when i walked around the headquarters, i could not have told you who was the guardsmen and two was not. i would not want it any other way. along the way, i have come to count many of the generals as my personal friends. it was not by chance that my first speaking engagement as vice chairman was at the national guard association of the industry's annual conference this past august. during my time as vice chairman, we have been successful in bringing the chief of the national guard bureau into more senior level and dod forms -- forums. i have advocated for the state partnership program that is so important to our country. i fully advocate raising the position to a three-star rank and would happily support a future north, commander being a commander guardsmen although i do not believe the law should go further than it does in specifying which components hold which ranks. i put my money where my rank -- mouth is to support the guard. they can count on my continued support. nonetheless, and despite my support for this great institution, i am concerned about the impending legislation regarding full membership of the chief of the national guard bureau on the joint chiefs of staff. the spirit of joining us -- jointness is truly alive and serves our nation well. i do not believe it needs to be fixed. we do not need to take a step backwards. as general dempsey said, the service chiefs have great responsibility for manning and equipping their services. the chief of the national guard bureau, despite being my great friend and for whom i have great respect, does not have the same responsibility or command authority. we should not send a signal that we have to have different u.s. army's or air forces. -- we have two different u.s. army's or air forces. i am concerned it will send a negative message to the 46% reserve component that they are somehow of lesser importance in the future expenses. the decisions to be taken at their expense. i hear that from some reserve components i have asked. some may believe this legislation will provide a tangible benefit by empowering the guard with a vote on the j cs. i will tell you there is no voting process on the joint chiefs. instead, we provide our best military advice to the chairman. he then formed its his advice to the president. we already received fantastic military advice from general mckinley and all invited to the table just as we do from the commandant of the coast guard, who is also always invited to the table. the coast guard is not asking for similar legislation. i am not sure what is broken or what needs fixing. i would also assure you and the members of this committee that my colleagues and i will do everything to prevent this issue from driving a wedge between our fantastic, capable, and brave national guard and the rest of the united states military's fantastic, capable, and brave components. thank you for the opportunity to appear. thank you for your continued support for our men and women in uniform. i look forward to your questions. >> general odierno. >> it is an honor to be in front of you today. i have had the opportunity in my current and previous positions to see firsthand the power and capabilities of the total army. the performance and dedication of our active component, national guard, and reserves have contributed directly to our successes. i am proud and humble but i am currently the chief of staff of the united states army. the reserve component connects the army to the american people. the guard and reserve soldiers live and work in over 3000 communities. they share the burdens of four with over 900 killed in action and more than 7500 wounded. they are a critical component of the joint force. they connect us to main street america. we have built a strong relationship between all of our army components. i would argue is probably the strongest we have ever had. it is our goal to sustain an increase this momentum as we move forward. with all due respect to the chief of the national guard bureau, i am bound to communicate my opposition to this post is a member of the joint chiefs of staff. 1st, representing only two of the six components at the joint chief of staff level will create. how can. -- confusion. it will run counter to integration and negatively impact the progress we have made towards joining us -- jointness. this proposal risks creating a bifurcated force with one focused internally and the other broad. it is important that we have territories and responsibilities to ensure effective deployment of the total force. this could lead to a divided or andndant force management training creating a high level of competition and friction. the reserve component forces will continue to play a critical role in our national security strategy. the advice of the chief of the national guard bureau will always be valuable and essential in the context of the total army in a balanced, join portfolio. the integration of the regular army, and national guard, and reserves has proven over the last decade to be unbeatable on the battlefield. it is irreplaceable at home and abroad. now more than ever, we are truly one army. we cannot sacrifice the fact that we are truly one army as we face critical challenges ahead. thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you. i look forward to your questions. >> admiral greenert. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on the matter. i fully support continued participation by the chief of the national guard bureau in the joint chiefs deliberation, particularly regarding issues that involve or affect the national guard. our national guard chief the we consider a brother in the tank has provided valuable contributions to issues of importance to those of us serving in the department of defense. i think that should continue. in my opinion, making the chief of the national guard bureau in member of the joint chiefs of staff adds unnecessary complexity to the principle of unity of command. unlike the service chiefs, the chief of the national guard bureau does not represent a branch of service nor is he responsible for organizing, training, and equipping the national guard to the extent of the service chiefs in their respective services. making the chief of the national guard bureau a member of may also insert ambiguity regarding the status of the army national guard, the air national guard as reserve components of the army and air force respectively. this could create a perception that the national guard is a separate service. that could instigate inequality sense among the other service reserve counterparts. i appreciate the committee's longstanding support for the men and women of the navy. i look forward to working with the committee as we address the challenges we face in the nation and for our navy. thank you very much. >> thank you. next is a general amos. >> thank you for the opportunity to provide my advice on whether the chief of the national guard bureau should become a voting member of the joint chiefs of staff. in my view, there should be no change to the status quo. let me 1st acknowledge my colleague, the current chief of the national guard bureau, and the men and women who faithfully served in our national guard units. they have served our nation and their states well for many decades. for this and much more, we owe them our great gratitude. by virtue of the limited role in the department of defense and the support to roll, the chief of the national guard perot lacks membership in strategic planning. the chief of the national guard bureau's joint mission and stayed focused brings an unavoidable conflict of interest inconsistent with the voting membership. the voting membership would introduce in revocable state interest into a federal activity in process. it could complicate the unity of command for the army and air force. congress intended the current structure that the service chiefs are singularly accountable to the executive and legislative branches of the government for the combat readiness of their respective services. i think it is critical that we safeguard this unity of command. the chiefs of staff of army and air force are best suited to revise and their supporting elements. the national guard has a supporting relationship with the army and air force when federalized as the reserve component. providing jcs membership provides a duplication that is contrary to congress's longstanding policy. it could unfairly amplify army and air force concerns and create a representational imbalance prejudicial to the reserve components other than the national guard. the advisory voice is appropriate and adequate as it currently stands. thank you for the opportunity to make a statement. i look forward to questions. " general schwartz. >> i am grateful for the opportunity to represent the men and women of the air force. i thank you for your your ongoing support for our service members and their families. i join my colleagues in definitively stating that the chief of the national guard bureau is a very important senior leader under our total force construct. his role in advising the secretary of the air force directly and the secretary of defense through the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the national guard chief is a contributor to many daily consequential decisions made by the total force leadership. title 10 of the u.s. code provides the bureau chief advisory role in preserving unified service leadership. this advisory role in the bureau chief relationship to each service continues to be important and is currently appropriate in the training and equipping functions for which the service secretaries and chiefs are singularly responsible. because the national guard bureau chief does not represent a single or separate force of service, making him or her a statutory member of the joint chiefs would reach beyond the appropriate role of the bureau chief. because the bureau chief advisory role is for all national guard matters, including those related to the federal service of the national guard, providing statutory joint chiefs membership to the national guard bureau chief would disrupt the lines of authority and representation already in place for the chiefs of the army and air force. the current arrangement should not be altered. the joint chiefs exist to provide military advice on the deployment of federal forces. considerations are best served by those who possess supervisory and moral authority over the forces. they organize, train, and equipped personal of all components of each service. they are responsible as force providers to the combat commanders. the national guard bureau chiefs membership present issues concerning his or her appropriate role in offering advice on the employment of the armed forces in a desert region designated title general. beyond the established rule, interactions with the intra- agency and international partners could also be confused. existing law and policy provide appropriate rules and requirements for the chief of the national guard bureau. his or her authorities augmented by the standing invitation to attend meetings of the joint chiefs is sure -- ensure that the chief of the bureau will have a strong voice and remained a highly valued partner. the chief of the national guard bureau should not be included as a statutory voting member of the joint chiefs of staff independent of service leadership. thank you for your time. we look forward to your questions. i would like to publicly recognize and state our admiration and respect for our teammates from the united states marine corps who celebrate their to hundred 36th birthday today. thank you. >> happy birthday, general amos. [laughter] i did not know your that old. we congratulate you and all of the marines. general mckinley. >> good morning. thank you for co-hosting a pbs special that will be seen tonight, "where soldiers come from," honoring a of your soldiers from the upper peninsula of michigan. your relationship with the oklahoma national guard is one to be emulated. it is an honor to be sitting before you today to provide my opening comments on the matter at hand. i admire all the chiefs and chairman very much. our relationship will not be broken by the testimony given here today. i thank them for the honor of letting me be part of this today. for me to be here to provide my personal views on whether the chief of the national guard bureau should be a member of the joint chiefs of staff, i am sitting here after three years as chief of the national guard bureau and 11 total years serving in the pentagon, i believe it is now in the best interests of the american people for the chief of the national guard to be made a full member of the joint chiefs of staff. the 2008 national defense authorization act and resulting the of the initiatives made important fundamental changes in the role of the chief of the national guard bureau and bureau, only fall joint chiefs of staff membership will ensure that the responsibilities and capabilities of the non- federalized national guard are considered in a planned and deliberate manner that is not based upon personal relationships but instead is firmly rooted in the law and the national strategy. the domestic mission of the national guard must be taken into account when making military contingency plans, allocating scarce resources, and advising the president, secretary of defense, national security council and homeland security council. homeland defense and civil support must be at the core of our national strategy because of the changing threat environment that is more dangerous within our homeland than at any time in our history. it is for those reasons that i believe the chief of the national guard bureau should be a member of the joint chiefs of staff. our military planning and resources in would be vastly improved, in my opinion. it would be more comprehensive and more efficient. i do not personally support a change in the title 10 relationships among the services nor do i support the national guard becoming a separate service. we in the national guard are all proud members of the u.s. army and air force. the issue at hand does not in any way impact the unity of command which will remain unchanged or fragment the reserve component. only the national guard has a dual state mission. it will not create uncertainty with respect to leadership. it clearly resides in our governors and i giants general -- and did -- adjutant general's when it is not federalized. this would add to the jcs the expertise and knowledge that the chief of the guard bureau has as it pertains to the national guard in its non-federalize role in the defense and safety of the homeland. the chief is a title to an officer under the law. he should be counted on as the federal officer best posture to advise on the capabilities of the non-federal national guard. i have read the letters submitted to your committee. i have provided the chairman of the copy of this dod directive. these letters and other comments focus primarily on five discrete themes, budget authority, the statutory advisory role as it currently exists, the national guard could become a separate service or will somehow be advantage over the of the reserve components, maintaining title 10 command authority, and finally civilian oversight. in the era of budget authority, the chief of the national guard bureau plans and administers the budgets of the army and national guard. i am directly responsible for nearly $20 billion annually. i am the appropriations sponsor for the army national guard personnel account and the other military account. by law, the chief is responsible for planning, budgeting, execution, and accounting of these appropriations. the chief of the national barbara competes for a common defense, and validates the appropriations and submits a budget appropriations to the services and department of defense. they are required to provide an annual financial report to congress that states have specific funding was spent. there is sufficient and significant difference between the chief of the national guard bureau principal advisory authorities and the jps advisory authority. members may also submit advice or an opinion in addition to the vice presented by the chairman. the president, homeland security telecom and secretary of defense may request advice directly from the jps members. the members may also make recommendations to congress after informing the secretary of defense. the chief of the national guard bureau advises the secretary of defense on matters involving non-federalized national guard forces. the chief of the national guard crew must declare in trump to have a voice on limited matters. without statutory membership, as chief's role is ad hoc determined by each successive chairman. in terms of having an advantage over other components, the national guard is unique thanks to the united states constitution. it is unlike the other reserve components which can perform title 10 duties under title 10 command authorities. the national guard performs the same title 10 duties when federalized plus diverse non- federal duties and state duties under state command authority. the command chains are not ambiguous. the other reserve components have no analogy to the national guard. the non-federal national guard missions include but are not limited to air defense, ballistic missile defense, weapons of mass destruction response, disaster response, counter-drug support, border security, air force security, international special security events. with regards to an clear title to an accord, the issue discussed in my opinion would not alter title to in command authority or accountability over federalized national guard forces. there would be no change to the title tune authorities of the service secretaries or service chiefs. they would take on no new title 32 responsibilities. the chief of the national guard bureau is not nor would he be with in the title tune chain of command -- 4 title 10 national guard forces. one federalized, national guard forces will remain under the command of federal commanders. total force integration would not be compromised. it would be enhanced by greater situational enhancement of missions and leadership. total force integration would also benefit from enhanced understanding of the homeland defense and civil support missions performed by non- federalized national guard forces. with regards to civilian oversight, since 2008 under the provisions of the dod directive, the chiefs of the national guard bureau is under the authority, direction, and control of the secretary of defense. the secretary normally exercises authority and control through the secretaries of the army and air force on matters pertaining to their responsibilities in law or dod policies. much has changed since 2008. the national guard bureau is now a joint activity of the department of defense. the chief of the national guard bureau has enhanced authorities short of jps membership. yet the chiefs still does not have an institutional position from which i can advise the president, homeland security council, and congress on non- federalized national guard forces that are critical to homeland defense and civil support missions. adding the chief to the jcs will ensure that in the post-9/11 security environment, the national guard non-federalized role in homeland defense and civil support missions will be fully represented in all deliberations. this would not detract in any way from its other critical functions. without statutory membership, the chief of the national guard 's ability to produce fate is determined solely at the discretion of the chairman. i believe this should be established by law. this view is shared by the former assistant secretary of common defense and who wanted me to let you know he did not have this opinion several years ago but now believes the national guard bureau should be made a full member. in my role for the states and district of columbia, i would be remiss without speaking on behalf of the 54 adjutant generals. they have provided their unqualified support for replacing the chief of the national guard bureau on the jcs. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you today and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general mckinley. the letter will be made part of the record as will the statement of senator rockefeller. let's have a six-minute first- round. perhaps we can get in a round before the votes. if we need a second round, we can take that. let me ask about a statement where you say the proposed legislation would alter some of the goldwater-nichols careful balances by altering the fact that each service is such a truly represented by one service ily representedor by one service chief. you also said elevating the chief of the national guard bureau to represent national guard equities to the joint chiefs of staff could create legal confusion as to whether the army and air force chiefs of staff continue to represent their total force. can you tell us what potential legal confusion could result of you are referring to? >> the role of the national groups is spelled out -- national guard bureau is spelled out. the chief of the national guard bureau in his advisory capacity has two functions. one is to revise the secretary of defense through the chairman on matters involving non- federalized guard. the second component of that is to be the advisor to the service leadership of the army and air force on matters concerning the federal guard. the way this statute breaks it out, when we are talking about the guard in federal status, the law contemplates the chief of the national guard bureau will represent those interests to the service leadership and chiefs of staff of the army and air force. when we're talking estate guard role, the chief of the national guard bureau advises the secretary of defense. this legislation before you will not change any of that. if the chief of the national guard bureau is now also a member of the joint chiefs, he is an advisor to general shorts -- schwartz and general attorney general -- general odierno on the national guard also has an independent seat on the joint chiefs as an advisor to the president, secretary, and national advisory council on the same matters. it creates an issue of dual representation. when the chief of the national guard bureau is advising with respect to the non-federalized national guard, he represents the issue -- interests of the state and national guard commanded by the governor of each of the states. it creates a dynamic that i am not saying is right or wrong, but it creates a dynamic where the interest of the state guard, the governors have a seat at the joint chiefs advising the president and national security council and the secretary of defense. >> under title 10, the chief of the national guard bureau is the principal adviser among others to the chief of staff of the army and air force on matters related to the national guard. is there not an inconsistency with an advisor participating as an equal with the principles with whom he is devising? -- he is advising? >> i think the best way to answer that is to look at the empowerment act of 2008. it established the dod directive that secretary gates signed in 2008 directing the conduct of my job. if i could read from the management piece that you referred to, it says the chief of the national guard bureau is under the authority and control of the secretary of defense. the secretary normally exercises his authority and control through the secretaries of the army and air force for matters. the second section i would refer to is that as a principal adviser to the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, it