SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
??–???
2004
[H.A.S.C. No. 108–25]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—H.R. 4200
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TOTAL FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ON
TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
HEARING HELD
MARCH 31, 2004
TOTAL FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York, Chairman
TOM COLE, Oklahoma
CANDICE MILLER, Michigan
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
JIM RYUN, Kansas
EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam
Lynn W. Henselman, Professional Staff Member
Elizabeth McAlpine, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2003
HEARING:
Wednesday, March 31, 2004, Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act—Budget Request on Reserve Component Transformation and Relieving the Stress in the Reserve Component
APPENDIX:
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FISCAL YEAR 2005 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST ON RESERVE COMPONENT TRANSFORMATION AND RELIEVING THE STRESS IN THE RESERVE COMPONENT
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McHugh, Hon. John M., a Representative from New York, Chairman, Total Force Subcommittee
Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Ranking Member, Total Force Subcommittee
WITNESSES
Blum, Lt. Gen. H. Steven, USA, Chief, National Guard Bureau
Burnett, Maj. Gen. Douglas, USAF, Adjutants General Association of the United States and Adjutant General, Florida National Guard
Cotton, Vice Adm. John G., USN Director, U.S. Naval Reserve
Hall, Hon. Thomas H., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
Helmly, Lt. Gen. James, USA, Chief, U.S. Army Reserve
James, Lt. Gen. Daniel, III, USAF, Director, Air National Guard
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
McCarthy, Lt. Gen. Dennis M., USMC, Commander, Marine Forces Reserve
McIntosh, Maj. Gen. Robert, USAFR (Ret.) Executive Director, Reserve Officers Association of the United States
Schultz, Lt. Gen. Roger C., Director, Army National Guard
Sherrad, Lt. Gen. James E., III, USAF, Chief, Air Force Reserve
Zapanta, Hon. Albert C., Chairman, Reserve Forces Policy Board
APPENDIX
PREPARED STATEMENTS:
[The Prepared Statements can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Burnett, Maj. Gen. Douglas
McHugh, Hon. John M.
McIntosh, Maj. Gen. Robert A.
Snyder, Hon. Vic
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Zapanta, Hon. Albert C.
Hall, Hon. Thomas F. Hall
Blum, Lt. Gen. H. Steven, joint statement with Gen. Daniel James, and Gen. Roger C. Schultz, National Guard 2005 Posture Statement
Cotton, Vice Adm. John G.
Helmly, Lt. Gen. James R.
Sherrard, Lt. Gen. James E., III
McCarthy, Lt. Gen. Dennis M.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
[The Documents submitted can be viewed in the hard copy.]
The Naval Reserve Association
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
[The Questions and Answers can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. McHugh
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FISCAL YEAR 2005 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUEST ON RESERVE COMPONENT TRANSFORMATION AND RELIEVING THE STRESS IN THE RESERVE COMPONENT
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Total Force Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 31, 2004.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:06 p.m., in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John McHugh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MCHUGH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, TOTAL FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. MCHUGH.The hearing will come to order.
Let me first of all welcome certainly our witnesses. We have two very distinguished panels today to explore some very, very important issues.
But also to those of you who have joined us in the audience, we appreciate your interest and your efforts to be here.
There is a photograph circulating on the Internet of an Army truck convoy in Iraq that perhaps says as much as anything I have seen in capturing what this hearing is all about today.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It underscores why it is necessary that we focus, not just this afternoon but in the days and weeks ahead of us, on the reserve component (RC) elements of the total force.
The photo summarizes exquisitely the new era and new realities that the men and women of the reserve components today are struggling with. And it should serve as a wake-up call for all here who make the policies and laws regarding the total force that there are new realities that we, too, must deal with.
What you can see in the photo is a sun-lit cargo truck. It has a driver and a vehicle commander sitting in the shadows behind that windshield. It is just two reserve component soldiers doing their jobs in a place they probably never thought they would ever see, let alone be in.
We might never have known their thoughts about that job on their new circumstances in life except for the modest cardboard banner that they pasted in the windshield of the truck. That message from them on that, admittedly crudely but I think well and aptly lettered sign in soldier-direct words reads, ''One weekend a month, my ass.'' [Laughter.]
We have copy of that up there for those of you who may not have had the opportunity to see it.
That is the way soldiers talk. And it speaks volumes.
Indeed, somewhere between 1990 with the start of Desert Storm/Desert Shield and today, America's contract with its reserve component underwent a major modification. Certainly for the last decade, the Nation has been asking far more than one weekend a month from its reserve component, and those men and women who have answered the call have done so magnificently.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are at war—plain and simple. Some would say that such circumstances are exactly why we have a reserve component, and it is the circumstance that most reservists should have expected to face when they volunteered.
But the new reality is that this war demands more from the reserve components than previous conflicts.
Take just one metric: During Desert Shield/Desert Storm, mobilization tours averaged—averaged—156 days; during Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti, about 200 days; and during Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, 319 days, average.
Moreover, during Desert Storm, reserve components were called, went to war and then came home. Today in the near term, 100,000 to 150,000 reserve component personnel will be mobilized annually for extended periods to sustain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The longer-term planning metric is that each reserve component member can expect to be mobilized at least once every five years, if not more frequently for periods of up to a year or longer.
That is a far cry from one weekend a month.
These are fundamental changes and we must pay attention to their implications. Today's hearing is part of the effort by this subcommittee to better understand not only the stress being experienced by these reserve components, but also to examine what is being done and what should be done to sustain the viability of the reserve component in general.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Before I introduce our first panel of witnesses, let me yield to the ranking member, a gentleman who has been a leader on these issues and has been a great partner in this subcommittee effort, the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McHugh can be viewed in the hard copy.]
STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, RANKING MEMBER, TOTAL FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE
Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our men and women in uniform.
I think this hearing is particularly timely today. We not only have increased operational demands but also transformational demands which has impact on our Reserve Forces.
And it is not just due to what has been going on in the last couple of years. We have known since 1991 that we have had increased expectations from our Guard and Reserve Forces.
In fact, in Kosovo and Bosnia and operations are sustained today by Guard and Reserve Forces. And these demands don't seem to be diminishing anytime soon. I think that any reasonable observer expects that we will see this increased operational tempo on our Reserve Forces and our entire military for the foreseeable future.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also have questions about the medical and dental arrangements of our troops as they come in. And the medical stories that came out of Fort Stewart were very concerning for a lot of members. I know it was for the military also.