allows and directs me to advise on matters involving non- federalized national forces. in my personal opinion, it does not raise inconsistencies wearing that hat. this dod directive gave me the authority to do what i addressed in my opening statement. >> general dempsey, you made reference to the fact that the services have never been closer to the reserve components and separating the my title risks creating unnecessary friction in the ranks. can you tell us why it is and what you meant by saying that separating the reserve components from the services creates unnecessary friction? >> the issue for me is branding. does a soldier see himself as a soldier? does a guardsman see himself as a guardsman first for a soldier first? it seems that where we are today as a force, we are where we are because we have all seen ourselves as brandon but a single service chief -- has branded by a single service ief and his subordinates. i am not sure establishing -- i think the way this will resonate at wegh the force is th have separated ourselves and our brand is no longer as clear and defined as we want and need it to be. >> i recall back when we were working on the 2009 act, the issue then was three-star versus four-star. i was talking to my staff about what the arguments were. i do recall the perception argument of those in the field. i also recall that i got the impression that if we made that change, that would result in a lot of these problems. and did not hear that we would want to come along with another change in the relationship. do you remember that? would you like to comment on changing from three-star to four-star? >> i obviously took this position in november of 2008. i was the beneficiary of the legislation that passed before i became chief of the national guard burrow. much has improved. much has been given to me in terms of my access to the chairman and to participate in major meetings affecting the services. i do remember the discussion of the greed -- grade. i do work closely with the other component chiefs. it is important not to get imbalanced. i would suggest that the members of the national roguard looked o me as their representative to the department of defense. the willingness of the men sitting before you to allow me to communicate and conduct discourse with them and interact with them has significantly improved since i became the chief of the bureau in 2008. >> tomorrow, i am going back to fort sill, where you started out in the 1970's. i will be participating in the veterans day celebration tomorrow morning. i know they will be discussing this at that time. have you seen regard coming in biting side by side with the army, was there any difference in equipment, capability, or resources between the guard and active duty army? >> i would tell you we have made great strides over the last 10 years in improving the capability and equipping of the national guard. by october of 2012, the national guard will have achieved about 92% of the total equiping necessary. the active component will be at 92.5%. i think that sends a strong message about how we have been able to equip. understanding the total army is incredibly important. we have to have all of these different components. we have to have an active component ready to respond immediately at a certain readiness level. we need the national guard prepared and capable of responding. they have to be able to work together at all times. i think we've gotten the right solution. our army has been taxed with many deployments. i worry we will lose the one single voice that has driven us here if we move forward. >> i was asking about the equipment and quality of resources used. are they the same? >> they are. >> general schwartz, i can remember some time ago when you have the two engines with one having greater thrust. when deployments were necessary, it was my state of oklahoma and the state of ohio where they were not able to get the 229 engines for their deployment. as a result, i believe they played together as a unit and took only the 229's from ohio and oklahoma. that was a disparity in how they retreated in terms of equipment. is my memory correct? has that been corrected? >> generally speaking, the equipping of the active duty, guard, and reserves is comparable. there are some anomalies with regards to aircraft configuration based on the maturity, so on, and so forth. we have not corrected or normalized every single configuration in every one of our aircraft. the air guard and united states air force have always been an operational reserve. it has always shared the same readiness with the active duty and air force reserve counterparts. that is still the case. that certainly is our conviction going forward. >> there was disparity at that time in that particular aircraft. >> there was a difference in the engines. there is a difference in the configurations of airplanes as they are produced. it is the intent of the air force to be quit the national guard so that they remained in operating -- >> we are in better shape now than then. >> absolutely. >> we have worked closely with the director of the air guard in trying to achieve the proper balance in equipping the national guard. in my 38 years in the air force, the air guard today has the oldest legacy fleet in its history. i am concerned as i am sure the chief of staff of the air force is over future modernization plans so that we can have the balanced force that has made the air force and national guard so close throughout its history. i am concerned about the future capitalization of the air national guard. >> my time is up. i would like for you to respond in writing about the confusion issue mentioned earlier. >> senator lieberman. >> thank you all for being here. on this interesting and important question, and a member of the inhofe open-minded caucus. this discussion has been very helpful. i want to get on the record some basic things. what is the number of personnel in the army and air guard? >> we have approximately 460,000 combined between army and air. >> how about in the other reserve components? what is the number? >> the army reserve is about 250,000. >> the air force is 71,000. the air force reserve is 106,000. >> 65,000 in the navy reserve. >> 39,600 marine reserves. >> a pretty definitive answer right there. clearly there is a larger number in the army guard and air. there are not inconsequential numbers in the other reserve components. some of us think about the coast guard reserve that is another part of the reserve component. the other half i where is on the homeland security committee. -- the other hat i wear is on the homeland security committee. the other reserve components do not have non-federal responsibilities, correct? >> yes, sir. >> this is an interesting issue because from our home states, we're getting tremendous support for putting the national guard commander in chief on the joint chiefs of staff. there is a lot of support in congress. there is opposition from the military. one of the unique functions is these homeland defense missions better part of the guards responsibility -- that are part of the guards responsibility with disaster response, etc. some of the discussions i have had with folks at home and all the concern -- involved a concern that the homeland security missions are not receiving sufficient attention from the joint chiefs now and that if you were on the joint chiefs, they would receive more attention. i wanted you to respond to that. general mckinley? >> i am not critical of the other service components in representing homeland security. i think it is the unique capability of the national guard bureau with its relationship to the 54 adjutant general's the work for the governors that allows me to provide the best in that i should be a focal point. our relationships with other agencies are built at the community level. they are significant. i would not be surprised if the chiefs of the services know a lot about it. i just think we are uniquely qualified with our role in title 32 and stayed active duty to operate in the statices in the states we represent. >> is that one of the major reasons why you support putting a chief of the national guard bureau on the joint chiefs? >> that is where i am zeroing in on, to institutionalize the role of the national guard bureau chief in becoming the spokesperson to the joint chiefs of staff to give my best military advice when asked so that we do not miss a beat in this very new age of asymmetric challenges facing our nation. >> general dempsey. >> the joint chiefs are statutory elite -- statutorily responsible for security. they are responsible for northern command. the impact statement would now come to us through the service chiefs. the joint chiefs would compare the impact on the services with the demand that would be articulated by northcom and we would figure out what to do. this adds another voice in the mix that i do not believe we need. >> it is true that the joint chiefs of staff have focused responsibility to protect our national security. the very reconstitution of northern command involved post- 9/11 and assumption of some responsibility for homeland defense in the pentagon that was different from before. do you agree? how does that reflect on the matter we are discussing this morning? >> 9/11 was a wake-up call. that was the generation -- genesis of northern command. he does represent his theater in terms of title 10 knees -- needs. he does a good job of that as current commander. in partnership with the department of homeland security, there is any central partnership -- and the central partnership -- any central -- essential partnership. we get very good advice and guidance from the council of governors. we also get great advice from craig on matters that have to do with title 32, stayed active duty, and the like. they can contribute to the homeland security issue. i think we're getting the advice we need. we have a good commander in the field who works closely with the civilian counterparts. i am not sure what is broken or what we need to fix. we have a good system going now. >> my time is up. >> senator brown. >> will we be able to submit questions for the record? >> we will also have a second round if we need it. >> i am looking at a letter from general amos. paragraph three says cngb does not represent a branch of service nor is it responsible for equipping the national guard. i respectfully disagree. the guard is responsible for the cradle to grave planning program, budgeting, and execution of the budgets. those go to congress. they validate those. they provide annual reports to congress. the service chiefs do not have the budget responsibility. is there in a statement -- misstatement in your letter? >> the point i was making is that the service chiefs are held accountable to the congress for the execution of the budgets as well. we have budget offices in the navy. >> they are not responsible at all. that is not correct. i would like to shift gears a little bit. mr. johnson, you indicated that you felt there was confusion as to represents the army and air force. i would reference the letters about confusion and imbalance. general schwartz said it would be confusing lines of authority. complicated unity of command, is there any question about the chain of command with the joint chiefs? general mackenzie would go through general odierno, general support to general dempsey. there is no commander breach at all. i think it is clear. i do not think there is any question that the command authority wants to change. i do not think he wants to change that. -- you do not want to change the title 10 command authority, do you? >> no, it is working well for us. >> is there confusion on the chain of command? >> i have no confusion. >> deerfield the total force integration would be benefited by having a seat at the table? >> it has improved greatly. it can only get better. >> would you be the person who could best advice -- advise on the domestic mission and what the non-federalized units would be able to do, especially in spite -- light of the homeland security issues? is there anyone better qualified than you in your capacity to do that? >> these are all talented gentleman. i think it is my role and responsibility to be that person. >> i would agree with you. >> on the fighter aircraft issue, is it a fair statement that the guard units will be eviscerated when it comes to aircraft? i have heard they cannot gain access to what wings will be affected, how many aircraft will be lost. is that another reason to have someone like general mckinley at the table who can advise on the plans? >> that is not the role of the joint chiefs. beyond that, the reality is if the air national guard is going to be eviscerated, so will the active duty and reserve. we are getting smaller together. that is what is underway here. we are now the smallest air force we have ever been. the reductions that occur because of diminishing resources will be shared by all of the components. >> that is another reason why we need to get back to the table and get the select committee to work. that we sequestration will not come in and dramatically affected more. understanding the relationship between the marines and navy, it is very similar. the navy -- the marines have general amos here. he is at the table. he does all this budgeting through the navy. it flows through the navy to him in some respects. >> we do our budgeting through the department of the navy. the secretary of the navy controls the budget. >> have a general mckinley wanting a similar role be different? >> i cannot speak to the budgeting of the guard. we have been a service for 236 years. the marine corps got a seat at the table in 1978. we have been fighting battles as a service for over 200 years. that is different. the guard is not a service. >> my time is up. i have to get to another meeting and come back. >> general mckinley, your reputation for professionalism and dedication precede you. thank you for your service. having visited the police brigade in afghanistan, the service of the national guard, army and air is commendable and is central to our nation's security. the first step in getting your job is getting recommended by a governor. is that by the governor, correct? >> the process by which they select the chiefs' requires the governor's' nominations. a lot looking ahead effectively, some governor is going to have to be either the nominee, denominator of a member of the joint chiefs of staff. is that correct? >> the initial submission goes to the department of the air force for vetting. that is my understanding of the process. >> the governor will essentially recommend the national guard bureau chief who will, if this statute passes, be a member of the joint chiefs of staff. some governor will be selecting a member of the joint chiefs of staff, in effect. >> correct that we hold dual status in the national guard and we must be confirmed as a federal officer and a member of the state, that is right. >> would you be at first to eliminating the gubernatorial recommendation since the statute creates space staff member on the joint chiefs? it is a random process on which governor would be doing it. which you object to those changes? >> i think that chairman can establish the process to pick my successor. i will finish my term in 2012 so i have no objections. >> you would not object to eliminating a recommendation for the chief of the national guard bureau? >> i would not. >> to what extent do you have authority over the actual budget of the non federal units and actual policies of the nonfatal units that you'd be advising the joint chiefs on? >> as we work within that service lines with our staffs in washington, to the army national guard readiness center, which work with the army and the air force as to prepare budgets, once they are approved, we are given the funds and push those out of the states. >> you are talking about federal funds which we appropriate. i am talking about the non- federal activities of the guard. can you direct a governor to increase their spending or to change the configuration of their forces? >> no, sir, is their responsibility. >> you would be advising on functions that you have no authority to effect on the ground? >> the constitutionality of my role would be that the governors and the adjutant's general would determine what small percentages of the budgets are given to the states. it is the large preponderance of funds which are federal funds given to the guard. >> funds that we provide in anticipation of units being federalized to perform federal commissions that would fall within the chain of command of the service chiefs and ultimately general dempsey. >> the state missions are under the command and control of governor. >> it is to give you access to talk about this state missions which you do not have control of because he cannot force them to change their budget, you cannot force them to take particular people and make them -- you have no say in who is running the show. there is one state in which the tags are elected by popular vote. to raise serious questions about what you are going to do about on the joint chiefs that you cannot do effectively. let me conclude by saying once again you have done a superb job, and your colleagues in the guard and reserve -- and i was out with general mcbride and i was asking which units he was commanding, and when he mentioned my old italian, i knew this was -- my old brigade, i knew this was -- >> thank you senator reid. senator reed. >> i wanted to follow up what senator brown ask you about. is it true in 1978 that the chairman proposed the commandant of the marines be a member of the joint chiefs of staff? >> i do not know if he did not. it became law in 1978. >> if i would represent you admiral greenert that your predecessors at that time opposed having the commandant of the marines before the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, i would assume you would disagree with that position now. >> i certainly would, senator. >> i assume having the staff wouldon the chairma have no role with respect to the marine corps in advising the chairman? >> no, it does not. >> would you have a recent that general mckinley would not be able to draw distinctions clearly as to what the proper role he would have if a member of next joint chiefs? >> general mckinley may not. most of my concern is what is in the force, how did the forces see it. is there clarity in the unity of command. who is ultimately accountable for the budgeting, the source of the budget got to the congress, to the secretary of defense. it is a lot of what chairman dan seek stated before, not what we can work out, because we work fine in the tank. it is of what is the perception out there and perhaps confusion. >> i have great confidence in all of you and the tremendous service you have that whenever some decisions -- whatever decisions congress makes it is true for their chain of command and i know you will work together very well on behalf of our country, and we deeply appreciate it. general tennessee, i want to fall off on what admiral -- general dempsey, i want to follow up on what admiral winnefeld stated. >> i would add that i would rather that none of that be legislated because it is my job to find the best athletes available. >> it would be inappropriate at flake have a court officer as a candidate? -- it would be appropriate to have a guard at the server -- officer as a candidate? >> i think we should have a national authorization as soon as possible. >> is that very important? >> it is. >> thank you, sir. general schwartz, on a different topic, and i feel the need to ask about this, i am deeply troubled about the reports of what has happened at the mortuary at dover air force base, and i am sure you would agree with me this is outrageous, the remains of our soldiers would be put in a landfill and not treated with the appropriate dignity and honor which they deserve. can you tell me where we are with this and how we are going to ensure that this never happens again and most importantly those who have participated in this outbreak are born to be held accountable? >> first of all let me clarify that allegation about putting remains in a landfill. these were portions. prior to 2008, which were sent away from the dover mortuary to a funeral home for cremation, which is and authorize method of dealing with remains, particularly those that are separated from the larger portion of remains returned to the family. after that, the results of the cremation can back the mortuary, were sent to a medical support company for incineration. so you had cremation, then incineration, and it was at that point that this medical support organization placed the residuals from that effort to a landfill. in 2008, the air force came to the conclusion that that was not the best way to deal with those remains, and so is now done in the traditional fashion of burial at sea. has been that way since 2008. it will continue to be that way in the future. let me conclude by saying the secretary of the air force and i take personal responsibility for this. our obligation is to treat our fallen rents and dignity and respect and to provide the best possible support and care for their families. that is our mission. the people who did not fulfill our expectations were disciplined, and there is no doubt what our expectations are today. >> general schwartz, i appreciate your updating on that, and when i think about the fact that we have veteran state tomorrow, this is still important that we of this retreat the remains of our fallen with dignity and respect, and i know you share that concern as well, and please note that members of this committee will be there to support you in any way to make sure that the families know that we certainly will not allow this to happen again. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator akaka. >> thank you very much, mr. sherman. i would like at my welcome to our very distinguished panel of witnesses that we have today, on the eve of veterans day, and i think you for defending our freedoms. i have read that most of you are opposed to elevating the guard bureau chief to the jcs. i want you to know that while i disagree on this issue, i have the complete respect for you and the opinions that all of you hold. that we take a moment to say that understandably change is not always a welcome concept. in the evolution of the joint chiefs of staff there has been significant opposition to structural changes. however, there is precedent changing the composition of jcs account for readiness, policy, and budgetary issues. for example, in 1953, president truman signed a law that added that, then of the marine corps to discuss issues. at that time several years later, the commandant was elevated to full voting member status. today i think we would all agree that making the commandant a voting member was the correct decision. while the national guard is not a separate service, it does have basedplex set of needs les on duel missions it is supposed to execute. the guard has been heavily involved in the last decade in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. no one better understands the requirements and the chief of the national guard bureau. future force structure and adjustments will have a direct impact on the task and mission of the guard, and i am sure they will be asked to do more and not less in the future. making the chief of the national guard bureau a full-fledged member will update the jcs to reflect the operational reality in wars overseas as well as homeland defense and security missions. it will also enhance the effectiveness of the total force. no one knows exactly what the next conflict will entail, but we can be confident that we will again call upon the 460,000 men and women of the national guard to their part. i believe elevating the chief of the national guard to the joint chiefs of staff is something that is overdue and will show our guardsmen and their families that they are a true partner. it will also let them know that their voices and views will be represented at the highest levels of government. general dempsey, has stated that the chief of the national guard bureau will be invited to attend jcs meetings as long as you are chairman, and i think it is great for transparency and the effectiveness of the group. however, i am concerned that if a check future -- if a future chairman is not as inclusive as you are, the chief would be left out in a pentagon hallway while relevant discussions take place in the tank. do you think, general dempsey, that the advice to the secretary of defense would be different if ?e were a full-fledged member if so, how different is it? >> thank you for remembering it is the day before the veterans day. i was hoping to get a chance to mention that at the end. i do not know if his advice would change. i'm not the first chairman to include the chief of the national guard bureau. my predecessor did that as well. it seems to be to be a reasonable assumption that we would continue to do that no matter who the chairman was, and i do not know if his advice would change. i do not know what additional influences might be brought to bear. i cannot answer that hypothetically. >> thank you. general mckinley, the guard has carried a tremendous load for this country including the efforts in iraq and afghanistan. in the feature i'm sure the guard will again be called while rick continuing its record domestic missions. can you say something about how things would improve for both the guard and the total force should the chief of ngb given a seat at the table? you that weure have made significant progress over the last eight years in terms of the transparency and integration. i will not dispute the fact that this german and a former chairman have opened their doors willingly. i am concerned that that continue, and i believed it needs to be institutionalized to ensure that that service continues. i also believe like what is going on in your home state right now, the apex what is going on. york national guard is being heavily used in security and administrative duties. i need to be able to surface that issue, unfettered, to the top, and i think the seat will give me the advantage as my fellow service chiefs have to go and in an unfettered fashion and get those types of homeland security issues to the chairman, and if requested, by the secretary of defense. those are very important things. se's in theen more n next few months that we should be integrated with so we can dedicated the forces. as you have 5000 members of the guard in hawaii, to the task. elevating and institutionalizing the position will give me a better opportunity for me to fulfill my responsibilities. >> thank you, very much, the general mckinley. >> senator graham? >> this has been very informative and i appreciate all of you, respect you greatly and the advice you have given. this is ultimately up to the president and congress. general amos, you agree that the marine corps is the best fighting force in the world? >> yes, sir. we celebrate that every day. >> good. >> i believe that is true. >> citizen soldier's time has come. you will get a seat at the table if i have anything to say about it. the first shot was fired by the citizen soldier and it is time for them to be sitting at the table. be agree that from nature, natural disasters? when it comes to front-line service against natural disasters and it can read, do you agree the national guard as the front-line force? >> generally law enforcement, the national guard. >> when it comes to uniform personnel? >> yes, i do. >> hurricane irene? is that the last one? who talked to you about hurricane irene? >> paul stockton. >> did anybody from the joint chiefs call you and asking what is going on? >> no, it was incumbent on me to pass that information on but nobody made that call. >> did anybody from the white house call you? >> no, sir. >> if you believe the nation is threatened, i would like to have you sitting there. not by invitation. at the end of the day, i think you need to be in the room with some way behind you. not just the invitation. let's talk about the structure. who does more for the generals of each steak? >> who has more contact? i don't have any contact. >> if you believe that the generals that have responsibilities over the national guard -- how much contact do you have? >> bailey. >> you can tell the chairman of the joint chiefs if you are in the room was going on. don't you think it will be an important, institutionally, to have somebody in devising the chairman of the joint chiefs exactly what is going on in the states? >> in the post 9/11 world, it is essential. >> i could not agree with you more. let's talk about the chairman of the joint chiefs that we all agree is important. the you agree that the marine corps being a voting member of the joint chiefs hasn't given the navy to votes? >> is has not given the navy -- >> that was the big concern. the was a fight back in 1978 the all hell was going to break loose. i don't think the national guard being in the room is going to change the world as we know it. only for the better. mr. johnson. headlines are made every hearing. is the headline from this hearing, obama opposes putting the national guard bureau joint chiefs of the joint chiefs? >> you have heard the best military advice. >> i will tell you what vice- president biden said in baltimore. it is time for change, change begins with giving the guard a seat at the table. that is where the joint chiefs said. president obama's campaign document, this part alike. obama was for the readiness of the national guard reserves. he will permit them time to rest at train between deployments. he will also give the guard a seat at the table by making the chief of the national guard a member of the joint chiefs of staff. has he changed his mind? >> not to my knowledge. >> reducing he thought long and hard about this had thought this would be a good idea? you're not here to tell us he is wrong. >> they are above my pay grade. >> i think they are wrong allot but i think they are right on this. how many of you believe that goldwater nichols works? who doesn't? nobody. let me give you a history. there is an article called the campaign for goldwater nichols. i will read a brief excerpt. he the bill was being prepared and had been written in final draft. centers go to have a meeting with the joint chiefs. the admiral was the chairman, he supported it. during that meeting, everyone else opposed and said in no uncertain language that the hot tempered goldwater took their criticism as an attack on his efforts to make improvements. if you think you can believe us, you are mistaken. he got eight letters from the pentagon talking about how bad an idea this would be and he said, i will not be deflected or sidetracked in this effort even if i get a letter a day from everyone in the pentagon. the institution resisted it. the institution resisted having the commandant of the marine corps on the joint chiefs. and i think that we should consider that the time has come, given post-about 11 duties of the national guard have a seat at the table. it doesn't change command authority or turn the world upside down. but if any group deserved recognition out, it is the members of the national guard and their voice needs to be heard. thank you very much. >> center in nelson. >> you can relax, i will not try to talk to senator gramm. but as former governor, i know there are other former governors see it here. we have the special unique relationship with the guard. we have a relationship with the entire military force. i suppose calling out the guard of occasions gives me a special feeling of relationship with the garden. going back to my general, an outstanding military officer and an outstanding -- since i have been in the united states senate, i have had a relationship with the former tag and incumbent general. the situation is clearly a unique one from the standpoint of everyone so far of having a federal and a state component to the relationship. it is not like any other branch of the service or any branch of the service in particular. he is unique to the guard. if it applied to one of the other branches, not just of the rear guard or the army guard. it would be the same situation. general mckinley, you said in your letter that is uniquely positioned to provide the situational awareness of state and federal military forces operating in unity of effort in the homeland to ensure that it is fully considered a domestic mission. i'd think you are right about that and as we have looked back, we have seen that the guard has not been adequately resources. i will not suggest that it will go on indefinitely in the future because we are seeing the change to an operational reserve that will have to be adequately resources. i can tell you that as a governor, i will tell you that that resource and will occur if i knew that the head of the guard was seated at the table. it doesn't take away anything from any of you committed to the total force and a total security of my country. i understand that change is difficult. it is not easy to come by. and whether or not something occurred in 20 years ago or not probably doesn't necessarily mean that we can look at it today in light of the changes that the guard who has gone through as we have seen it throughout these last 10 to 12 years. i do have a question, i know the part of the requirement for adding the chief of the national guard bureau is at least a recognition that his advice will be more critical than ever heading into a time of budget austerity. as you are looking toward your future requirements for the air force, how're you going to work with general mckinley to have a total force approach in terms of resources and readiness? >> i think it is important to say at the outset that the joint chiefs is not a resource for run. it is a strategic for of four, again, employment of the armed forces and providing military advice in that context. there are other resources in the department were the chief and national guard bureau clearly have a seat at the table. with regard to the air force specifically, the deputy, the lieutenant general from the great state of oklahoma is our principal staff officer regarding national guard matters. his people have complete access to all of the internal activities with regard to the headquarters whether it is resources in, making decisions on equipment and so forth. additionally, we have offered, and the general will take us up on this, do have a presence on the air force council, the senior most resources activity within our headquarters. the bottom line is, the air national guard has a consistent seat at the table for internal deliberations. we certainly interact as a think he will verify and on all matters including management of senior officers. this is a partnership between us. i will go back to first principles that the joint chief is not a resource in form. >> of the recommendations you make are based on what you think of the resources would require at necessary for carrying out your mission. whether it is establishing resources are making recommendations, you have to discuss what resources are necessary in your opinion to be able to carry out your message or your mission. general mcanally obviously has a role there. i assume that would be true with the army guard as well. >> as we develop the army budget every year the guard praised the critical will in developing our budget. -- the guard plays a critical role in developing our budget. >> i commend you on your ability to sit at a table and disagree but not be disagreeable. i appreciate very much your input. it is a challenge how to decide to best take care of our national defense. you do it every day. we appreciate you, particularly on this eve of veterans day. thank you all. >> thank you for holding this hearing, i think it has been very healthy for the discussion. has any former chief joint staff supported this legislation? >> not to my knowledge. >> i have no knowledge of that, senator. >> and you have knowledge of anyone supporting it? a >> i have no knowledge of the contrary either. >> anyone who is saying that the citizen soldiers are not at the table right out is being unnecessarily divisive at unfair to the storage of and leadership of the army air force. citizen soldiers are at the table, they have been respected throughout the entire history of this country. we all have great appreciation for that, but we need to recognize that throughout history, the national guard has frequently answered the call. if you live in the number of forces that came from the national guard, 100,000 went to korea. this has always been the case. and particularly since the total force concept was announced and i had the privilege of being assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs at the time that we were really working these matters out. the national guard has really been able to have them put in a very measurable way. i believe this legislation is unnecessary. i would like to respond to some of the comments made about the marine corps. and my role in terms of articulating the legitimacy of the marine corps's role. i wrote an article in 1972. this has been circulated by the proponents of this legislation. i am flattered that somebody remembered this article from 39 years ago. the most important aspect of that article was that the marine corps is a separate service. it is the obvious, take a look at general amos. they wear different uniforms. the army national guard has a history of being equipped as part of the united states army. it is conceptually in an entirely different matter. that the joint chiefs of staff have been failing to represent the interests of the army guard and the army, or the air guard into the air force. general, would you say there has been any indication of that? >> not only is there no indication, it just isn't accurate. they are represented by the service chiefs. >> would you agree that the guard is as well represented as the air force reserve and the army reserve? >> i do, senator. >> and adding the reserve chiefs as members of the joint chiefs of staff? >> i would recommend against it for the same reason i recommend against adding the guard. >> i have that observation from having spent three years and being the secretary's principal advisor on guard and reserve matters. there are a number of other jurisdictions in which a non title that obligation is considered. some are quite frankly jealously guarded by the political process of the governors. arertainly don't say they in any way disregarded. we do have an assistant secretary of defense that is responsible for a homeland security matters and is a direct adviser to the secretary of defense. i am opposed to this legislation. i believe is unnecessary, i don't see there being a value and i understand the complications. >> i have more respect than i ever describe for the guy sitting to my immediate left your for a myriad of reasons including his incredible service to our country as a member of the armed services and as a marine. i also appreciated the incredibly effective cross- examination of mr. gramm. you could tell he spent some time in the court room. this is a difficult question, and the only thing i want to point out with mr. johnson, i looked it your testimony and it appears to me that you have not said whether or not you support or so -- or oppose this legislation, the u.s. to make sure that is not legally ambiguous. is that a correct supposition? >> i am not here to point out a policy perspective. i am here to point out the potential ambiguities of his becoming law. >> i just wanted to put that on the record because those a little surprised that we're going to campaign materials as part of this hearing. it doesn't seem likely have to bring it into this hearing. i want to specifically, for a minute, go to the situation at dover and i don't want to dwell on how hard this has to be for you and the leadership of the air force. no one needs to convince me that you want to get this right. i tell you what i do want to bring to your attention, that is the finding of office of special counsel. fees to the people understand what it is, it is an investigatory and prosecution oriented agency whose primary responsibility is to be independent of all of the agencies and protect whistle- blowers. what i am concerned about is their investigation into what the air force did in response to whistleblowers? and the fact that the i.g. of the air force have failed to report wrongdoing. the problems that have occurred because of the mishandling of the sacred remains of the fallen, i am not sure they have been held as accountable as what we saw happen in arlington with connection to that heartbreaking incompetence. what i want to make sure is that there is an independent investigation as to whether are not -- or not the ig shaded it a little bit because people were feeling protective of the institutions for all the right reasons. i am sure they do it with a heavy heart and a passion for getting it right. i want to make sure that the inspector generals are not so busy looking after the institution that they fail to point out wrongdoing which was not ever acknowledged and that there is accountability for the people involved. i want you to address the special counsel's report has a relates to the air force investigation. >> senator, there clearly were unacceptable mistakes made. whether they constitute wrongdoing is another matter entirely. and when you look at a situation like this, you look at the facts of the case as an attorney might say. you look at the context in which the event of mistakes occurred. you also consider the demands that are placed on the individuals and organizations. with respect to accountability, we also have an obligation to insure that the statutory requirements for due process were followed. we did that precisely. i can only speak for the case of the uniformed officer. the uniformed officer received a letter of reprimand. there is an unfavorable information file. we removed him from the command lists and as a group commander at the air force base, it was redlined. this is not a trivial sanction. >> i understand that is not a trivial sanction. i am worried that there was a conclusion that there was not an obligation to notify the families, and his deals with more than uniform personnel. the secretary of the air force is copied on the letter i sent today. nobody was intentionally miss marking graves. they were mistakes, too. i want to make sure that we have really clear eyes while we have full hearts of of the aggressive needed for investigations by the inspector general in circumstances like this. think you will for being here today. >> let me thank each and every one of you, it is very impressive to have the leaders of the services of the greatest defense of the country one could ever hope to live then. i appreciate the respect you all have for each other, it is evident. i must say that my experience as the governor which a think is the greatest honor is to be governor. the close relationship is commander in chief, a little bit much, if you will. i can assure you that watching the performance of the guardsmen i have met all over this country his unparalleled anything i have been witness to. i had a chance to go to other governors. we were able to say thank you to our troops for the services they gave. and every one of the commanders of every base that we have attended and a visit his make a point to come up to me. they say, i want to tell you of the expertise, professionalism, and commitments that your guardsmen have and what an asset they are to our command. i did not see the difference. and i never really thought about why it hadn't been looked upon equally at the pentagon. i have thought about this quite a bit since then. i of change is hard. the thing i would ask, and whoever would want to end to this, do any of you believe, and the thing he could tell there have been some wonderful questions and wonderful testimonies. senator gramm doesn't expert job of holding his emotions back and his feelings. with that being said, do any of you believe that this legislation and i believe it will be passed, you have a hard time settling in to be able to do the job you're charged with the doing for the defense of our country? >> i will start, center. thank you for the opportunity. you're the second senator to imply that we are averse to change. i promise you we are one of the must change oriented organizations you will see appear before you at any time, and that change will be clear to you as you see the effect of some of the budget decisions being made. we are not averse to change or are we resistant. this body charges you to give us the best military advice. you are getting it because we have a system in place that works remarkably well. we have one army and we have won air force. i don't know what impact this will have. your sensing some reluctance to embrace something. it could be that nothing changes. that could be the best possible outcome. if nothing is going to change, why are we changing? the decision before you is one of context. adding that mr. mckinley to the joint chiefs of which would be a service to the citizen soldiers, i get that. for me, it is a more compelling argument for saying i want soldiers from you and i don't care if they are active guard or reserve. i don't know the answer to your question, but i am concerned about it. be in the position you were if the orders that were evaluated and accepted, i don't anticipate anything different from that. truly, the guard is the only visible of our defense department right now that citizens of this great country can connect to. if it wasn't for the guard, we would not know there is a conflict. it is the brothers and sisters that get redeployed, we are sending them off, the states come about. we welcome them home. we cry, we mourn with them. there the fabric of our whole defense system. that is why some of us are so passionate, to have equal footing. i think you have to be as frustrated as myself, looking at the functions of congress right now. we can't come to an agreement on anything. please don't deny us this moment. deny us ast democrats and republicans coming together. we might respectfully disagree, but we sure do respect you at the highest levels. we hope you would consider this legislation. i want to encourage the chairman to make sure that the leader knows how important is for this piece of legislation. i am sure this will be an amendment. i know you have been working diligently and the support you 100%. i support the guard being a full standing member. >> this has been a very important hearing. we have very divided views on this committee. i hope that we get the bill to the floor by the end of -- and before we get to thanksgiving. by any event, the bill will be coming to the floor and i am sure there'll be an amendment. i think the fact that you have all appeared here today with such dignity and character in direct s which we welcome is important that we hear the views varnished. we did not see policy. what you ask is a lawyer to appear before the committee. we will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> extremism in the defense of liberty is no bias. [applause] let me remind