We look forward to hearing your perspective on that.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank you once again for having this hearing.
I thank the gentleman, and I look forward to your testimony and your response to questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentleman again for his commitment to these issues across the board.
Before we begin, let me ask unanimous consent that two statements be entered into the record of this hearing, first the statement from the Air Force Sergeants Association and also a statement from the Naval Reserve Association. Without objection that will be so ordered.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. MCHUGH. I welcome, as I said earlier, our panel of three witnesses, three distinguished gentlemen who certainly have a very unique, very professional and very important perspective on the questions that Vic Snyder and I have just tried to outline in general terms.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perspectives of the Reserves Forces Policy Board as well as the views of the associations representing both the Reserves and the National Guard, and I would like to introduce the Honorable Albert C. Zapanta who is the chairman of the Reserve Forces Policy Board.
Welcome, sir.
Also we are honored to be joined by Major General Douglas Burnett, United States Air Force, Adjutants General Association of the United States, and he is also the adjutant general of the great state of Florida, National Guard.
Welcome, General.
And also Major General Robert McIntosh, United States Air Force Reserve, retired executive director of the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) of the United States.
Welcome to you.
This is the first opportunity for two of you to testify before this committee, although General McIntosh has appeared before us in his capacity as the reserve component adviser of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the past.
But, General Burnett, today you are wearing two hats, as I mentioned: one as the representative of the Adjutants General Association and another as the adjutant general of Florida.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So that certainly gives him the broad as well as the micro, macro and micro, perspectives.
And, Mr. Zapanta, you chair the congressionally mandated Reserve Forces Policy Board, which is designed to provide Congress with an independent view of matters pertaining to the reserve component. Your perspective here today is certainly both welcomed and anticipated.
To all three of you, we look forward to your testimony.
It may be appropriate in the order in which I introduce you, Mr. Zapanta, if you would like to start, our attention is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT C. ZAPANTA, CHAIRMAN, RESERVE FORCES POLICY BOARD
Secretary ZAPANTA. Thank you, Chairman McHugh, Congressman Snyder and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to testify before you today on behalf of the Reserve Forces Policy Board and the extraordinary men and women who serve the reserve component.
My remarks will focus on several strategic areas and issues the board has addressed, or has interest, and that affect the reserve component today and will continue to affect them in the future.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I request that my written statement be entered in the record.
Mr. MCHUGH. Without objection, so ordered.
And if I may intrude for one moment, Mr. Zapanta, I would note to all the witnesses on both the first and second panel, without objection all of your testimony in its entirety be entered into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you, sir.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Pursuant to Title 10, the board is the principal policy adviser to the Secretary of Defense on all matters relating to reserve component and, as required, to prepare an annual report on reserve programs and other matters considered by the board for transmission to the President and Congress.
The board consists of 24 members that include myself as the statutory chairman, the assistant service secretaries for Manpower Reserve Affairs, flag and general officers from the active and Reserve Forces and the Coast Guard.
Congress has repeatedly stated its desire that the board act independently in its advisory and reporting roles, a position the board steadfastly maintains and feels is more important now than at any time due to the increased reliance on the RC.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We meet at least quarterly, conduct field visits to talk with combatant commanders and our mobilized Guard and Reserve personnel and conduct Citizen Patriot Forums with business, community leaders and families of deployed RC members.
Our statutorily required annual report is in final coordination and should be to the Secretary of Defense for transmission to the President and Congress prior to our April 20th board meeting.
In the past two years, we have visited all nine unified commands to include Guard and Reserve personnel who are serving with utmost professionalism and esprit de corps in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guantanamo Bay, Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, and we plan to visit Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan in the very near future.
We gather significant data on the mobilization issues during these visits as well as collect the data from various published reports.
We have learned we must develop fair and equitable compensation, entitlements and benefit packages, including special pays, basic allowance for housing and travel per diem entitlements, improve pre-mobilization medical and dental screening and care, improve personnel and pay systems immediately, and develop a joint automated system to track and manage mobilized RC members from activation through demobilization.
Equipment modernization modification and replacement must be on par with the active components (AC).
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Consideration should be given to legislative changes that provide for greater flexibility in allowing the services to accomplish pre-mobilization training and utilization of RC volunteers which when coupled with force rebalancing and continuation of service initiative will serve to greatly improve predictability for the RC members, their families and employers.
An often-heard comment from our mobilized RC members has been one been of inequitable treatment such as billeting personal protective equipment and organizational clothing. This second-class treatment shows a level of insensitivity that must be changed to ensure our Guard and Reserve members serve equally with their active duty peers.
We are asking our RC members to do more, often at the expense of their families and employers. The old paradigm of one weekend per month and two weeks per year is no longer the standard for many of our RC members.
If we continue to utilize RC members at the pace we are today and expect to continue to meet retention or recruiting goals, then we must develop the best possible compensation and sensitize our leadership to ensure fair and equitable treatment.
Transformation and rebalancing between the active and the reserve components, and within the RC, is occurring in areas of civil affairs, military police, law enforcement, installation and port security forces, air crews and intelligence officers.
As it relates to stability operations, this is an area where creative ideas might provide solutions for the future.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One idea that arose from our 2003 symposium was the concept of a universal command, an RC organization containing military and civilian volunteers.
Our January conference on stability operations yielded the need for quick response force that reflects modularity and flexibility.
Our upcoming May symposium will focus on rebalancing, stabilization operations and homeland defense.
With our increasing reliance on our RC forces as they serve to fight the global war on terrorism, it has never been more important for the board, with our 52 years of history, to provide independent, unvarnished policy advise to the Secretary of Defense and continue to provide our annual report to the President and Congress.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your sincere interest in this topic and your willingness to address these difficult issues. We remain steadfast in our mission and stand ready to serve.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Zapanta can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, sir. I deeply appreciate your willingness, and your fellow members of the Reserve Forces Policy Board, to dedicate yourselves to these issues.
I know the Secretary of Defense appreciates your input, and we deeply value your perspective as well.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Thank you.
Mr. MCHUGH. Next we have Major General Douglas Burnett, Adjutants General Association of the United States and adjutant general of the great state of Florida's National Guard.
Welcome, General.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. DOUGLAS BURNETT, USAF, ADJUTANTS GENERAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ADJUTANT GENERAL, FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
General BURNETT. Thank you, and good afternoon.
Mr. MCHUGH. How has the weather been down there? All right?
General BURNETT. Sir?
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. Weather in Florida been okay?
General BURNETT. Yes, sir, it is beautiful. A little warmer than here but we have our cold moments as well.
Mr. MCHUGH. I am from southern Canada and I will show you cold. [Laughter.]
Come visit us at Fort Drum. But I understand what you are saying.
We are happy you are here. Thank you very much.
General BURNETT. Yes, sir. And, Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be here today.
Congressman Snyder and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this invitation to appear before your committee. I know you are deeply committed to national security and have been very supportive of the National Guard, and not only the National Guard as a necessary and capable force, but our soldiers and certainly the well-being of their families as well. We thank you for that.
As you said, today I speak on behalf of the Adjutants General Association of the United States and the adjutant general of Florida.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The National Guard has a long and proud history in its provision of citizen soldiers and airmen to the defense of our nation. We are equally proud of the superb job Guardsmen across this country have done in their state missions as well.
We have truly evolved from a force in reserve to a force in being. In fact, in the last 15 years, we have been whatever the active Army is or wherever the active Air Force was deployed.
As you know, the events of September 11th dramatically increased our operational tempo, and for the most part, that operational tempo continues.
And I am proud to say we have made our readiness commitments to the Army and the Air Force and to our respective governors.
Within minutes of the attack on 9/11, combat-loaded F–15 jet fighters from the Florida Air Guard's 125th Fighter Wing were flying combat air patrols over the southeastern United States, flying with other Air Guard fighters, tankers and support operations across the country as other Air Guard units throughout the country were responding quickly to enhance our security posture.
In the months following September 11th, we activated National Guard formations to protect airports, seaports and other potential terrorist target sites.
In February 2002, the Florida Army Guard began mobilizing and deploying units for action in Afghanistan. And then the big one came on December 26th, 2002, the 53rd Infantry Brigade units were activated for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ten days later, elements of the 53rd Infantry Brigade arrived at mobilization station at Fort Stewart, Georgia—and that was a short time frame of 10 days; we usually use a 30-day guidance.
We were proud to do that.
The 3rd Battalion arrived in January. These units were among the first conventional forces into Iraq.
During the ground campaign, these elements of the 53rd Infantry Brigade moved forward with the 3rd ID and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. In the months which followed, we conducted security and stabilizing operations in Baghdad and Ar Ramadi and later on across Iraq.
The Florida National Guard has also provided units for operation in the Philippines, Guantanamo Bay, Kosovo and Bosnia. We have provided combat-ready units for the United States Army and Air Force through an emphasis on standards and readiness.
The Florida National Guard's mobilization and deployment and operational tempo is similar to that of that of National Guard forces in other states and territories.
In the past three years, more than 132,000 Florida National Guard members have been activated for Federal duty. Tragically, more than 60 Guardsmen gave their lives in defense of freedom. And today we still have more than 60,000 Guardsmen on active duty.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
By any measure, valorous awards, unit citations and commanders' reports, the contribution of National Guard soldiers and airmen has been truly extraordinary.
Despite our commitment to readiness and preparation for mobilization, these deployments produced a variety of stresses. In many cases family members were not prepared for the quick call-up or the lengthy separation of their loved ones.
Employers of guard members, our unsung heroes, were forced to act quickly to fill vacancies.
The mobilization itself identified both policy and procedural disconnects.
For the most part, these challenges have been resolved through close cooperation with the National Guard bureau and the military departments.
Senior Army leaders, like General Larry Ellis, commander of U.S. Forces Command; Lieutenant General Joe Inge, 1st Army commander; and the training support brigade commander, so essential to our training success, like Colonel Mace Crowe has been instrumental in ensuring the adaptive National Guard system continues to evolve to meet the needs of our soldiers and their families.
My experience and the experience of other adjutants generals have identified challenges that must be addressed. Let me briefly highlight five.
First, we must resource Army National Guard formations at the level the Army expects these units to meet at mobilization. In most cases, this is C–1 or C–2. We are funded at C–3 for training. And that is something every adjutant general will want me to tell you today.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I can't emphasize enough, sir, training must be resourced, that is, funded at the C–1 level to include funding for exercises that enhances the collective training experience.
We miss significant opportunities to train with the current funding level.
Second, we must remove measures which force guard units into cross-leveling soldiers from one unit to another during mobilization. This creates a significant amount of turbulence and chaos. We are willing to do it, but it can be done more efficiently.
Third, recent mobilizations have again demonstrated the need for active and reserve component modernization processes to be concurrent with the active forces.
Our trucks in the guard, for the most part, are not in the Army inventory. We also need up-armored Humvees that are organic to Guard units. In fact, our Humvees won't even accept, for the most part, the up-armored kits because they are the older models.
Full power manning: This is very critical to readiness. We must improve to 100 percent of the requirement for full-time manning in the Army National Guard.
The Air Guard is funded at 100 percent of their requirement. The Army guard is only funded at 58 percent of the same validated requirement. There is almost a direct result on readiness for each additional full-time person we hire.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, finally, reservists, their family members and employers require predictable information in deployment and return schedules. The one-year-boots-on-the-ground policy, which under current scenarios means mobilization for almost 18 months, will be a serious challenge for future retention as well as recruiting.
We should look for options and strength objectives that will result in the maximum of one year mobilization. This will require better investment and up-front training and a close adherence to what I call integrity of process.
The policy, one-year-boots-on-the-ground, also serves as a disincentive to be efficient in post-mobilization training in moving the troops to and particularly from theater.
This is the subject matter of a very complex discussion. But regardless of the outcome of the debate, the real vote regarding retention and recruitment will be in hometown USA and in our armories.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Burnett can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much, General. Again, welcome. We appreciate you being here and your testimony as well.
Next we have Major General Robert McIntosh, United States Air Force Reserve, retired, executive director, Reserve Officers Association.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General.
STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ROBERT MCINTOSH, USAFR (RET) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES
General MCINTOSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The 75,000 members of the Reserve Officers Association, from all five branches of the armed forces, thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
As you and Congressman Snyder said so well in your remarks, many of America's citizen warriors are continually being asked to repair their disruptive civilian lives after demobilization and then return to military duty on a repetitive basis.
Our nation has experienced similar challenges in the past. In the postwar 1940's, Congress passed needed legislation to provide benefits for returning soldiers and sailors to ease their transition to civilian life and to ensure a higher state of reserve readiness for when America needed to use its citizen military in the future.
Today, we are fighting another global war. And once again, it is necessary to update policies and to take legislative actions.
The focus now is how to retain and recruit the brightest and best citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we know, sustaining an all volunteer force requires different actions than those needed to maintain yesteryear's drafted force. Despite the work to date by the Congress and the Department of Defense (DOD), much remains to be done to ensure reserve and National Guard recruiting and retention remain healthy in the future.
We must preserve one of America's greatest resources: a skilled and dedicated citizen military.
Several important initiatives would enable our nation's reserve components to optimize their support of national defense and national security.
For your consideration, ROA's formal written testimony includes a detailed description of several immediate changes and improvements.
The following is a partial list of these initiatives: full health care options for selective Reserve and their families; tax credit for employers; a formal National Guard and Reserve equipment appropriations process; reducing the antiquated age 60 Reserve retirement eligibility criteria; improving Montgomery GI Bill provisions; repairing the 130th rule for special incentive and skill pay by making the compensation qualification-based; increasing re-enlistment bonuses; and repairing the unfair degradation of survivor benefits at age 62.
Many of these initiatives not only affect reserve readiness and the individual reservist, but also impact spouses and families. Family considerations are having a remarkable influence on whether citizen soldiers choose to remain in the military.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding the transformation and force structure rebalancing initiatives by the services and DOD, the Reserve Officers Association supports these efforts in concept. But at the same time, we have significant concerns.
We urge careful consideration and understanding of the attributes of a properly balanced total force. We worry that the rush to control personnel costs could lead to flawed force structure planning.
We acknowledge that some changes in structure and mission assignment are appropriate. However, the overall cost effectiveness of having a robust and experienced reserve component force to complement a more expensive regular force must be considered carefully before we eliminate or shift significant numbers of reserve component billets.
Even after factoring into the budget the cost of TRICARE eligibility, for the selective reserve and their families and the cost of better incentive and retirement programs, citizen soldiers remain a highly cost-effective national asset.
Additionally, the bond between the U.S. military and the citizens who live in America's communities is strengthened by the visible mobilization of neighbors and fellow workers, reservists and National Guardsmen.
The continuing mobilization of citizen soldiers is a clear reminder that we are at war and heightens national commitment and resolve across America, particularly in a long and difficult struggle.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to answering your questions and again thank you for your invitation to speak today.
[The prepared statement of General McIntosh can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you very much, General.
Thank you gentlemen all. As I have said several times, we appreciate your being here and appreciate deeply your perspective.
Back in December of 2002, I had the honor of meeting a congressional delegation upstream of the potential Iraq incursion. And the purpose of that was exclusively to meet with Guard and reservists, to try to get a measure of individuals' in the field attitude and perspective toward this new paradigm.
We took the commanding officers out of the room and had some very, very frank discussion.
Honestly, what we heard that day to me was disturbing. We heard about individuals—and some of this was reflected in the comments that I heard in your testimony and I have read in your testimony—comments about being placed in jobs for which they didn't train, not the reason they joined; inequitable treatment based on a variety of measurements; the uncertainty of deployment, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera—you know these better than I do.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And that was 2002.
Since that time I have been to Iraq twice. I just got back from Afghanistan a number of weeks ago. And everywhere I went, of course, we saw Guard and reservists and heard much of the same: No hesitation about serving, no qualms about the sacrifice they were making, but concerned about this new reality that I, in part, tried to describe in my opening statement.
Those are anecdotal, I suppose. But as we come back to the United States and we hear from other individuals and organizations, which you gentlemen represent, we hear similar concerns.
And yet, from the Department of Defense, we are told that by their measurements of stress, in the high-demand/low-density jobs you have moderate stress, and the rest of force at best you have low stress.
And if you look at recruiting and retention as a snapshot of the moment, there are no signposts that things are in jeopardy.
My question to you to start off is: How do you feel about the way in which the department and the services measure those stresses? Are we measuring the right things? Are we measuring enough?
Do we indeed have an adequate way in which we look at the stresses on the families? We just saw in the past week a poll, if you will, a survey conducted by The Washington Post on families of the 10 most deployed bases, not guard and reserve exclusively. They are talking to the families.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Then there were some good things in there, but some distress and things, as well.
Do we need to develop new metrics? Or are we in a pretty positive position with respect to how we are measuring the future right now with respect to recruitment and retention?
General?
General BURNETT. That was my question, sir.
Mr. MCHUGH. Well, it was all three of you. You are in uniform.
Mr. Zapanta?
Secretary ZAPANTA. Mr. Chairman, I agree 100 percent that there is that sensitivity, especially family members.
One of the things that we have done with the RPV is, when we go out to visit the various locations, and combat command, we actually take an afternoon and meet with the whole board and what we call stakeholders, what we call our Citizen Patriot Forum. They are first responders, they are businesses—small, medium-sized, large—families of deployed members, to really try to get a sense of and really listen so that we can feed it into our process.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, yes, there is stress. There is always stress when you are in a combat situation.
Are we handling it adequately? I think we can always do better. But I do feel, as you will probably hear it from the chiefs, that the services are very, very cognizant of it, and they are focusing on it.
People in leadership are trying to get something done about it. And I think you are going see some of that action.
So, stress is there. It will be there. There are varying degrees of it.
Are we handling it? I think we are. And I think the department knows that we have to do that, so I am comfortable in saying that.
Can we do better? Yes. We always can.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, sir.
General.
General BURNETT. Mr. Chairman, if I may—I think when we talk about stress, it boils down to some basic concepts: It is how the soldiers see we treat them and it is how we see they trust us.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those soldiers in that picture behind us, in my view, are all four-star generals. We owe them the best we can do.
As Congressman Young has said, we owe them the best equipment we can get, not necessarily the equipment we can afford, but the best.