you also, that the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost to lyndon johnson, but barry goldwater galvanized the conservative movement. the five-term senator from arizona is featured on the contenders. live tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> on wednesday, eight republican presidential candidates participated in a debate focused on the u.s. economy, jobs, taxes, the deficit. you can watch the debate hosted by the michigan republican party on our companion network, c-span 2. on this veteran's day, the iwo jima memorial honoring marines died defending the u.s. since 1975. the sculpture is 32 feet high and is inspired by a pulitzer prize-winning photo. the small island in the pacific was the last territory that u.s. troops recaptured it during the second world war. this week, "washington journal" is taking an in-depth look at the u.s. military. efforts to prevent military suicides. this is 25 minutes. >> of veterans day continues, let me introduce you to our next guest. our next guest. margaret harrell is a senior fellow of the center for new american security. she has spent much of her academic career becoming a specialist in military manpower and personnel, issues with military families, and overall quality of life for the military. she is the co-author a report on military suicide. we will learn more from her about the size and scope of the problem and what the military and other organizations are doing to address it. "time" has a cover story today on military suicide for veterans day. give us a sense of the size of the problem for those serving and for veterans. guest: as we look at our experience over 10 years of war, we are distressed that the rate of suicide among service numbers has increasing to a rate much higher than the comparable civilian population. that is the most of those who are serving. we have less information about suicide among veterans. we're concerned as many as 18 veterans today are losing their lives to suicide. that is an estimate. we hope the number would be lower, but it might be higher. host: why are you so pessimistic about the situation? guest: every time we lose a service member or veteran to suicide, they have lost their personal battle and we have lost a battle. we can hope efforts to redress the situation are improving and we may eventually win the war. currently, we're losing the battle several times a day. host: what we know about the causes for the increase in suicide? guest: suicide is a complicated issue. it is an individual issue. we have tried to understand if it is linked to the point. it seems obvious that after 10 years of war, the increase in rates would be tied to the war itself. the day and confound us -- the data confound us. army members who commit suicide or often deployed. in the other services, we do not see the link. it is especially confusing. host: these two ports have had a higher proportion of people from the national guard and reserve. they may be getting multiple deployments and then integrating into civilian life. do they have particular issues? guest: we are especially concerned about them. many of the programs and efforts to address suicide have an emphasis on watching others and help to recognize when people exhibit warning signs. with the guard and reserve, we are concerned they are away from the support network. they're not touching their buddies. that is of concern. they do have special issues. host: you write about some of the causes. there is an interesting discussion about a sense of purpose and one house in the military, the adrenalin, the sense of mission. when you come home and integrate, there is a struggle for real meaning. i was doing meaningful work before and now i am sitting at a desk. what can be done? that is the reality of life. what can be done to help people adjust to the change in their environment? guest: being useful and feeling you belong are two critical project of factors for suicide. when guardsmen and reservists come home from having done extremely meaningful work, and belonging to a cohesive unit they may not feel family and friends fully understand what they have done or that they belong. if they are facing in plymouth struggles, they are especially at risk. -- if they are facing employment struggles, they are especially at risk. host: there are also many cases of depression being dealt with in communities. with the large influx of soldiers coming home, it is important for us to understand the potential issues facing them as they reintegrate into society. meg harrell is our guest. we will take telephone calls. you can also tweet us. what is the impact on the military of the increased suicide rates? what is it doing tomorrow? it doing to morale? guest: some would say they are small numbers. the reality is every time a unit loses a sailor, soldier, or marine, the effect of that is tremendous. we hear from commanders this is something they are dealing with everyday. we're trying to ensure their service members are safe. host: requested by twitter -- a question by twitter. james asks if the training that stresses brotherhood to the end could be part of the problem. guest: i do not see how training that emphasizes brothership and the sense of cohesion could be part of the problem. host: we of this question by twitter about whether the increased number of suicides is because of the increased number of veterans. guest: there is an increasing number of veterans. we do not think the number of suicides is strictly related to veterans. the rate of suicide is not related to the numbers. we do not know which veterans we're losing to suicide. we do not know if they are veterans of iraq and afghanistan or of an older generation. that is because of the lack of efficient reporting. there are only 16 states that indicated in the death data whether someone was a former service members. the data for the other 34 states are extrapolated. host: who is working to increase the reporting? guest: the states themselves need to make the adjustment in their death reporting data to indicate whether an individual who died by any means is a former service members. there is currently an effort between dod and va to match that data with social security numbers to proactively identify veterans we have lost. host: when service members come home, is there a screening process to identify those who might be at risk? guest: there is the post- deployment health assessment that each returning service member completes to determine if they need follow-up care. this is while they're still on active duty. in the past, the pdha has been problematic in the way that people take it. in the past, we have heard from service members that commanders encourage them to downplay their potential problems. the concern was it would delay them from getting home to their families. they were all eager to return home to their families. the reality is we need to know which service members are likely to have problems so we can help them. that is being addressed. there is a law that says each of those must be administered on a one-on-one basis with eight trained health provider -- with a trained health provider. that should help. host: does the information adequately follow the service member when they move from active to veteran status? guest: that is the concern. symptoms appeared later. the questionnaire may not be fully indicative of problems they may have later. it is a challenge. host: let's take our first question. caller: my question is, the suicide rate of the military has a lot to do with the love and care for the troops go into no- win wars and the guilt and shame when we come home from family. they do not really care. i feel the country has lost god and country, respect for each other. bring our troops home to clean our country up. host: respect to the troops, he thinks that may be a contributing factor to the suicide rate. guest: those returning now know how different the reception is now compared to those from earlier generations, especially vietnam. the veterans to return now are well-received in their communities. the problem is not the civilian community is not supportive of veterans. it is that they do not really understand them. 99% of the population does not understand what those who serve have contributed and sacrificed. host: our next call is from joyce, a democrat from florida. caller: i am a mental health therapist. i have a master's degree. my son camel from desert storm. he was very depressed. -- my son came home from desert storm. he was very depressed. his friend had been killed by friendly fire. he asked why children were getting killed in war. they changed him to chemical warfare. he got upset because he did not want the chemicals to kill more people. in the interim, he committed suicide. he was a straight a student, a good conduct medal. i worked with him. he was 21 years old. how could i have gotten him as a mental health therapist to have gotten help? host: let's leave your question there. thank you for sharing the story. that is a very sad personal story. guest: thank you for your call. i am very sorry for the sacrifice that your family has made. each suicide story illustrates what a terrible tragedy this is for our nation in general and for individual families and service members. the health benefits is available for service members or families who believe their service member is challenge. one of the best resources is the national suicide line. it does have a special feature for veterans, current service members, and family members. host: we have two ways to get help. the veteran affairs crisis line and the website. we will put both of those on the screen for families who might be needing more information about this. there is the number if you need to call. those are the two resources for you. how do suicide rates compared to past wars? the numbers seems so unbelievably high. enough is not being done. guest: we do not know lot about how they compared to past wars. unfortunately, we do not have full data on the veterans we are losing. i would be concerned about say we should slow down the effort -- saying we should slow down the effort. we need to apply full power regardless of how it compares to the past. host: let's put up the suicide number again on the screen for people joining us, to get an idea of the size and scope of the problem. this is the number of service members who took their lives. tooke their lives at the rate of one every 36 hours. a veteran dies by suicide every 80 minutes. looking at some of the reading about the obstacles to suicide prevention, we have talked about some of them. the mental health screening process needs improvement. insufficient mental health providers within the military and veterans' departments themselves. our last best says they are trying to deploy more mental health personnel. how is that going? guest: it is a trade-off. it is a national problem. given the shortage of providers, every time you make a decision about where to allocate those, there are trade-offs involved. i was on the telephone recently with a service member in one of our war your transition units. part of the care she is receiving psychiatric care. they had just to play her provider to theater. his being there will help many deployed soldiers and marines, but the trade-off is he leaves behind patients. it is very difficult decision on where to put the care you have. host: this sounds like something that could be fixed. too frequent personnel transfers contributing to a lack of stability when people are trying to adjust. is the military aware of this? are changes coming? guest: we talk about the post- deployment cohesion. the marines have recognized the importance of this. they recognize when marines come home from deployment, if they're having difficulty adjusting to life at home and need help, those most likely to recognize the warning signs are their buddies and leaders who have known them through deployment. when you come home and immediately disband a unit, these service members are not around the people most likely to recognize the signs. the marine corps has instituted a 90-day stability. . units that deployed together stays together at home. we have recommended that the army institute a similar policy. host: the next call is from asheville, north carolina. robert is a veteran. caller: i am a combat veteran from the vietnam era. i think it would be very helpful if you had another wall for all of the veterans who have taken their lives, a suicide wall. the previous guest gave lip service to the programs the government offers. sometimes they do not deliver when the veteran comes around on the merry go round, they do not have the ring that they are reaching for. some of these programs are just a facade and do not live up to their advertisement. that is my comment this morning. guest: i agree that all service members that are lost should be honored and commemorated. we need to recognize those that we lose to suicide are often lost to wounds from the war. host: the next call is from a veteran in florida. caller: i am a vietnam veteran as well. i was in a support unit. when you come out of the service and get into civilian life, the military is structured where you have to qualify yourself to go up in the ranks of authority. in a normal civilian work force, sometimes people are less qualified and they get promoted above you. you may know more than the person being promoted. that can be very stressful. if you have a family, that can be extra stress. i wonder if that could be a contributing factor. guest: if i understand correctly, you are contrasting the military system meritocracy and promotion with the civilian society. you may be very proficient and capable at what you do but are not recognized for that. i think frustration in your personal and professional life can certainly be contributing factors. each individual case is different. it is difficult to know what pushes an individual to such despair. host: omaha, neb., chad is a democrat. caller: for people who go into combat, in need to watch videos to see how bloody it is before they go do it. that would prepare them for battle. when i was in the military, i noticed the suicide rate in alaska was high. the reason for that is because there is no unit cohesion. the unit commanders are not forcing the soldiers to participate in sports to build camaraderie. that is all i have to say. host: two topics, let's take them separately. the first is more information at the recruitment stage before people get into this profession. guest: a certainly agree there is a tremendous need for people to be fully prepared for when they go on the planet. that is traing and emotional. this. i think the services have taken on and recognize that. host: there used to be time for picnics, barbecues, things to get people together in a less stressful way. there is so much for military members to do now and that has declined. guest: i do not know if there's a clear consequence from having fewer picnics to the tragedy of suicide. i would recognize that all our military units are under tremendous stress. host: i have another statistic. in the next segment, we will be graphics.t the democra more than seven soldiers survived compared to each one that dies. look at how that has gone up from other wars. in vietnam, it was almost a two to one ratio of those who died to those survived. what is the effect of that on suicide rates? guest: i think it does bring many more previously wounded home. it is not clear if carefully counting those with traumatic brain injuries and posttraumatic stress issues. host: becky is a republican from tulsa. caller: my nephew came home from afghanistan. he was diagnosed with ptsd. he was released from the military for that. the only answer from the military doctors was to give him medication. there was nothing done to help him deal with the underlying issues, to give him tools. what can we do as the american public to do something to effect change and say we're not just going to medicate, we're going to do something better than that? guest: thank you for your call. that is an issue i hear frequently. the concern is that what individuals struggling really need is care in the form of counseling and extended care. medication is a quicker answer. it is not always the right answer. sometimes that is a reflection of the shortage of care providers we have in the effort to treat so many who need care. there are so few opportunities for providers to help them. that will be a continuing issue. i would encourage you and other families to be aware of the struggles better service member may be having. if they are not willing to seek help, seek help for them. host: some centers offer counseling and outreach services, the national center for ptsd has information about trauma. the award-related illness and injury studies center has mental health available. i would like to put the phone number on the screen again for the veterans affairs crisis line. if you or members of your family would like more information about dealing with mental health issues, you could call. we have a few minutes left. the next telephone call is from michigan, outside detroit. michael is a veteran. caller: i came out of the service in 1976. i went to work. i worked for years. the injuries i sustained in the military, up with me -- caught up with me. my only choice is the va and barbara -- an arbor health care system. you get an appointment three months from now. you get a new doctor every time. you have to start over again every time. it is a never ending merry-go- round. your issues never get solved. a lot of veterans get discouraged like i am right now. if they cannot do better, we just stop going. it is such a hassle. what is going to be done about it? what are you doing to make it better for us who have to go to the doctor but we cannot get a doctor. it is like shuffling paper work. guest: thank you, michael. you raise the right issues. these are things the va should be addressing. i understand the va is aware of this issue. they are working on this. i think it is well within the rights of every citizen to be questioning and pushing the va for metrics on how well they're helping veterans. host: we will close with this comment from jim on twitter. on this veterans day, we say thank you to meg harrell to talk about her report on military >> extremism in the face of liberty is no vice. moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1954 presidential 1964tion to -- the si presidential election to lyndon johnson and but he changed the conservative movement forever. very cold water is the subject of our c-span show "the contenders." >> here is a look at arlington cemetery. this is across from the lincoln memorial. it became a cemetery for the civil war veterans and belonged to robert e. lee. since then, soldiers from each of the nation's wars have been interred here. next, we will be talking with the bureau chief of the "military times." we would like to invite active duty members to take a special part in this. as we look at the demographics, call us and tell us why you chose to enter the military. service to country campos 9/11. were you looking for a job, education? what motivated you to become a member of the armed forces and help us to understand a little bit of the story. first of all, you look at the overall saga which has decreased quite a lot in 1990. how large is the active-duty military force today? caller: -- >> this is currently at 1.4 million. this was called a peace dividend, the effort was to find some savings. >> it seems as though what gives here rises in other places. host: all along that is the use of contractors and reservists. can you talk about that? guest: there is an effort to privatize the various military missions and there has been a huge growth in military contractors. this force is used very routinely. they can expect to be mobilized every five-six years. host: will there be additional drawdowns in the size of the active military? guest: there seems to be a quiet consensus that there will continue to reduce the size of the ground forces. those forces have grown significantly over the past 10 years. there are many people are talking about bringing the active duty army into the reserve component. >> our question is for those of you who are in the military. active-duty and reserve, you can use this number. our question is, why did you choose to serve? the next statistic is the great increase in the number of people in the military who are married. the number has gone a low of 43% to 53.1% who are active duty or married. what are the implications? , moving in the 1970's out of the draft era, the military was very much largely on single men over the years, it has been a tight knit community and much more family oriented. people are serving longer than they used to. there were people who would come in at 18 and leave in their early 20's. you have a lot of people getting married and having kids and having a full family life. host: this is a page full of lots of statistics. the ratio of men to women, 86% and women make up about 14%. guest: there is a growing number of women in the military. the marines is still largely very mail service. the air force is almost 50/50. host: with the increasing number of women, how are their roles changing? guest: it used to be that women were not allowed to be fighter jet pilots and that they cannot be and submarines. now, there is the first wave of women submarine officers coming in. pretty much with the exception of the infantry combat arms, women are serving in every job of the military service. host: how has the military had to change with the influx of women? >> there are subtle changes. there is a certain political correctness that they have settled into the military and there are a lot of issues with sexual harassment. the naval aviation community seems to be old school and there was some controversy about how women have been treated in that community. slowly and surely i think the military has adjusted. this always seemed to be less of an issue after the fact as people compared -- to warnings that people have beforehand. host: one more set of numbers. this is the age breakdown. this is still a young person's game. the largest percentage, 45%, 18- 25. guest: the military is getting older and a lot of ways. they are getting largely young men. as the military has got smaller, it has gotten more professional. the jobs require a higher level of education and technical training. the force has gotten older. this is still a pretty young force. i remember the first, when with the troops in iraq. when you get off of the helicopter, it is a really young crowd. the 10% that are over 40, most of the market the pentagon. caller: i have a question. there was a previous caller who said when you go to the hospital, you have to go 70 or 80 miles. you have to wait four hours. i do not want to go through the whole thing he said. why can the system not be changed and we can go anywhere we want, and hospitals and clinics, so forth and so forth? we have to travel hundreds of miles with gas $4 a gallon. host: what about opening up the medical system for veterans to be treated anywhere? guest: i think there is an effort to do that. a lot of that stems from the decisions of the past couple of decades. during the cold war drawdown, the closed military bases. it used to be that no matter where a veteran live, there would be close to a medical base and facility. that is not the case anymore. that is something the pentagon and help the fares are struggling with, to try to get access for people who may not be near a medical facility. host: chris is an active duty military member. caller: my reasons for joining, my father was in the navy. i did not want to do something considered a conventional job. i did not want to work at a desk. i wanted to do something different and see the world. therefore, i am in the navy. i have been in five years. host: do you have plans to make a career? caller: i am obligated for another six years. probably, yes. host: how has your life changed being in the navy? caller: i think i am more organized and aware of things that have been compared to my civilian counterparts. i work with a lot of civilians now at a college. it is amazing to see where people who go through college are compared to someone in the navy. i am the surface warfare officer. i am responsible for navy ships. host: military family, how common is that today? guest: in some ways, is more common than ever before. recruiters know having a parent in the military is a big indicator of whether someone will join themselves. there are fewer young men in america that have a father who served in the military. it is still a prime target for recruiters. increasingly, the all volunteer military has become very family oriented. a lot of people injured the same service their parents did and are guided by the family connections. >> 53.1% is the statistic on families in the military. 