The stress on our National Guard soldiers has been significant. I will go back to what General Shinseki said: ''Soldiering is an issue of the heart.''
And I think at the beginning of the day, they come out, they have been called, sir. But during that day, the stresses that come their way, whether they have the correct body armor or they have other things they need, like the sure-fire lights on their weapons, which I saw many of them buy, and they had duct tape for the weapon barrel when they came back.
It is those kinds of things that we send and say, ''Yes, this great nation is doing all we can for you.'' To me, it is the price of doing business in a democracy.
It is expensive to do this stuff. But it protects this great land.
I think that as we huddle together and look at lessons learned, it is important that we look at things like post-mobilization, post-traumatic-stress syndrome, because I don't really see the kind of sense of urgency to look at that.
Everyday I get up and think about our 5,200 soldiers that mobilized in Florida. And, certainly, the almost 2,000 that have just come back as infantry guys from Iraq, how are they dealing with their families? How are they dealing with these disorders that we know are out there, from lessons learned in Vietnam and certainly even Desert Storm.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think we need to look more at what we should be doing daily and what our health care providers, particularly the Veterans Affairs (VA), is capable of doing. But that takes funding.
I think that will relieve a lot of stress.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.
General McIntosh.
General MCINTOSH. First, I would like to start by saying that we appreciate the efforts by the services and DOD relative to fixing some pay problems and some other processing problems in mobilization and demobilization.
There has been a hard effort by the leaders from the Pentagon to do that, and I think it should be recognized. And it certainly is, by our association, on the record.
Certainly, that being said, what is the manifestation of stress? Will it be a big exodus of the reserve components eventually?
What we feel, from talking to our members, is initially there will not be because people are proud of their service. They know the country is engaged in a long war. And they know that they signed up, over the long haul, to win that war.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That being said, the application of stop loss, the decisions that will be made more by the spouse and family once a soldier gets away from the unit and faces an employer who has had to bring on temporary help, the stop loss coming off at that time, those problems with family, employers, may manifest itself down the road.
And so what our members are really saying is that ''there are certain things you can do for us to ensure that you retain us and you can recruit us in droves.''
And the biggest one they are saying is health care. And not necessarily TRICARE, cross or selective reserve, but some options in terms of either using TRICARE as a selective reservist or having an offset to their medical insurance relative to some kind of governmental problem.
The second thing they are talking about is the stress on their employers. Guardsmen and reservists in our association are very sympathetic to medium-and small-sized employers. And certainly the tax credit issue, we think, would indirectly remove that stress.
Talking about retention of the family: If TRICARE was available for most guardsmen and reservists, and it was time for the guardsmen and reservists to decide to get out, it would be the spouse that would say: ''You are not going to get out because little Johnny is due a heart operation. And you remember you negotiated your salary with your boss so you wouldn't have any medical insurance. So we, by golly, are not going to leave the reserve component. You keep that uniform on and keep serving.''
Now, that is anecdotal. But we think that is how important the medical issue is also.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Small things like the GI bill would relieve stress. If we could let reservists use the GI bill while they are mobilized, if we would change from six to four years, their obligation, if they do use it, and if we would not start their clock on the GI bill until they use it the first time, these are all things that would help reservists and guardsmen handle the stress, live with the stress, because stress is a part of being a good soldier, and they understand that.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, sir.
I couldn't agree more that the kinds of benefits that you mentioned, General McIntosh, are important. And we have made a very meager but I think an important start on that, and we need to continue.
What I do worry about, though, is that at the end of the day, are benefits enough to sustain a guard and reserve that is an integral part of the force?
I mentioned the new policy of deployment and activation once every five years. I think that is a minimum.
Can we find enough good men and women? And can we find enough good men and women who are employed by meaningful, or I should say sensitive employers, that are willing to do that.
We certainly need to ensure that that is the case.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me ask it this way: Do we measure today the stress in the attitudes of the families and the employers in adequate ways?
You mentioned, General McIntosh, having anecdotal information. That is what I have. That is all I have. And I know the services take surveys.
But are you satisfied that when we talk about stress on the force, the current matrices are sufficient to give us an accurate picture?
General MCINTOSH. Can I address that?
Mr. MCHUGH. Absolutely.
General MCINTOSH. First of all, the answer is, no, they are not adequate, but it is not because of a Herculean effort by the department to try to listen to the soldiers. It is just that we are new to this game, and so we need to come up with certainly better ways of measuring it.
One of the things that may be overlooked in the restructuring and the rebalancing—maybe it is not—is that if you take civil affairs, for example, or another kind of high-demand-type mission, if we in our restructure put enough force structure, robust enough force structure, in those areas that we know that are going to be used in this new kind of warfare so that reservists and guardsmen can rotate through six-month deployments, four-month deployments, eight-month deployments, and know with some predictability that they have somebody waiting back home to replace them in eight months and it won't be their turn to go again for two or three years, that is the kind of force structure analysis that probably is going on—I am not aware of it—but that we really ought to look at to relieve some of this stress.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.
Mr. Zapanta.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with General McIntosh.
One of the things we found both with our board members as well as our meetings with the RC chiefs is the whole area of predictability so that the rotation is critical because not only employers but family members can plan.
One of the tough things that happened in the mobilization this time was, many times we had a short alert and people are mobilized quickly.
I think lessons have been learned, and I see a real movement toward trying to—and that is a stress factor—to try to relieve that nonpredictability or the ability for people to really plan their life ahead.
And it also goes to not just the family but that employer who has really looked to support. And that is one of the things we have heard every time we have gone out in public.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.
General.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General BURNETT. Mr. Chairman, if I may—in Florida we tried to look last year at what we thought would be coming this year as our soldiers returned. And as we did that, I went out to 10 cities in Florida and visited with the families of our mobilized soldiers and listened to their concerns, took specialists with me and a lot more things that we fixed pretty readily: pay issues, those kinds of things—which is another thing we need to look at, by the way. We need to advance the fielding of the forward comparable pay system for the Army National Guards. We can get this pay thing right. It needs some work.
But any rate, the thing that I brought back from these families was essentially this: When you are gone from home, beyond that major concern—and I am just bringing a few reports, sir. I don't have the ability to analyze that data. But I can tell you, that was a common threat. And I spent several hours in each city with these families.
I have also chartered a blue ribbon panel chaired by Dr. Frankie Godwin, who is a psychologist, to look at what we see the requirements for family readiness programs in a post-mobilization situation as these soldiers come home, and to look at stresses on the force, the range of things that has been discussed here this morning.
We have also contracted with some graduate students at University of Central Florida to help us with data collection so we can come up with some meaningful statistical data that is asked at the right time.
I saw the data that was collected by Stars and Stripes, and I am not so sure, sir, that taking a pulse of morale in a combat zone where soldiers have been eating Meals Ready to Eat (MRE)s for three months and going through some tough times, sleeping in sand in the night, gives you an honest figure.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I guess that, not being delicate, be like asking your wife halfway through labor about having another child. It is a good question; I don't think it is the right time.
And I think we have to look at those things.
And, sir, I think this panel will give us some good information. I will be glad to forward that to you. It should be forthcoming in the next few weeks.
Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, we would appreciate that very much.
Well, gentlemen, thank for your responses.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to quote, if I might, from Secretary Charles Abell, who testified here a week ago. It actually got some press play over the weekend.
We had asked him what kinds of things keeps him up at night over personnel issues. And I just want to read part of what he said and then have you all respond to it.
He said, ''I worry about the sweep of compensation of benefits that come, and I worry from the perspective that you and your colleagues are very generous to our folks and in most cases our folks deserve everything that you give them.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
''However, I do get worried that it is possible to create a force that is too expensive for the nation, especially when it comes to programs that are essentially deferred compensation, or when the benefits accrue to only those who no longer serve.
''I worry about the cost of that and what that does to our labor costs within the Department of Defense.''
I don't know if you saw his comments in the paper or not. But you all have, as one of you mentioned, you have given a very detailed account of changes that you think we ought to make or consider making. I think most of them would cost some additional funds, which is all right. We are going to do what we have to do.
But what are your thoughts about that? I thought it was a very candid comment that he made.
Just go down the line, Mr. Zapanta?
Secretary ZAPANTA. Well, Dr. Snyder, I can tell you that I know the department, especially within the services, are looking at the 30 days prior, and I think it is 180 days after, to try to ensure that as our RC members are brought on active duty that those kinds of issues are keeping them inside the, I guess, the scopes of the tracking of some of the areas that not only bring on stress but the questions as to some of the inequities that some of our members have voiced.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But let me specifically say that I know the department, I know the secretaries of the various services are looking at it, they are dealing with it.
You and I both know that when a soldier, a sailor, Marine, airman or Coast Guard person stops their noise or their I think carping, then we have a problem. And I can tell you we saw it during my 10 years in the two wars that I was part of. But at the end of the day, there is no question about the morale and the esprit de corps that is out there.
They just want to be sure that when they come home, that when their families are looking for the support that they are looking for, that it is there. And I think that is where the real connection is, and that is why we have been spending a lot of time listening to those families.
Dr. SNYDER. General Burnett?
General BURNETT. Dr. Snyder, as it relates to medical and dental, I think there is a direct effect on readiness, particularly with the dental piece.
Plenty of Americans don't have dental plans. We can tell you, in Florida our soldiers don't have benefit to those things.
General Schultz, the director of the Army National Guard, pushed out a lot of money for us to fix teeth before this started happening. We knew the mobilization was coming. For example, in Florida, last year we treated 260 soldiers that we knew were going to be mobilized at a cost of $100,000—and that is in 2003.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So far in 2004, we treated 126 patients at a cost of $41,000.
Now, that was a direct effect on readiness, because if they were category three—which means you are not going down range, you are not going to be deployed—then we had a great investment in readiness but yet we can't reap that investment.
So dental is huge when it affects readiness.
I can tell you that about 42 percent across the country of guardsmen have health insurance. Major General John Smith and Adjutant General Howe put this empirical data together. That has an effect too.
But dental is very much up front because it is, like, right now. And our soldiers have benefited from this readiness issue General Schultz has very well addressed.
I think it is important to our soldiers and their families.
Dr. SNYDER. So, if I hear what you are saying, what you are saying is, yes, there are things that cost money, but there is not cost in it coming down the line, they are expenses that we incur right now that we get an immediate benefit from.
General BURNETT. Yes, sir, it is an immediate benefit.
It is not something nice to have. I am addressing needs, not wants.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. SNYDER. I understand.
General McIntosh?
General MCINTOSH. The affordability issue, I think can be spoken to by others in the other panel better than I, in terms of what capability a particular service gets from its guardsmen and reservists relative to a specific mission versus the percentage of that services budget that that guard and reserve organization spends. And you will find you rapidly go from 30, 40 to 100 percent capability for 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 percent of the total budget.
So that makes the further obvious case that guardsmen and reserve are cost effective and very affordable.
If we create a guard and reserve that has fewer people in it because we cannot recruit and retain if we are not willing to spend money on medical readiness, on employer tax credits, on TRICARE, then we will incur another cost of extensive turnover or continually to recruit non-prior service people who haven't been in and haven't been in the war zone and recycled numerous times.
So my answer to the affordability question is: We cannot afford not to do what it takes to keep the brightest and best citizen soldiers in our military.
Dr. SNYDER. General Burnett, have you been to Iraq?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General BURNETT. Yes, sir, Dr. Snyder, I visited Iraq in December, a few months ago.
Dr. SNYDER. Have you found as a tag that the number of times you would like to be able to go seems to be more than what DOD is actually able to work out for you to go visit your folks there?
General BURNETT. Yes, sir, I would like to go. I think my command sergeant major needs to go, and I also think my assistant adjutant general-Army needs to go.
I certainly respect the concern of having too much brass in the field, and I know that is also a war-fighter concern as well.
But we need to be over there. It was the most rewarding aspect of my trip. To tell the truth, I wish I could have stayed with my soldiers till they came home, and I really feel that. I think it is very important to go see these things.
Dr. SNYDER. Yes, that was my impression too. And in fact, I had a personal conversation with Secretary Rumsfeld about that. But I see you guys as being different, the adjutant generals as being different. Because not only are you dealing with your troops that are over there, but you have the ones back home that may well be going. And then you have the folks back home that are related to the folks that over there, family members, and then you also are going to be dealing with these folks when they get back there.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And it seems to me, that somehow about a one visit a year or so is just not adequate for what you could get out of it. I don't know how to deal with those exactly.