36% of military spouses are not in the labour force. a viewer asked how many husbands and wives both serve. that would be 14%, according to this graph. how many leave children at home when they are serving? how large an issue is that for the modern military? guest: i think it is an issue. to put the statistics in context, you do have a lot of people who come into the military. they meet when they are young. they get married. by the time they begin to have one or two children, one of them will leave the military and let the other spouse continue on to a full career. the other spouse will step aside into an alternative career. it is extremely difficult. there are a lot of stories about two parents who have to deploy at the same time. a child or children in the. a grandparent or other family members. there have been some single parents who refused to deploy because they are not happy with the arrangements for their children. it is not extremely common, but it is a contentious issue when it does come up. host: we were sent this story by twitter. he joined out of respect to his dad, a family tradition, and country. the next telephone call is from bill, active duty at camp lejeune in north carolina. why did you sign up? caller: i joined because i wanted to see the world. i grew up in a small town that had service industries. i wanted to see what was out there. i was originally from boca raton, florida. i am in wedtech and to public health work. -- i am a man tech -- med tech and to public health court. i have been deployed multiple times. i was able to get a bachelor degree along the way. i have been in 19.5 years. i plan to retire to florida and work in emergency management. i will do that in june. host: you are leaving after 20 years? caller: when you reach a certain rank, you have to retire at 20 years if you do not reach e7? caller: i am little leery on the economy right now. i know they have veteran's preference programs and all of that, but i am still a little nervous. i know people who have retired before me. not all of them are finding jobs right now even with college degrees. i will see how that goes. host: good luck to you and thank you for your service. the and implement rate right now among veterans is 12% compared to the national average of 9%. -- the unemployment rate right now among veterans is 12% compared to the national average of 9%. will this new program address veteran unemployment in a meaningful way? guest: i think the programs are well-intentioned but there are sharks will issues. one is the economy. the economy in this particular recession has hit young men much more severely than other demographic groups it is young men who are the demographic leaving the military. that is a big challenge to surmount. i also think the military is increasingly isolated from other parts of america. some veterans have a tough time integrating back into their home towns. the social networking is still based on the military community. a lot of the language, the acronyms, it is hard for prospective employers to understand what they're saying. there are cultural barriers as well as economic. host: we started out talking about 1% of the population that serves in the military and the fact that has on the military and society. here is a chart that illustrates it from a different perspective. back in world war ii, 60 million americans served on active duty. today in the whole 10 years post 9/11, about 4 million people have served in the military in a nation with about 300 million in it. the next call is from middletown, new jersey. this is david, who is also a veteran. caller: good morning, c-span, the best television channel we have. host: why did you decide to serve in the military? caller: in world war ii, everybody served the country. if you were in the military or on the home front, everybody worked together to defeat the axis. the one word that describes the american people during world war ii was "we." we worked together, everybody. 16 million served in the military in world war ii. right now, there are less than 2 million left. we're losing world war ii veterans of the rate of over 1100 a day. our current veterans, bless them, they serve honorably just like every veteran who has ever served. what i would like to say is that our country is divided today, unfortunately. "we" is not what describes our current generation. the word that describes the current generation unfortunately is "me." our armed forces throughout the world wear a patch on their right shoulder. it does not a democrat, republican, liberal, conservative. it is the american flag. they are fighting as americans. we as a people have to come together and do what is best for the country. host: thank you for your call this morning. guest: david has articulated some of the same things that former defense secretary robert gates has said. they have repeatedly expressed concern about the fact the military seems to be increasingly isolated and separate from the population. it puts an extraordinary strain on the people who serve in the military. it renders a lot of the civilian community with a lack of understanding of what the military community goes through, particularly over the past 10 years when it has been a real strain. host: joe writes it is not the job, the venture -- adventure. damnedesting thae people on earth. guest: the commander a few days ago made an interesting remark. he said he hates mind feels -- mind feels -- minefields, but he loves spending time with people willing to go into them. if you ask a lot of people why they stay in the military, they really like that community and social fabric. they like to serve alongside the people in their units. host: bob gates spent a lot of time bringing up the theme about the disconnection between the public at large and the people who serve in the military. we have a bit of him on videotape. >> when it comes to officer recruitment and training, one study showed the state of alabama with a population of less than 5 million people has 10th army rotc host programs. by contrast, the los angeles metro area with a population of over 12 million has four. the chicago metro area with a population of 9 million has three. it makes sense to focus on places where space is ample and inexpensive, where candidates are most inclined to sign up and pursue a career in uniform. however, there is a real risk of developing an officer cadre that is politically, culturally, and geographically having less and less in common with the majority of the people they have sworn to defend. host: we are talking on this veterans day with andrew til ghman. he is helping us to understand the demographics of today's military. we are asking those of you who are veterans or active duty while you surf. what do you do in the military? caller: i am an infantry officer. i worked up from private through officer school and made it to the rank of captain. i have served three terms, all three times in a rock iraq. on the most current trip, i was wounded. i am wounded warrior as well. host: are you in the hospital in washington? caller: i was at walter reed. walter reed closed. we moved to fort belfour. host: how can you compare what it was like at walter reed versus your new quarters? caller: i think all the wounded warriors at walter reed had an affinity for walter reed. it was historic. there was a common theme. ric.as very warrior-centur these facilities are world class, but it is an army base. it is a different experience than being wounded-warrior- centric as it was at walter reed. i signed up when i was 18 in 1995. i would absolutely do it again today. the reason i am calling is because this past thursday we were supposed to go up to the white house. i was really excited to go and visit the white house facilities. i received a message that due to a background check, i was not able to attend the white house. i did not receive any type of reasoning behind that. i have top-secret clearance. i was really concerned and wanted to know if there was something i could do to look into that. it bothered me i could serve the country and get winded for our country, but i could not visit the white house. i have a question about whether there is something i could do to change that. i would love to visit the white house. i think the white house is the symbol of our country. that is the reason why we serve. host: hell are you doing with your rehabilitation -- how are you doing with your rehabilitation? caller: i have had a second surgery on my hand. recovery is going good. my spirits are high. i am hoping i can get back to functional to get back out there. host: good luck in your recovery. we appreciate you participating this morning. that is a personal story. do you know about any recourse an individual soldier would have if they have gotten the message like that? guest: now, that surprises me. he indicates he has top-secret clearance. i do not know why they would give someone top-secret clearance and not let them visit the white house. i can certainly understand his frustration. host: have been looking at the brand-new cover story on "time." there is a paragraph in here. he writes that on close inspection, we are outsourcing our security to a smaller group f citizens and some of thit to non-citizens. guest: i do not think is illegals becoming citizens as a result of military service. those are non-citizens who are here legally. they may be expediting the process to full citizenship through military service. the military is not taking illegal immigrants as recruits. it is relying more on non- citizens. in iraq, i have seen citizenship ceremonies occurring at camp with jet in iraq -- camp fallujiah in iraq. a guy can going from being here on the green card to a full- fledged citizen in less than a year. host: here is the breakdown of today's active military. how much do those numbers look like america? guest: in many ways, they look like america. the african-american communities are little over represented. the hispanic communities are a little under-represented. recruiting among african- americans nosedived during the last decade. the war in iraq proved to be unpopular among a lot of african-americans. as a result, their interest in joining the military decreased a lot for a few years. i think that has begun to go back up again. a lot of the white service members are disproportionately from the south. the states of the old confederacy to carry on in military tradition that does not exist in other parts of the country. recruiting in new england is far lower. host: we heard that in bob gates' remarks. judy, you are on as we talk about the military by the numbers. caller: the reason i called is i am an army brat. i became a military wife. i have two sections i can look at this from. my father came home from vietnam. we had to deal with it. there was not anything available. we just have to deal with that if a firecracker went off and dad went under the bed. his anger was extreme. on this posttraumatic syndrome, they need to bring the families in and asked if the fathers of change -- if the fathers have changed to see if they noticed something different where the child and mother could talk. we lived through that. my father served in vietnam, korea, the japan tribunals. he is now 83 years old. i have been fighting for three months now. we're supposed to have these veterans programs available for people 75 and older where he can get in-house care. my mother has now passed. i recently found out the program is available in tennessee. my father lives in kentucky. it is not open their. i was wondering if we have these things that we announce the veterans can use. guest: that is something the department of veterans affairs has continued to work on. they have been overwhelmed over the past 10 years with claims and a lot of problems that stemmed from the wars of the past 10 years. she makes a good point about how her family reacted to some of these problems. the army and marine corps have vastly expanded its services for active duty troops and family members. there has been a recognition over the past six or eight years that the whole family is affected by and should be involved in helping with the stresses of deployment. host: the army told him to sign up for six years and see germany. they sent him to alaska. 81% of the current military have high-school and some college. 18% are college graduates or higher. how does that compare to the population as a whole? i think the high school numbers are higher. guest: the vast majority of the enlisted force has a high school degree compared to 80% in the general population. most officers have a college degree. i am not sure how that compares to the population at large. another interesting thing the study found is that the percentage of the officer corps that does not have a college degree has increased over the last few years. i think that is because they are pulling officers out of the enlisted ranks more than they used to. host: there are 1.4 million men and women on active duty. we are going to look at this chart that shows the breakdown of which services they serve in. george is a veteran from indianapolis. go ahead. caller: i called because i wanted to speak in praise of the va hospital system. i am the korean war veteran. i have been going to the va for a long time. the va hospital in indianapolis has got to be one of the finest in the country. i never have to wait on an appointment. i see the same doctor all the time. they really monitor what is going on with me as far as my health is concerned. i have a device in my home that they provided. it is took up to my telephone system. every morning, i take my weight and blood pressure readings. that is transmitted to the va hospital. there is someone monitoring that. they will call me if they find something that does not look right. i have heard lots of complaints about the va, but i am one that never has a complete about it. host: thank you for making that call. let me add some advice about the complaints. enter, you talked about this earlier. here are the actual statistics that show the older and longer- serving military. in 1973, officers had an average age of 32 years. it is now 34.5. the listed age has risen to 27.2. they are also longer-serving. the average years have risen to 10.9. among enlisted, it has gone to 6.7. guest: right now, the military is wrestling with the fact it has gotten expensive to have a longer-serving force with people reaching higher pay grades with higher levels of education and training. they cost more. host: is it recruitment and training expenses? guest: behind the numbers is the fact that more people are reaching retirement than they used to. military retirement benefits are extremely generous. that is something the pentagon is wrestling with right now. that is whether the system that has existed will be able to continue in this age of austerity. host: james is active duty from michigan. what is your story? caller: i have two questions for your guest. we have civilian control of our military. that is one of the underlying tenets of our society. how many presidents and those in positions of influence have served in the military? do we see that increasing or decreasing? from world war ii on, are we seeing people serve for reasons other than patriotism or serving the country? guest: i think the number of presidents and high-level civilian leaders who military experience is changing with the demographics of the country. bill clinton was the first president to not have military experience. president bush had some in the reserves. that is as much a reflection of their generation as it is their personal decision. the percentage of the country serving is far lower than it used to be. when you asked about the motivation people have for serving, it runs the gamut. a lot of people do site patriotism. increasingly, people site education benefits as a key reason for joining the military. there are education benefits while you are on active duty and the gi benefits. those are extremely popular and a big recruiting tool. that only increases with time. the economy is a big factor. recruiters no the biggest factor of recruiting is the economic pressures young people feel when making the decision. host: there are a hundred 50,000 men and women in the active reserves and national guard. -- there are 850,000 men and women in the act of reserves and national guard. let's go to our last phone call on veterans day. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a reservist in the united states army. the reason why i serve is i am a first-generation american. i proudly joined the military to serve my country because i am proud to be an american. a lot of people do not support our soldiers. it makes it hard when you come home to have to hear some of the things that people say or this respect. at the end of the day, it does not matter what you joined the military. it may have been for college come to see the world, or because you did not have another option. when you join, it becomes your family. it does not matter why you joined. you still have a job to do. it needs to get done. i feel like if civilians would understand what we do and why we do it, we would get more of the respect that we deserve. right now i am in transition going from enlisted to becoming an officer. i mean transport management specialist. -- i am a transport management specialist. my family is from nigeria. i have been in 2.5 years. i hope to be commissioned in 2013 and hope to get jag core. i want to make this a career. i love being in the military. host: we have a message from someone who signed up to go to the army's fort engineering. i want to say thank you to the pure research -- pugh research folks for their statistics. >> extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson, but his ideas and candor galvanized the conservative movement. the five-term senator from arizona is featured this week on "the contenders." live tonight at 8:00 eastern. in his new autobiographical narrative, he finally recognizes and comes to terms with his posttraumatic stress disorder decades after vietnam. >> i started telling this guy about my symptoms like jumping up in the military -- middle of the night not knowing what was going on. i would be angry and the car attacking the car behind me. he asked if i had ever been in a war. that hit me so hard. i was in the middle of this room with 80 people. i started bawling, snot coming out of my nose. it was that simple. he said i had ptsd and asked if i had ever heard of it. >> more about his life on sunday night. this weekend on c-span2, a discussion on the history of conservatism. connelly's arise recounts her years in the bush administration as secretary of state. president bill clinton's thoughts on the current state of the economy and his plans for recovery. look for the complete schedule online and sign up for alerts and schedules in your in box. >> are we still purchasing and doing business with these people? >> the parts we have been purchasing as part of the investigation are rare, hard to find, and obsolete parts that are still being utilized in major weapons systems. the internet purchasing platforms demonstrate that contractors or subcontractors are in need of these are hard to find parts have been out with through these purchasing platform to acquire these parts. the concern is the intent to deceive certainly exists. >> are we still purchasing? is the united states government still purchasing from these counterfeiters putting out inferior products? >> the internet trading platforms have 60 million line items and parts purchased on a regular basis. yes, sir. >> watch more on the senate hearing at the c-span and video library with every video we have. since 1987. it is washington, your way. on wednesday, eight candidates participated in a debate on the economy, taxes, and the deficit. you can see that tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. we have been looking at military monuments and sites around washington. here is the was jima -- iwo jima memorial. it is 32 feet high. it was inspired by a pulitzer- prizewinning botha from world war ii. it was the last territory u.s. troops recaptured from the japanese during the second world war. next, remarks from general richard myers. he spoke to a group of midshipmen and cadets at a conference in washington, addressing issues including the quality is important in leadership. and he shared stories from his military career. from the u.s. naval memorial, this is 45 minutes. >> hello? ok. we are going to talk about leadership. i thought it might be useful for the young folks in the audience to hear my way into the military. i do not know steves story totally. i know a lot of the folks here have served before. i have never had anybody in the family who served. i went to kansas state university. rotc was mandatory. there was a green line for the army and a blue line for the airports -- air force. i had to sign up for one of them. walking or flying. flying sounded better. i picked the air force line and went into the rotc. we have a great captain- instructor just back from england. they were singing fighter pilot songs, decent songs. he talked about flying the f 100 in england and what a thrill it was and what camaraderie there was. i thought it sounded interesting. i did not know anything about it. it was all new to me. i thought it really sounded interesting. my senior year, they said they would get me a pilot training slots. they said i could go through the introductory program in a cessna, just enough to get a license if you did not screw up during the 36-hour program. do we have any pilots or fliers in this group? the first time i broke ground in an airplane with the instructor, i said, this is cool. i liked the perspective. i liked the smell, sound, motion. i liked everything about it. for the first time in life, i had direction. that to me through senior r.o.t.c., my commission, and into the air force. i loved pilot training. a lot of people did not like it. i thought it was a blast. i did not think it was particularly hard although i worked hard at it. maybe that is why it was not hard. i work hard at it. i love it. i used to run up and down the flight line in a trolley just to smell the fuel being burned. i liked everything about flying. one day on which the air force base, i parked close to the end of the runway to watch the crop dusters