But you mentioned medical holds, General Burnett, in your statement, or the problems you have had with people not being ready to go. Has the evolving policy on medical holds, has that resolved a lot of the cases that you had?
General BURNETT. Yes, sir. I am very impressed at what has been done at Fort Stewart. I can tell you that the Army, without question, did their usual thing of great leadership. Actions on the objective made a huge difference. The National Guard Bureau has been involved there too.
Florida had 107 non-deployable soldiers, which is about 2.2 percent of our 4,800. And that reflects favorably with about the three percent average that is running.
But medical hold is another piece of trust with the families and their soldiers. They watch what we are doing.
And I can tell you, this health organization, community-based health organization, which has been funded by the Congress I think for $8 million or so is working. Are there better ways to do it? I don't know. But we have one of those 10 organizations in Florida, and we are managing the reserve component and National Guard, case managing, getting them appointments, following up. And follow-up is the key to everything in this business.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we think that is coming along great. And honorable people have resolved most of that problem.
Dr. SNYDER. I think that is all I have for now, Mr. Chairman, thanks.
Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being before us today, in particular, my good friend, Mr. Zapanta, good to see you today.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Good to see you, Congresswoman.
Ms. SANCHEZ. I, too, as the chairman, was concerned about The Washington Post article in this past weekend with respect to the survey taken and the families suggesting that their members won't be signing up again if they have a choice.
And you know, I am always struck by this, because I travel back and forth to California every week, and inadvertently I am always sitting next to somebody who is a reservist or on active duty. And whenever I ask them about signing up again, their answer is always, ''Well, I would, but my wife won't take it anymore.''
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When I went to Iraq in December right before Christmas and I actually, you know, would talk to all of the generals, and they all said, ''Morale is great, and our soldiers are doing a great job, and morale is great, morale is great.''
And then when I got the soldiers all by themselves, they say, ''You know, we can't wait to get out of here. Get us out of here, Congresswoman. This is a horrible place. There is not enough people here to help us. I am supposed to have six people in my unit and there is only two of us. We are working 17-hour days. We are working seven days a week. I am a reservist. What the heck am I am doing here? I didn't sign up for this, and I am never going to sign up again.''
And so then, you know, we see the survey and I think it was Lieutenant General Hagenback who confirmed that the internal polls from the Army, in particular, looked the same way.
How big of problem do you all really think we are facing?
And I guess this would go straight to my good friend here: What do you really think? Are these polls reflective of a real crisis we have on our hands for the future?
Secretary ZAPANTA. I think it is a portend. In other words, it is something if we don't do certain things to try to stem that potential outflow, I think we are going to have an impact.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think there are some things that need to be stated at this point about not just the stress but the retention and recruiting. We can do a lot of things that we aren't doing. You are going to hear it from the chiefs in particular that in fact it doesn't cost money.
It is leadership at that unit level. It is the kind of attention to listening to those troops, also listening to that family, that family support.
At the end of the day, Congresswoman, there is no doubt in my mind that if you treat them well and they know you are fair and they know they are getting paid just like the person next to them, whether they are active, reserve or guard, they are going to feel, then, pretty good about being there.
If they are not being treated that way, they are not happy. And did they not know that they were going to be there for a year?
You know, the one thing that I recall about Vietnam that was right is that we knew that when we went there we were there for one year, period, and that we just took that out of our lives.
And I think what we are seeing now, not only are we balancing, but how we transform mobilization is, we are trying to get to that rotation that gives us predictability. And again, I think you will hear that from the next panel.
But am I concerned? Sure I am.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Why? Well, I think I want to state it in the context that we are in a very different environment. We are in a global war on terror. We are not fighting a nation-state. We can't put our hand on that enemy. We can't end it next year or six months from now.
And so when you don't have that ability to kind of predict what you think the outcome will be, it puts a very, very questionable environment in place.
And so I think when you lay that on it, and if you look at some of the things we had to do quickly—and we did it well—and I say this unabashedly that we did well because we did it on the back of those soldiers, those reservists. And everybody really pushed and stretched and made it happen.
We have learned a lot.
And I think you are going to see that start to change, because as we go through the rebalancing, we are trying to not make the same mistake of what we may have done 10 years ago, to try to put too much structure in one type, whether civil affairs and reserve affairs, or reserve whatever it might be.
Ms. SANCHEZ. What do you think——
Secretary ZAPANTA. I don't have the number, though. To answer you directly, do I think it is going to be above 20 percent, because that seems to be kind of the number that the services are living with right now in retention. I don't know, but I can tell you I am worried about it.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I think that is something that we need to look at and continue to look at.
Ms. SANCHEZ. You know, when I was out there, I was also out in Germany and met with a lot of the families whose soldiers were down in-theater. And they are pretty savvy, particularly these women are pretty savvy about, you know, ''My guy has a particular Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). I am never going to see him again for the next five years.''
I mean, no matter how much the general that was with me, you know, tried to deflect these things, these people are pretty savvy about what is going on. They know their soldiers are gone, and if they have a particular skill, until we fix this problem, they are going to be there and they are going to be there over and over again.
So I happen to think it is going to be a real concern for us with respect to retention if we don't get some of this under control.
What do you think is the most significant hardship? I mean, do you think it is financial difficulties? Do you think it is separation due to the length of deployment? Do you think it is because they feel they are lied to? And they actually used those words, ''We were lied to. They told us six months.''
You know, I happened to be there at a time when people were into their second six months, and they were just beginning to feel the fact that they were going to be there now 18 months, let's say, in-theater.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So lie is a very good word that some of them used.
Do you think it is all the little extra things that happened to families, the lack of child care, for example, which was a piece of information when I was Germany that just hit me over and over again, was, ''We don't have any child care'' or ''my wife is''—for the guys who were in the family and the wife was in the military.
What do you think? I am trying to figure out what is that we can do to make this better for them?
General MCINTOSH. If I may, Congresswoman, I think it is a combination of the things we have been talking about today.
What we hear from the families of our members that are deployed is, number one, medical care and the difficulty of getting it and sorting out the paperwork, et cetera.
Number two, medium and small employers putting pressure on people.