do their work. i had a white chevrolet b elair. it had little yellow spots from that that never washed off. i was thrilled to see the crop duster doing his or her things so close to the ground. i loved everything about it, everything about flying. i went into the air force for pilot training. our commitment than was quarter years. -- our commitment than was four years. i stayed. i would like to talk about why i stayed. i stayed for 40 years. the plan was five years and then go do something else. but i stayed because of the military culture are found. -- i found. integrity really counts in the military. you have one chance and you had better not blow it when it comes to integrity. i will talk more about that in a minute. it was an organization that did not tolerate discrimination. it did not matter what religion, race, where you went to school. i went to kansas state university. it does not matter where you got your commission. you were welcomed. it was a meritocracy. you would succeed based on the effort you put into your career. steve rose to be an ace. the effort and all the other things that steve talked about. i liked the fact that there was always the sense in the early years that i was serving something a lot bigger than myself. that made me feel good. it is really good when you realize it is not all about you. it is about our country, our air force, our wing, our squadron, our flight mates. this is what this is about. you are part of this thing serving them. it is so much better than thinking about serving yourself some help. -- somehow. i liked the notion of teamwork. there is nothing good that happens in this world without teamwork, particularly in the u.s. military. you can count on everybody in the team to pull their hardest or you will not get the job done. steve talked about the challenges we face in leadership. jim said we ought to talk about leadership for tomorrow. the secret is that the leadership for tomorrow is the same region has the same characteristics that leadership has always had. you think about the challenges, environmental, fiscal, economic, security challenges that have not gone away although a lot of people would like to dismiss them. -- wee got to seriousl have some serious challenges in the united states and around the world. there are several traits basic to the character of those who will be good leaders that we can talk about a little bit. i will go back to integrity. that is why i stayed in the air force, in the military. doing what you say you will do, being trustworthy. i have been in flight briefings where you expect everybody to do what they are supposed to do. you cannot have a lone ranger in their deciding -- in there deciding to do something different. we've had people do something different to the heroes. that is not integrity. they jeopardize the flight integrity and even the mission when they do that. people can get hurt in that sort of thing. an example of integrity at the presidential level is a story that does not get a lot of talk. the day after 9/11, we were in the situation room having me first national security council meeting after 9/11. we were in the part of the white house where you went through some big balls. i guess you die slower in case of a nuclear attack. we went through all of this filtered air and vault stuff. we were having the first national security council meeting. we knew who perpetrated the act. we did not know what we were going to do about it. we were talking about general themes. we were having a wide-ranging discussion. at the end, he said something i thought was really profound about integrity. he says that to deal with the threat we witnessed on 9/11, we will probably have to do some things that are unpopular with the american public and others. he said we will have to do what we think is right. if that means this is a one-term administration, soviet -- so be it. i wrote it down. it was the president saying the right thing. we will have given it a shot to keep america safer. you may agree or disagree with his policies. that is not the point. the point is that he was doing things he thought were the right things to do. that is all we can ask of any of us, to say and do what you think is the right thing to do. that is one piece of integrity. my guess is that your integrity has been challenged. you have all taken tests in school. there have been temptations to cheat. i remember when i brought a report card home one time. he said, for sure we know you are not cheating. [laughter] but you have all been tempted. your integrity has been tested many times. i will give you another story where mine was tested. fortunately, i picked the right path. we had a process to choose folks to go to the weapons school at the air force base down in san antonio, texas. i was the commandant of the weapons school. i thought it would be great time down in san antonio. i would get there early, get my instructions, then go out and have a beer and mexican food. it was going to be really nice. my good friend don petersen was running that part of the personnel system at the time. he came up and said he had a letter i might want to read. it was from one of the biggest commanders in the united states. he owned about half of the fighter aircraft in the united states. my goal after being commandants of the weapons school was to be in the good graces of one of these three-star commanders so maybe i would have a chance to be a wing commander. the thought crossed my mind as i opened this letter from the commander. in a letter he sent his number one choice was so and so to go to the weapons school. please insure he comes out on the list of selectees. there were a couple of things wrong with it. there was no external influence allowed for school selection. it used to be that way and it changed. he was old school and remembered how it used to be. it had changed as he was working his way up the ranks. the second thing wrong with that was this was not the wing commander that boned this guy. i called the wing commander. he said that was the no. 4. he was a great guy but not ready. he needed more maturation. what to do? i called my wing commander and said i had a conflict. somebody was trying to influence the board process inappropriately. he said i had to do it. he is a big guy. i did not think that was helpful. i said thank you like i was going to do it and hung up the phone. my decision was to let the board process run. maybe by the grace of god this fellow would be on the list. s would be one of the scorer' along with other people. he did not make it because he did not have the experience and was not mature enough. i called my wing commander and said he did not make it. my wing commander said he had better call the three-star. i said i would do it. this is not someone i knew well. i arranged to have a discussion with the three-star air force commander. at that time, i did not know many generals. this was a three-star general. i called him up and explained to him. it took about three seconds to explain what happened. then i listened for about 15 minutes. the last part of his comment was that being a three-star in the air force did not mean much anymore. i called my wife and said for her to make sure her teaching certificate was up to date because i would be out of work shortly. [laughter] it worked out ok. doing the right thing always works out. if that was my last official are clear the air force, so be it. it turned out it was not even though i thought it could have been. there are people who will be on the side of doing the right thing. my wing commander told mike two- star who jumped in the fray. then they had to fight. it did not have to be between me and the sky. the point is that integrity counts. you have to do what you think is right. your intuition is usually close to being right. intuition is an important thing. you have all had input from parents, academies, where ever. you have pretty good intuition. the second thing about the character about the kind of leaders we need for tomorrow would be this sense of self in service, the servant leader. you hear this idea of a servant-leader. let me give you a story of a young man who was heading in the wrong direction. i was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff going to a meeting with the chiefs. i did not allow much time from my office to the meeting room because it was not far. my secretary set on the way out there was a young man from an academy. it was a midshipman. he had been in the building for a while. she said that he has been trying to see you. he is lurking outside of your office. he is going to catch you on the way down to the meeting. as i came out of my office and got into the hall, there he is. he comes up, general myers. i have one question for you. he says, what does it take to become chairman of the joint chiefs of staff? selfless service. let's think about this. i said this is about a three hour conversation we ought to have. we have to get you centered. i was late to the meeting with the joint chiefs of staff. i felt he deserved about 15 minutes of discussion about the question he just asked. my question back to him was, how can anybody tell you what it takes? be an average student from kansas state, go through rotc, 40 years later, you are chairman. what is the story? i asked if he was the number one midshipman at the naval academy. he said he was not. academically, he was not. athletically, are you one of the stars on a team? my point is that you ought to be focusing on those things. you may not be number one. that is not important. what is important is that you commit to what you are doing now and try to be the best at that. if you are and have good leadership, somebody will recognize you. you will start to get increased responsibility. but you do not start out by thinking, what is the formula to be chairman of the joint chiefs of staff? that is not the kind of leader you want to be. that is not a selfless leadership. that is selfish leadership. you just have to be the best of what you are doing. steve, i bet you experienced this. i was given some assignments where i thought it was the last assignment on earth, but i threw myself into it because it was what the air force wanted me to do. i had just come out of air force squadron commander. we had a great squadron with great camaraderie. it was the best of the three. i knew for sure that we were the best. one of the squadron commanders got promoted to colonel. he was given a director of operations job. i was sent to personal plans and programs -- personnel plans and programs. you do not even know what that is. no one in this room knows what that is, i guess. it is a really important function. i got to work with some of the best bosses i had in my life. i learned more about how to take care of people in that job. things turned out ok, obviously. i did not know who i made mad. it goes back to the idea of doing the best at what you can do. we talk about integrity, selfless service. let's talk about serving something bigger than yourself. we have a lot of folks in blue uniforms. hopefully, you know this story. if not, i will remind you. those in gray uniforms may not know the story. this is great army history. does anybody know who billy mitchell was? he had the notion that air power was needed to be dominant on the battlefield in the 1920's and 1930's. a lot in the army did not appreciate his views on air power and how it could make a difference. he was court-martialed. they asked a guy major arnold whether he supported him as a character reference. the only way to get ahead in those years was to go to school, fort leavenworth. that was pretty much saying your career is over. we will send you to fort riley, kansas. the subtext is, no one will ever hear from you again. arnold testified on behalf of his good friend, billy mitchell. the army took away his school slot and sent him to fort riley. while at fort riley, some folks from new york showed up. a newaid, we're starting airline. we would like for you to be part of it. not as a pilot but as the president. we're going to call this new airline pan american airways. if i had been arnold, it would have been an easy choice. at fort riley, no hope of going anywhere. i would've gone to new york and in the president of pan american airways. that is easy. when you think about serving something bigger than yourself, arnold said no. i think there is more i can contribute to my country. he is a major has been put out to pasture literally. fort riley was still the center of the army cavalry school. what happened? you know the rest of the story. he commanded all the army air forces in world war ii and is one of a handful of so he didn't go to work. i've got something else i can do for my country. that's probably an extreme example but one i keep in the back of my mind when people talk about selfless service and serving something bigger than yourself, comes up on your radar screen pretty fast. i think what i'll do, those are the characteristics i wanted to talk about. when you talk about what kind of leadership we need tomorrow, we need very strong leadership, strong in character. i gave you three characteristics. there are others. there are lots of other things we need to think about. but integrity and self fs service and serving something bigger thanself, particularly if you wear the cloth of your nation, which a lot of you are wearing in either junior or r.o.t.c. or in the academies, what we count on. and i know you get a good dose of it. i know you do at air force academy and i've been part of some of those programs. i know they do at west point and in the rotc programs as well. you get tested every day on those sort of things and there will be nor tests. that's just the way life is. so whatever i have time remaining, i would like to open it up for questions on this subject or anything you want to talk about. that doesn't mean if there's reporters in the room we can talk about that. and i'm going to stand over here. use my command voice and got me through rotc because i can march around the battlefield. >> sir, when you're chairman, what was the most difficult decision you ever made? >> well, i think -- actually, i think it's a series of things had you commit -- when your recommendation is to commit armed forces to war, that's got to be the most difficult decision. and as we've been at war for 10 years, i was there for the first four, the difficult part is -- is signing the orders after the secretary approves the orders, you sign the orders and send people off to war. people that i was -- in bethesda or walter reid had been severely injured. not to mention the moms and dads and brothers and sisters you talk to of those who have been killed. so i think that's -- i mean, that's just the morality of the magnitude of the job when you commit these wonderful men and women, you can't stay young. there were guardsmen and reservists in iraq and iran that were harder than i was at the time. hard to believe. and they were doing all the physical stuff. everything. at 60. pretty impressive stuff. so that's -- in my opinion, that's the hardest thing to not just sign the order but then live with the results of having put your signature on a piece of paper. not easy stuff. >> yes, sir. >> u.s. coast guard academy and proud kansan. question for you, sir. as joint chiefs of staff and in charge of all the military branches, how does interoperations between the branches, how has that improved in past years and the interaction with other government agencies, how has that helped complete our mission? >> that's a meaty question. and first of all, where in kansas are you from? >> fort riley, sir. >> fort riley! you understand i did not badmouth them. [laughter] i did not. and i am -- still have a relationship with k-state and part of that relationship votches fort riley because the -- relationship involves fort riley because a very close relationship as it should be. and they draw on each other's strengths. and anyway, very symbiotic relationship. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff doesn't command anybody. i didn't command one person. there wasn't one person that i could impose any uniform court of military justice -- justice on. not one. they all belong to the services. i was sometimes introduced as the commander of all u.s. forces. or in afghanistan, i was always introduced as the number one warlord of the world. [laughter] but everything you do is sort of through -- through influence. but it's powerful. because you're the principal military advise advisor but the law says if your opinion differs from any of the service teams you're obliged to tell the president or the secretary about those differences. so one of my big roles was to try to ensure that the joint chiefs of staff were well-informed and we debated whatever the policy issues of the day were to the extent where we could all come to consensus. and fortunately in the four years i was chairman i never had to say mr. president here's my view but the army, air force, marine corps, or somebody, doesn't agree. and here's their view. we always would find common ground. and it was -- and it was not hard. a couple of things that helped. not just my terrific leadership capability. but we had budgets that were going up. and so there's not a lot -- interservice squabbling. and we're a nation at war. so we're really focused on that. and oh by the way, as people probably know, the coast guard is not part of the joint chiefs of staff. but i had an open invitation to the two or three that i served with of the coast guard, to come to meetings, and insist they be there on some meetings. we all had to work. hand in glove. i think for the time that steve and i came into the air force, which was essentially about the same time, what we saw in vietnam was not a very joint in terms of good service interoperability, operations. if you count them up, there were lots of different air forces, waging war on north vietnam. and we all had our little places we flew and that's all nice and everything. but you couldn't call it a very unified effort. even the air force, we had seventh air force, that's the outfit we have now, 13th air force in thailand where i was -- where we served. and this -- theater wasn't that big. impossible we could have had one numbered air force to manage our afoirs. it got so bad during the granada invasion and haiti that the congress had to act and in 1986 they passed the goldwater nichols act which mandated we work better together and they did that starting with education. and then before you could get promoted to flag rank you had to go through an assignment with some other service. some joint assignment. and that has paid dividends to the point where we are actually pretty good at working together today. and that's -- and that's really good because as we struggle with -- going through the budget cuts we know we're going to have, ordered $64 billion over the next 10 years, 2012-2021, there are going to be -- services are going to come down in strength and capability. we're going to have to rely on each other even more. and where this really showed was the major combat phase in iraq. the services, i mean, there was interdependence on one another. there were those with -- commanding conventional forces and folks in the army -- it worked pretty well. and air force, responsibility in certain parts of iraq that you would like to have ground forces do. but you were given the task so you do it. i mean, there was really interdependence. tommy frank gets a lot of credit for bringing a really truly inlt operable and all service force to bear on the problem. and it showed. of course, the easy part of the whole operation. but in retrospect. but the major combat was over fairly quickly. it starletted in march and it's over in may. he wasn't captured until december. but he was gone his whole entourage was gone. so i think -- i think we're pretty good. and i think you'll see that. and i know at the air force academy and west point, before you're captains in respective services you'll have this knowledge and feeling and it will serve as other services much different than when we joined which was -- we didn't have that same -- at least i didn't have that same luxury. so we're better. yes, sir. >> my name is nicholas. and what was your favorite job throughout your career? >> what's the one with the least responsibility? [laughter] where i had the most fun, the most fulfilling, i was an instructor at what we called the fighter weapons school. and you had to be able to instruct on a platform, academically, and you had to instruct in the air, and you had to write your own sill bass -- silobas and textbook and it was really hard and fulfilling. and i was a young captain. and we had -- our flying was as -- as good of flying -- had i was doing all this, weren't at war, post vietnam, the most exciting flying you could do in the united states air force. and it was just so rewarding. so that was probably -- and you're with people that were just as dedicated to the mission as you were. and it was just absolutely fun and a blast. and what we were doing was taking some of the lessons out of vietnam that we didn't have perhaps the right equipment, the right training. and trying to rectify that. and so those years were very fulfilling and terms of how we were trying to change the air force and doing it as a captain. somebody in the service, eight, nine years, 10 years. so that was it. that was the most fun. by the way, when we talk about character, and leadership, i should have mentioned, fun's approved. i think good leaders also know how to have fun and ensure their people have fun. a sense of humor really counts. a number of times i was working with secretary rumsfeld who could be pretty intense. and one of the ways to kind of get things back to center was to make fun of yourself or make fun of something or try to be a little bit humorous. which would shock them into -- oh, yeah. and get back to doing your work. so humor, having fun, sense of humor. it's all part of your character you're developing. it's ok. it's ok to have fun. good question. yes, sir. >> sir, was there any point in your career in which you just wanted to quit? >> great question. was there a point in my career where i wanted to quit? there were several times where i thought i was going to be fired or get -- was in so much trouble that i would have to quit. but i don't think there was any time where i ever felt like i wanted to quit. perhaps the one time, when i came out of japan, i was commander of the u.s. forces in japan. and the japanese treat you like the second coming of mcarthur. they are very fond of general mcarthur who set up a lot of the post-war government apparatus in japan. they revere him. he's a god to the japanese. and so when you come as a commander of u.s. forces in japan, they think you're a god, too. not related to any of that stuff. but they still treat you with great respect. i had a great three years there. not -- it was full of turmoil. you may remember some of the young folks remember some of the older folks remember a rape of an okinawa schoolgirl by a couple of sailors on labor day in 1995. horrible incident. caused lots of turmoil that you have to get involved in and out of that we made some progress, notwithstanding the tragedy to that family and young lady. but on the way to the airport, i asked my wife, i said, you know, it's not going to get any better than this. somehow i made it to three stars. i'm not going to get promoted again i'm pretty sure of that. and maybe we ought to call it quits. this has been so fulfilling. and my wife said we're in this little mini bus on the way to norita airport going back to the states and rotating back after three years in japan. i was doing that because -- not because i wanted to quit but your family has to put up with this, too. and i was trying to tease out of my wife, do you want to give it up? let's quit and call it a day. she says no, i think there's more adventure left. and she didn't even know what she was speaking of. [laughter] but -- i never felt like i ever wanted -- and i just -- as you get into it, it was those qualities i talked about earlier. and working with people that have those same qualities. the thing we call the military culture. which folks from west point and the air force academy and the coast guard academy, you're getting a real dose of it. and you feel it. and i don't know how you feel about it. but my guess is -- i've really started to feel good about that. started in rotc and became -- you know, guys in combat that are willing to put their lives on the line just like steve talked about. one of my best friends, i started on the back seat of the f-4 and went to europe. and my front seater was this wonderful guy. ralph van brunt. ralph got shot down in laos one evening. and took a direct hit to the belly of that f-4. and we knew he was -- he was on the radio. but he had to spend the night on the ground. and the next morning, one of my -- then a guy i knew but now one of my closest friends because -- he was living in one of my houses because this house isn't ready. and living in my house right now. and john jumper, led the effort the next day to go find ralph. and he took -- i was in the tower. they wouldn't let me do it. and you're too close to ralph. you'll be the supervisor, and i saw him take off in the night just before dawn. two big afterburners in the f-4 heading north. and the sandis couldn't get down below the weather but because john was a fast forward air controller he knew the territory like the back of his hand and said i think i can do this. and he led the rescue force down through some clouds, and laos, had lots of mountains. i mean, working with people -- and then i want to fly -- ralph is getting out of a jolly green on the ramp where we kept all our airplanes. and he looked kind of peculiar because he -- it was -- it was late in the afternoon as i said. and he usually flew with your visor down if you take a direct hit you protect your face so he looked like a racoon basically. which he recovered from in short order. and being with people like that, like john jumper and ralph van brunt who was considerably older, at least i thought he was in those days. [laughter] a major and i'm a young captain. and willing to put it on the line for their country and comrades. that's what it's about. yes, sir. >> i am -- i was wondering, out of all your years of service that you've aaccumulated, how long did it -- what was the most dangerous aspect of your job? >> which job? >> any. [inaudible] >> i was in the air force for 36 years and i never thought i would be the chairman. the bush administration came in and secretary of defense, we didn't hit it off very well. and in fact, some of the adults here know, i think i probably had one or two suits to my name that -- aid lot of blue suits and stuff. and as they're getting ready to change out the chairman i'm not going to be the next guy. i'm -- i went to the nordstrom summer sale, anniversary sale and bought me a couple of suits so i was getting ready. i knew it wasn't going to be me. you never know. so this happened, it was 36 years that i served in the air force. i mean, the only time -- well, combat of course is inherently dangerous. but you never know how close you're going to come. it goes back to the integrity thing. another example of integrity in the armed forces. this could be an army story or i'll tell the air force version but the same thing was true of a lot -- in afghanistan and the 747 flights there in iraq. there's one thing when you -- i think we all feel, the one thing when you're putting yourself in harm's way, if you put a loved one, a family member in harm's way, it changes everything. and my wife and i, she would come to iraq with me. fairly early on. and afghanistan as well. and i remember one time in a c-130 we're going in, we're leaving baghdad. and the airplane parked right next to us was a c-17 that had an engine shot off by a shoulder-fired missile. it came up and it got the engine pod, aircraft recovered, no big deal. but as you're walking out to your c-130 and looking at that thing, it didn't bother me so much. i've seen a lot of airplanes shot up and that's what you do and you go do it. i didn't want my wife to be exposed to that. that's not what she signed up for. and so when you think about integrity, what are you counting on? you're counting on the crew chief of that 130 to have done the preflight so when he signs off or she signs off that the pilot and co-pilot are trained, and knows what they're doing. and that the dear is ready to go. and i wouldn't consider that dangerous. my wife never said a word. i don't know what she thought about it. i mean, occasionally i would get a really tight grip on my arm or thigh -- we're spiraling down into an airfield and we had robin williams with us one time. the u.s.o. entertainer. and he was not -- it got to him a little bit. he made a whole schtick out of that flight. i don't know. when you sign up, you sign up to defend the constitution and implicit in that is the unlimited -- a british historian, said the unlimited liability that goes with it. which means you're willing to give your life for your country. so that's just implicit in what we do. and it doesn't make you -- well, the deprate thing we do it. -- the grate thing we do it. it doesn't make us particularly brave. i'm not saying that. it's implicit in the oath. thank you very much. this has been great. [applause] turn the microphone off. [applause] >> in the defense of liberty is no vice. and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. >> he lost the 1964 presidential election to lyndon johnson, but barry goldwater's ideas and candor gol vanized the conservative movement. the five-term senator from arizona is featured this week on c-span series the contenders. from the goldwater institute in phoenix. live tonight at 8:00 eastern. in his auto biographical narrative, coming to terms with his post-traumatic stress disorder decades after vietnam. >> started telling in guy about my symptoms. and jumping up in the middle of the night and running outside without even knowing what was going on. you know, the car would honk behind me and i would be out of my own car and just attacking the car behind me. and he said to me, have you ever been in a war? and that hit me so hard. i'm in the middle of this room with 80 people. i started balling -- bawling and snot coming out of my nose, have you ever been in a war? when he got me back to some semblance of control, you've got ptsd, have you ever heard of it? no. more about his life sunday night on c-span's q&a. every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, collaborator, con superior or innocent -- conspirator or boarding home older, sent to prison and jeb mcgruder his time in prison and life after his release. and from lectures in history, boston university professor thomas whelan on the presidency and cold war policy. look for the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history or for our schedules in your in box click the c-span alert button. >> are we as a united states government for our defense department, are we still purchasing, doing business with these people? >> the parts that we have been purchasing as a part of this ongoing investigation are rare, hard to find and obsolete parts that are -- still being utilized in major weapons systems. the internet purchasing of platforms, demonstrate that contractors or subcontractors that are in need of these hard-to-find rare, obsolete parts have an outlet through these purchasing platforms to acquire these parts. a concern, though, that the intent to deceive is certainly exists. >> are we still purchasing, sir? i just asked a very simple question. is the united states government still purchasing from these counter fit -- counter fitters who are putting out inferior products? >> the internet trading platforms have 40 million to 60 million line items and parts that are purchased on a regular basis. yes, sir, senator. >> watch more from this senate hearing on counterfeit parts from china online at the c-span video library with every program we've aired since 1987. archived and searchable. it's washington your way. >> saturday on washington journal a discussion on the obama administration's decision to delay action on the proposed keystone pipeline. our guest is susan casey-lefkowitz and andrew biggs of the american enterprise institute and talking about a new study on public school teacher compensation and later a look at a new study by the georgetown university center on education in the work force, anthony carnevale and the earning differences between college majors. washington journal takes your calls and emails live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. this is the korean war veterans memorial. located on the national mall in washington, d.c. just off to the side of the lincoln memorial. it's one. newer war memorials dedicatesed in 1995 and contains a larger-than-life squad on patrol drawn from each branch of the military dressed in full combat gear. next to them a 164-foot black granite wall with images etched into it of others involved in the korean war effort. among the veterans day observeses today was a ceremony at the vietnam veterans memorial on the national mall. seekers included retired general barry mccatchry and vietnam war correspondent and bronze star recipient joseph galloway who gave the keynote address. mr. galloway is the only civilian to be awarded a medal of valor for service during the vietnam war. this one-hour ceremony was hosted by the vietnam veterans memorial fund and the national park service. >> we now have a singer to bring us the national anthem, braden sunshine will sing. >> o say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hail at the twilight's last gleaming? whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous flight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there pofment say does that -- o say does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? ♪ [applause] >> remain standing for the pledge of allegiance and thank you. the pledge of allegiance will be read by sergeant andrew piscador originally from antioch, illinois, sergeant piscador is nephew of vietnam veterans on active duty with the united states marine corps. he enlisted in 2003. he's been in iraq and currently stationed in quantico, virginia, we want to thank him for being here. and he among other marines have been helping to keep our -- the flagpole emblem polished at the vietnam veterans memorial. so at this time, you will be led in the pledge of allegiance by a real united states marine. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> please retire the colors. ok. colors now officially retired. we can give the united states navy color guard a little hand here. i think they did good work. we're very impressed. [applause] yes indeed. i want to point out that we have -- you can have a seat. we have two other color guards here who have actually come all the way from fort bragg, north carolina. and you might guess the unit they're with from fort bragg known as the 82nd airborne division. jumping out of airplane, paratroopers. you see them back there, they're in very colorful uniforms. there they are. [applause] >> lord god, as we assemble here at the vietnam veterans me moirl to remember the over 58,000 names that are on this wall, lord, we join many across the nation, across the world who are taking this day to remember our veterans past and present who gave and even now offer their last measure of life for peace enenjoy as citizens of these united states. lord, our hearts swell with pride in these warriors of peace yet our lives fill with sorrow for the families who's lives were snatched by war. our hearts grieve for the warriors who's lives were radically changed by the physical, mental and emotional injuries they received. we see them overcoming these wounds. we thank you as you are the great physician. lord, may we as a nation never repeat the offenses of the past such as our veterans of vietnam experienced. i thank you that these veterans take the lead in challenging us auto give proper respect and honor to our soldiers, marine, airmen and coast guardsmen who step into harm's way for our peace. lord, i thank you that our forefathers gave us blessing in these united states. we worship according to our faith. lord, we all ask these blessings according to our each of our individual faiths. amen and amen. >> i want to thank the minister for a really great opening prayer. this is something for all of us to think about the idea of healing and how so many people who served in wars do need healing and the trauma doesn't just go away. so, you know, for 30 years the vietnam veterans memorial fund we've been working hand in hand with the national park service to ensure that this sight here remains in really excellent condition, that it continues to offer visitors to washington a healing, educational experience. you might notice the quality of the grass that we have here. we have put tens of thousands of dollars into making this the best grass on the mall if you ever wonder where your contributions go to, this is part of it. and it's really important that we have nice grass here because you really need to set the scene. we're going to thank the park service for helping us an giving us the permits. we recently completed the restoration of the system to continue to water the grass. we keep it fertilized and when needed recently we put some new sod here. so this is a great place. we are now the midst of building the education center at the vietnam veterans memorial. we hope to -- we plan to actually break ground next year, have this underway. we will have a big parade to celebrate this ground-breaking. and at the head of that parade will march the veterans from iraq and afghanistan. that's right. [applause] so this will be a place where people learn about everyone who served in all of america's wars, really. and this will feature the photographs of the 58,000 casualties from the vietnam war. we now have 23,000 photographs. p and that's pretty extraordinary. if you can help with us that, go to buildthecenter.org and that would be greatly appreciated. the center will be a tribute to the military veterans. we look forward to it watching it become a reality with the national park service. it's an honor to work with the national park service to take care of the vietnam veterans memorial. this is a very important part of america's mall. we set the standard, the example of how to take care of america's mall right here at the vet unanimous veterans memorial to introduce to you the new superintendent of the national park service who is in charge of the mall. i want to introduce mr. robert vogel. [applause] >> good afternoon. on behalf of the national park service it is my distinct pleasure to welcome do you the vietnam veterans memorial which is dedicated to the valiant soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who fought in that war. this memorial contains the permanent encryption of 58,272 names of the servicemen and women who died in vietnam and those that remain missing in action during the vietnam war. for this veterans day ceremony we are honored to have as our keynote speaker joseph l. gallowway. he has witnessed firsthand the bravery of our soldiers in vietnam. i'd also like to recognize dr. libby o'connell, senior vice president of corporate outreach and she's a historian for the history channel. and general barry mccaffrey who was the most highly decorated four-star general in the united states army. i'd also like to welcome dr. marsha begins ler stevens, who is the vice president of the vietnam foundation and sharon bistran one of the nurse heroine s who served in vietnam. and our great sponsor in partnering today's ceremony in working with us in preserving this wonderful sight. and we are very excited to work with january and the vietnam veterans memorial fund in this exciting new endeavor with the education center. january, we thank you for your partnership and we share in your mission to ensure that the legacy and sacrifices of vietnam veterans are not forgotten. to the members of the armed forces and the veterans who are here today. i am deeply, deeply honored and humbled to spend this special day, veterans day with you. there really is no tribute, no commemoration, no honor that can truly match the magnitude of your service and your sacrifice. to veterans and family members of those of you who served in vietnam, we in the national park service know how important this memorial is to you and every day we're trying at least in some small way to repay your sacrifice and the sacrifice of those who did not make it home by preserving and caring for this wonderful and very moving memorial. thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be here. [applause] >> i really appreciate the very kind words and, you know, we're -- i had a very interesting couple of days. i've been traveling. a fellow with the company called tri-west has offered me $1 million for the education center at the vietnam veterans memorial but i need to raise $1 million in order to match it. so we got up to $750,000 and i just want to announce that a couple of guys rolling thunder is going to give us 100,000. [applause] and, at the risk of being embarrassed we had to ask general barry mccaffrey and he said look, i'll give you $10,000. that's pretty good. 2,000 people like this and we'd be under construction tomorrow and we just can't thank everybody enough. hey, look, a lot of you have been watching vietnam on h.d. on tv, very emotionally draining, magnificent cinematography. they've got best people working at the history channel. whenever you've got nothing to do i flip on the history channel. i've been doing it all my life. but we are here to thank the history channel. they've been helping us get these photographs in for the vietnam memorial. it seems like it was mostly ladies but libby o'connell is the senior chief historian for the history channel and senior vice president for corporate outreach. so let's give a big hand for the history channel if anybody's ever watched it. [applause] >> it's a tremendous honor to be here today on behalf of history. i want to thank the park service and superintendent who just spoke. you guys do such good work on this memorial and at all the memorials in our mall. it seems every week this fall we're in a different sfi surrounded by wonderful vietnam veterans and i look across the stage and i see your face. i don't know what we're going to do next-week when we're no longer on stage together. thanks also to everyone here at the veterans -- vietnam veterans memorial fund. you are such terrific partners and so dedicated. since we launched history almost 17 years oorks our network has had a concrete chitment to veterans. we premiered a powerful documentary produced by rita productions and i'm glad that scott rita could be with us today and my dear friend and talented colleague susan orby is here. they really worked hard but of course, we could not have done this 2002 gift of time, the sage advice and the fabulous story-telling from our participating vietnam veterans. some of you are here. can you raise your hands those of you who have been involved on this show. thank you for all you've done. the audience response has been tremendous. and i'd also like to give a shoutout for the honor flight best from atlanta, philadelphia and new york city. hooray for you. it's wonderful in so many ways to have you here. along with our programs on television history -- history channel supports our veterans. true outreach efforts such as take a strote school day which is now in almost 10,000 schools. think of it it works in hundreds of offices. >> we've got companies that range from american airlines. thank you for keeping up that and whoever gave me that. american airline to native tribal councils. so all different sizes of groups. and also a new program we have called vets forward which is encouraging employment opportunities for our veterans. this fall we have joined with the vietnam veterans memorial fund, call for photos, a campaign to put a face to each and every night on this memorial. and as january mentioned, this is so important to extending the reach and the impact of this memorial and really of the service that we all have done. all of you gathered here, please accept the honor and the responsibility of going home to your community and sprading the word about this effort. and join us in supporting the feature of the education center so that you know, millions -- millions of families visit here every year. this education will make everyone learn about the hard truth and the enormous courage that characterized the tremendously complex conflict we call the vietnam war. you know, this place is known as the wall that heals. the healing process began a long time ago. but it continues today. and rarely are we granted the chance to turn back a page in history and make things right. it is an honor and a privilege for me to be here today among you, america's vietnam veterans and your families and extend a long overdo sense of appreciation to you all from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your service. [applause] >> i want to thank tall people who have been helping us and there's one person who is not here today. but i really -- i really want to thank him for what he's done. you've all known of a fellow named senator john mccain. he's a great guy from arizona. you know what he did for us today? everybody who donated to his presidential campaign got an electronic mail asking for donations for the vietnam veterans education center. we're getting one donation every minute from across the country people are sending money in. so three cheers for john mccain, what a great guy. >> i think one of the reasons we have such overwhelming support for the education center at the wall is the brilliance really of the design which has, of course, photos, the items left at the vietnam veterans memorial but a very intense experience which celebrates service, service to your community. >> everybody who goes to the education center at the wall will get an opportunity to get a dog tag. but in order to get that dog tag, you have to agree to go back to your community and do something positive for someone. we're not asking anybody to join the army. go back and help the widow across the street. and this is the sort of -- hundreds of thousands, millionings of random acts of kindness will be done as a result of the education center. and that's why so many people are helping us. america really needs something to bring the country together. we're providing that. >> well, a great honor for me to introduce -- actually one of the great living military leaders of our time general barry mccaffrey who served with great distinction in vietnam, one of the distinguished service star over and over again, was a very aggressive combat leader. he believes in leadership. he teaches leadership. he's on the faculty at west point. you see him on msnbc all the time. but he's been the chairman of the advisory board for the education center at the vietnam veterans memorial and has helped lead some of the decisions that would have gotten us to where we are today and to where we are going to be next year. so we really want to thank him for his help, for his personal generosity. this is not the first time he's reached into his own pockets to give us money. god bless general barry mccaffrey and now you get to hear him speak. >> yeah, january, thanks very much. more importantly, thanks for your leadership. january's been our founder, the president, has been the energy behind this magnificent memorial to our 58,000 plus buddies. the next step is a $75 million education center. we're going to get it done by 2014. general colin powell is helping us being the honor rare chairman. we need your help. john dibble our chairman, dan reese our fundraiser, how about a round of applause for their leadership and their commitment? it's really -- it's my privilege to introduce joe galloway. he's been a friend for a long time. he's somebody i admire enormously. the first time i met him general, a shy man, an introvert, we were about to start the left hook into iran. we got there and i -- i knew all about him, tremendous conference anyway. you know, -- i sat him down and walked through the entire attack plan. this is four or five week bfers we actually started the attack. every map was labeled secret no distribution. and joe said that's very generous of you to give me that briefing. i said joe i've got tremendous confidence in you and i'm holding you personally until we start the attack. joe has seen more combat than anyone i ever met. he covered dirty conflict, dangerous once. his first exposure, age 32 u.p.i. reporter in vietnam where he spent 16 months on that tour and he joined the sirs and the seventh cal vary, three days of intense combat in the ad range. for which he became the only civilian in the country's longest war who was awarded for courage under fire, rescuing wounded truth. this is an unusual man. he went back to vietnam three more times on tours. he's been widely recognized throughout the journalistic profession, probably more importantly in the military profession. i would think he was given the most prestigious award. tonight, we're going to recognize him at the gala dinner with the first legacy and service award. so what i can tell you about joe galloway is that he's somebody who loves our troops, the troops in combat. he looks out for their welfare. he's not afraid to speak and confront power whether it's the secretary of defense or anyone else who's threatening the well being of our troops. >> how about in joining me in welcoming joe? [applause] >> thanks, barry. what he didn't tell you is when i turned up at his tactical operation center in -- on the berm in saudi arabia on the eve of the golf war. he showed me all of this stuff. and where we were going and i kept counting enemy division flags on that map and thinking there's one of us and eight of them and the hair stood up on the back of my neck and barry said, now, don't worry, son. he said, i trust you i just you because schwarzkopf said i was supposed to trust you but more than that i trust you because you're coming with me. [laughter] it's a distinct honor to be here and speak on veterans day. i spoke here 15 years ago on memorial day. memorial day is the day we pay our respects to our fallen brothers on this wall 58,272 of them now. i know that we all think of them, every day, but memorial day is their day. veterans day is your day. veterans day is for those who survived who came on -- home some with wounds visible, some with wounds invisible. today is your day and we think of you and we think of you with respect. and we think of this country's obligation to all its veterans. -- in terms of taking care of their health, mental, physical otherwise, taking care to keep the promises we made. when you raised your hand and took that oath to protect and defend the constitution of our beloved country. we don't have a very good record of keeping those promises. there's lot of lip service in this town. there's lot of bureaucrats and a lot of gray buildings up and down this mall who sometimes get the way more than they help. so we got a lot of work to do. it's 36 years since the end of the vietnam war. 46 years since the first major battle of that war in which i and a number of people here participated it's over half a century, 55 years since the first american serviceman was killed in vietnam. his name is on this wall so is that of his son, richard b. fitsgibbon jr. iii. so we need right now to take a vow or renew that vow to take better care of our veterans. i want to tell you a story about a friend of mine who used to come from this town to california, come to our reunions, turned up in my office. >> a fellow named b.t. collins. he was a captain. he had been an artillery observer in hal moore's brigade presenting in december of 65. came babbling on a second tour with -- back on a special tour with the special forces. he went on to become a lawyer, get through lawsuit and go into -- law school and go into politics in california. but b.t. never missed a chance when there was a veterans group needing someone to talk. what he always said is this -- no crying and no dying. we are the fortunate ones. we survived when other men around us gave up their precious lives so that we could win. we owe them an obligation to live each day to its fullest potential, working to make this world a better place for our having lived and they're having died. no wine -- whining and no crying. simple is that. simple as that. if you're troubled, help somebody. if you're grieving, reach out to someone who's loss is even greater. give to yourself and all that you give will come back to you multiplied. 100 fold. i worry and work with my brothers from vietnam almost every day. but we have a couple of generations of new veterans who have followed us home and who real estatey need help, all the help we need. they come home from two, or three, or four or five or even six combat stories. they suffer from the traumatic brain injuries that huge home maid minds inflict anyone within the blast radius. they come home to an economy that's purting. so i hope you'll all in the -- in need, veterans of all our wars. i want to say something about education. my friend the author herman woke had a dedication in one of his fine books. he said the beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance. and i see herman every summer. the first time i met him, i said, look her maine, i'm going to rewrite that. the beginning of the end of a war lies in education. and herman smiled and he wrote utetchoke the scholarship fund. so i think i got away with him rewriting his dedication. we need smarter, met wither education politicians, with a better grasp of history. [applause] >> i don't mind sayinging that in this town where they cluster. more of them should wear this nation's uniform. -- first. so they better understand what it really means to serve this country and then they can serve themselves. but first the country. i want that.i am sorry. they should not be allowed to vote for a war if they don't know what one is firsthand. [applause] the most loathsome bird i ever saw was a chicken hot -- chicken hawk. we need smarter politicians. education is broader than just politicians. it is the way to end war. people who are educated to have a grasp of history know that war is no solution to anything quito it is a tragedy always. this is something that keeps a nation's sons and daughters these days. it is something that eats a nation's treasure. what does it give us bought hundreds and thousands of people who are crippled and maimed and tortured and who must be cared for. who must be all their lives taking care of. we do that so poorly. we need education so that we can begin to end all wars. i pray there will be a day when peace comes to this earth. i don't know. it will not be in my lifetime. i was born three weeks before pearl harbor. on sunday i will be 70 years old. my life has been bound up with war from even before i could remember. i did not meet my father until the end of 1945 when i was almost five years old. he and five of his brothers were -- were the uniform. four of my mother's brothers. i grew up in houses full of frightened women looking out the window for the telegraph boy. you never forget that. i am not going to be labor you. i would like to be labor the politicians and those who sit in the halls of congress and some of the bureaucrats that sit in the great buildings. i am going to ease off right there and say thank you for your service. thank you for wearing our country's uniform. thank you to your families for sacrificing sometimes everything. sometimes everything. thank you ladies. thank you. crop lessee. it got lost our troops serving in 120 --god belss you. go pbless our troops serving in 120 countries around the world. i am honored to speak to you. thank you. [applause] >> we would like to thank joe for those inspiring words spoken from the heart. we join him and the desire to see the swords broken-down and melted into plowshares one day. at this time i am very pleased to announce the vice president of the moral association. party thank you. on days like today i have this visual memory. it is 1993 of the similarly blue day. there were any number of women marching down constitution avenue joined by their brother veterans. as we launched that day what would be an addition to this sacred ground, those women and their brother veterans were celebrating the dedication of an idea. diane had an idea in her head and heart. she was one of those that joke talks about that served. at that memorial -- the vietnam women's memorial has been a touch helps -- cut stone for many. in the past 15 years it has been my pleasure ingathering each a moral and veterans day for storytelling at the memorial. we did that earlier today. those stories of bravery and camaraderie, he pointed memories and the laughter, we have unleashed the power to heal and to inspire. today we have an opportunity to hear what of those stories. the vietnam women's memorial foundation is honored to have as its guest retired colonel sharon bistron. she completed her pastors and nursing in 1964. like some of you -- she completed her bachelor's and nursing in 1964. she served in the hospital in vietnam, and the 249th general hospital at camp break in japan. with a variety of postings in her long and distinguished military career, he took on greater and greater responsibility, sharon did amazing things to affect the health and well-being of others. she went on to serve as chief of education and staff development and service and later as chief at walter reed medical center. she is a decorated military officer, an author, and educator, a community leader, and a clinician. but it is hurt humane and caring leadership that have endeared her to many. i did not just take her at face value, i went and asked some of her old colleagues how would you describe sharon? they used words and phrases like this. filled with grace. diplomatic. kind. universally liked. that is how her colleagues describe her from walter reed at. in so many ways, those same words and those same phrases can be attributed to the very same -- a very young sharon. you need only ask her fellow nurses who are here celebrating her sister veteran here today. will you please join me in welcoming colonel sharon foreman bistron. [applause] >> thank you for that very generous introduction. honored guests, my fellow veterans, family and friends who have gathered here to honor those whose names appear on this wall, i am honored to speak to you today on behalf of my women colleagues. as a representative of the vietnam women's memorial foundation. many women serve our country unofficially starting with the revolutionary war. during the past two centuries, their roles have increased and improved. i salute and commend the women in uniform today. [applause] this is my story. it is hard for me to believe that over 46 years ago, i saw the distant shores of vietnam and thought, wow. it looks like a tropical paradise. the vision quickly vanished as i landed on shore and other hospital personnel to establish the 500 bed the evacuation. we arrived with great anticipation and expectation, but with little knowledge of how to set up a field hospital. the real-estate the hospital was given was 8 miles out of town and an unsecured area. we began to realize that we were assembling a world where to vintage hospital. the lack of modern equipment and supplies was a shock. we were sent to find out what challenges heat, humidity, monsoon rains, old equipment, inadequate supplies would bring. as an example, our anesthesia machines were vintage 1938. in our first three months, there was a chronic shortage of intravenous fluids, suction equipment and many other items that we've used on a daily basis. how did we acquire what was needed? we quickly learned to beg, borrow, archer, occasionally steel, and when all else failed we improvised. nurses and doctors became an official supply officers, headed supply list, air force, the evacuation cruz, and appealed to friends at stateside military hospitals for medical care packages. six weeks after we arrived, we had to move the hospital due to security issues. the move was a box of relief, but it meant to disassembling the hospital and setting up a second time. we departed our first location and 72 hours later it was hit by rocket fire. we felt lucky. initially it was frustrating trying to deal with daily shortages of almost everything. that newspaper press about these shortages, considerable effort on the part of our hospital leadership. finally resulted in an improved hospital supply system. we often felt unwanted, unappreciated, and most of all we were seen as trouble makers. the goal was to provide the best care to all casualties. we were able to accomplish that. in the early weeks, the hospital had several small surges of casualties that were treated in a reasonably efficient manner. then in early november, the first battalion and entered into the valley and battled with the north vietnamese regular army brought the trivialities of war home to us. -- on our worst day, what hundred six wounded were admitted during 1 two hour. t "and charles dickens, it was the best of times and the worst of times. i briefly touched on the worst of times. what was the best of times? it was how we pull together as a team, the camaraderie what we saw what we could accomplish under the worst of circumstances and it still provide quality care to the many wounded who arrived at our door. you can only understand the bond among those who have successfully serve in a war if you have been there. there is no greater bond. at the end of the year, we all came home. many returned to civilian lives. some to continue their military careers. each of us was affected by the water in different ways. we have lived with that year of war ever since. one nurse was ever -- one else was never able to work in nursing again. another nurse considered -- in other errors committed suicide years later. others cannot visit this wall has because the memories are too strong and the thought is too painful. it is often been believed that since women did not carry weapons, we were less likely to be casualties of war. however, stress, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and many other symptoms have long been associated with wartime duty. it took many years after vietnam to finally label these symptoms as ptsd. however, florence nightingale, a founder of modern nursing is believed to have suffered from this melody. our nation is beginning to realize and come to grips with the fact that there are many latent ones of war. these winds affect women as well as men. there are many illnesses associated with vietnam and in our current conflict, besides ptsd, he ran injuries and the high incidence of suicide. these can stay with us for a lifetime or strike years later. i will end by commending all women who work in defense of our nation, not just in the military but and were related industries and government jobs. in addition, women served and are serving in the american red cross, the uso, and intelligenc. today women continue to serve in many of these roles and in many more as our armed services have opened up more branches to women. the vietnam women's memorial pay tribute to all of these women living past and present to have served our country. ladies, we answered our nation's call. thank you. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] >> thank you for your kind remarks. thank you. excellent work. [applause] we really appreciate the kind words. i had an opportunity to get winded myself during the vietnam war. i just ran into a guy named don who actually want to get me when i was injured. he said, i bet you don't remember me. i said, i do remember you. i had not seen him in 35 years. we scored a point for the other team that day. we were trying to wound them actually. by the way, i needed $1 million this morning, which is not something i am good at doing. i am now to $913,231. how about that? we are getting very close to completion. i just want to thank bob shiffer, larry king, everybody pitched in to help us promote this and get this underway. let me acknowledge some of these special people here today. stand up for the gold star mothers and the gold star wives and sons and daughters. are you rack veterans, not all of you can stand up. -- power iraq veterans. not all of you can stand up. it just wave if you cannot stand up. i want to thank you everybody. we are so glad to have these people come here from walter reed. it is a real honor to have them with us. [applause] it was long ago for us, sometimes for these guys it was almost yesterday. increasingly women getting wounded by the i e d spirit we want to thank people on the podium. these are my new heroes. i have to tell you. they have really helped us get over the top with this donation and pledge. it was a pleasure to work with them. also, richard -- guess what? we just got the million dollars. the history channel is going to give us the extra $70,000. how about that? [applause] i just have not had many days like this. again, veterans of foreign wars. i want to thank them. associates of the vietnam and veterans of america and -- how many people know that we got $3 million from the nation of australia? we want to get the australians to stand up. they are over here. [applause] this is colonel jeff quirk and both have seen their share of military experience. the australians had some pretty bad luck recently. -- in afghanistan. we also want to thank bae, steven , bill cooper, the chairman of the board, john wood is here. i mean extend thanks to the veterans advisory board of horizon for coming here today. we will now begin the replaying. the bagpiper will now play amazing grace. you can begin play ink at this time. he is the bagpiper. his father-in-law killed in action on panel 25e. at this time you can begin laying the wreaths. the second to wreath, vietnam memorial veterans fund. third, vietnam veterans women's memorial -- the gold star mothers are at this time laying the wreath. the history channel at this time is getting in place to lay their wreath at the vietnam veterans memorial followed by the first calvary association. gold star wives. and now the noncommissioned officers, tri west healthcare who gave the $1 million challenge. veterans of foreign wars of the united states. west point class of 1953 is here. veterans of the zerizon. post-traumatic stress disorder group of the district of columbia. second brigade b company, first have voluntary motorcycles club, 53 -- 55th infantry. fifth battalion, seventh infantry. before -- the eighth infantry is moving forward. but hundred first airborne is laying there breeze along with the 82nd by now. disabled veterans of america. the vietnam vets motorcycle club, rolling thunder, american legion, case on veterans, operation freedom bird, vietnam veterans of america, sons and daughters and touch, paralyzed veterans of america, and they sent wreath by the 82nd airborne. he wreath laying is now completed. please stand for the playing of taps . ♪ ♪ ♪ thank you. the national park police is going to be leading their little color guard down the walkway that will come to the completion of the ceremony. in a couple of minutes i will -- >> if anyone is here from the tully family, we have one of the gentleman who served under him who was a company commander of the group. ok. ladies and tantalum and, at this time the ceremony for the vietnam veterans memorial is over. we appreciate everybody's attendance. this is a great day to celebrate. >> decorated veteran karl marlantes recognizes and comes to terms with his post traumatic stress disorder tickets after vietnam. >> a started telling the sky about my symptoms. running outside and not going on -- not knowing what was going on. a car would hopped behind me. i would get out of my car and attacked the car behind me. he said to me, have you ever been in a war? that hit me so hard. i am in the middle of this room with 80 people. i started bawling. it is not was coming out of my nose. it was that simple. when he finally got me back into some semblance of control, he said you have ptsd. have you ever heard of it? >> more on c-span "q &a." >> the reactionary mind offer corey robin. in no higher honor, condoleezza rice recounts her years as national security adviser and secretary of state. president bill clinton to talk thoughts about the current state of the american economy. sign up for book tv alerts. every weekend on "american history tv," he people and events that document the american story. this week, a group of lawyers and judges retry mary surratt on charges that she was involved in president lincoln's assassination. jeb magruder. thomas waylon of the presidency and the cold war policy. look for the complete schedule on c-span.org. >> next, our c-span series the contenders of people who have run for president and lost but changed political history.

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Alabama , United States , Australia , Boca Raton , Florida , Arlington Cemetery , Fort Riley , Kansas , West Virginia , Mexico , Arizona , Quantico , Virginia , Bethesda , Pembrokeshire , United Kingdom , Dover , Oklahoma , Chicago , Illinois , Deerfield , Tennessee , Japan , Germany , Afghanistan , Asheville , North Carolina , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Laos , Georgia , San Antonio , Texas , Michigan , North Vietnam , Vietnam General , Quito , Pichincha , Ecuador , Iraq , Thailand , Okinawa , New Jersey , Middletown , Saudi Arabia , Lincoln Memorial , District Of Columbia , Capitol Hill , Hawaii , Chad , Alaska , China , California , Russia , Washington , Fort Leavenworth , Nigeria , South Carolina , Georgetown University , Fort Jackson , New York , Haiti , Tampa , Iran , Kentucky , Wisconsin , Bonn , Nordrhein Westfalen , Mississippi , Fort Bragg , Maine , West Point , Baghdad , Phoenix , Ohio , Italy , Italian , Americans , America , Mexican , Australians , British , Japanese , American , Haitian , Soviet , German , John Dibble , Craig Mckinley , Meg Harrell , Jima Iwo , Thomas Whelan , Corey Robin , Barry Goldwater , Hal Moore , Jeb Magruder , Rick Perry , Robin Williams , Joe Galloway , Andrew Biggs , Don Petersen , Paul Rhodes , Margaret Harrell , Herman Cain , Colin Powell , Larry King , Florence Nightingale , John Mccain , Richard Myers , Billy Mitchell , Walter Reid , Dan Reese , Lyndon Johnson , Scott Rita , Ray Kelly , Charles Dickens , Paul Stockton , Joseph Galloway , Tommy Frank , Thomas Waylon , Barry Mccaffrey , Los Angeles Metro , Bae Steven , Goldwater Nichols , Walter Reed , Aaron Shinseki , Robert Vogel ,