And then more isolated but evident are pay issues relative to pay stoppage, blips in the computer system, et cetera.
So I think it is a combination of all the things we have been talking about today.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to say, this is not Desert Storm and Desert Shield. But I was in the command structure when people were waiting to come home from Desert Storm and Desert Shield, and they waited in the desert much longer than they thought they should, and we heard, ''As soon as I get home, I am getting out.'' And when they came home, some of them did get out and some of them we didn't want to lose got out, but there were relatively few.
So I think we do have an issue. We do have something we need to pay attention to, but I do not think it is the 50 percent number we have been reading in the press.
General BURNETT. If I may, Mr. Chairman——
Mr. MCHUGH. Please.
General BURNETT. I would agree that one of the significant issues that we have as leaders is: What is the future about retention of these soldiers? And I can assure you, their wife, their family, those that are around have a lot to do with that vote.
And I am not qualified to give you an answer, ma'am, on the troop-to-task ratio. That is way over my pay grade.
But I will say this: I think soldiers sign up knowing it is going to be hard work. They know it is risky, they know it is tough, and they know the days are going to be long.
And they endure that because that is part of getting that job done. They are trained to do it, they want to go practice that leadership piece.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But as they are doing that, again, back to the core piece: How do we treat them? Not how we can treat them but how we do treat them.
Just like bringing our soldiers home, they can't be released from active duty expecting to get home in one day and eight days later here they come. That is not how you do that.
I was a commercial airline pilot. I am aware of how contract airlift works. And we need to seriously look at how we bring these soldiers home.
I was at Fort Stewart for nine days, and only expecting to be up there days, screening 850 soldiers. And I had 400 families up there waiting that period of time because these flights were delayed.
Now, that has been fixed. And I can give credit to General Handy at U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) and certainly General Dick Myers, the chairman, for working that.
But that should have never happened.
So it is things where as leaders we have opportunity to treat these soldiers and they will come back and say, ''It was tough, but, man, those guys are looking after me.''
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So those kind of things that we can do it, and those aren't necessarily so costly. It has to do with having a passion for getting it right for our soldiers.
We, in Florida, put together five phases of walking these soldiers home. I think as a nation and state we missed this in Vietnam and maybe missed it Desert Storm because of the way we mobilize.
We have five phases. We greet the soldiers, every one, at the airplane at Hunter Army Air Field, shake their hand, select the senior leadership and VIP guests—elected officials, if you will.
Then back at Fort Stewart, Colonel Kidd's doing a superb job with that garrison there, welcoming soldiers home.
They come into the Army to the Army song, report from Iraq, families are jumping up and down—what an emotional moment. And I wish you could see one of those post-mobilization events done at Fort Stewart. It is class.
And then they come back into their armories in Florida with a police escort and streets are lined with kids with flags, ''Thanks for what you have done.''
We have now planned five phases of the huge welcome in five big cities in Florida. All around, these will be attended by Governor Bush, who is committed to every one, the lieutenant governor, even the very senior leadership in this city will be down there for some of those events to say, ''Thanks for what you did.''
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those are the kind of things we do that I think will make a difference. And certainly these things we heard from General McIntosh and Mr. Zapanta, we need the resource.
But there is some things we can do that are just good common sense.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Well, let me ask you also directly on something that we are working on: there is the Bankers Association and Mortgage Bankers that are looking for these trained reservists and guards that are coming back, and they are from the inner cities, whether it is an individual that just has a high school degree, but they are willing to train them and put them into either banks or into lending institutions so that they can continue on a path to have a good job.
But guess what? If we do it in the reserve and guards as part of a process that tries to help them, not when they come back and, ''Thank you for time. See you in a month for your weekend drill,'' but to try to help them back into society.
And it doesn't cost money. I mean, I have seen employers in these associations that we have been dealing with that basically are looking to do it.
And so that is an area that we are now looking at to see how we can help.
So I think it is continuing that link beyond when they get back.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Hayes.
Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I love what you said about Fort Stewart, because I was at Pope Air Force Base on Saturday morning when 241 all-Americans from 82nd Airborne returned, and I want to come see how they are doing at Bragg, how you get up to that level.
But we appreciate what is being done. Certainly it is not perfect. And the chairman has been very diligent in traveling the world in making sure that we are listening carefully.
Last week we had a great hearing, and we still have some work to do on track here for families of deployed spouses. But we are moving in that direction.
So from your perspective, would you just comment briefly on track here, anything we can do here to help that go forward in a more positive, more expeditious manner?
General MCINTOSH. Certainly, my mantra here today has been to talk about TRICARE across the selected reserve as an option for guardsmen and reservists.
I think we are aware of the huge price tag that has been put on that, due to various studies, if you did it across the guard and reserve.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I think what is not appreciated is how you would cut down the turnover on the cost of retraining, and how readiness would be affected on the front end of a mobilization, giving our commanders many more options when asked to decide who they are going to deploy and how many units they have to colluge together to get a combat-ready unit that have good teeth, for example.
We need to look seriously in the TRICARE area of doing everything we can do to ensure that the guardsmen and reservists are medically ready to go, and that we, the government, have footed that bill, and then once we tell them they are going, that their families are protected.
There has been a lot done in that area. You have done a lot. And that is very much appreciated.
But I think we need to go a step further. And it is fairly expensive. But I think it is time to consider the pros and cons of that.
Certainly our association says, TRICARE, across the selective reserve, as an option, with the premium paid by the guard and reserve family, is something we would appreciate a serious look at.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Let me address something, Congressman, that I think hopefully will bring some clarity to I think the question, which is a good question.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the real problems that we run into is obviously the budget. And when you start to look at health costs, of course that is going to be one that basically gets a lot of attention.
What we really are talking about is maybe approximately 30 percent or thereabout of our RC members that are being brought on active duty, mobilized, and many of those units, such as civil affairs and some of the Military Police (MP) units, are in a very fast Operation Tempo (OPTEMPO) rotation.
They need to be part of that TRICARE. But there may be 70 percent of the RC—by the way, it is also on the active side—that were not in the war, were not boots on the ground.
So how do we really manage it? How do make the equity of the RC members that are on that mobilization and make sure that they have the same, equal compensation, same health packages, TRICARE, for their families of that active service?
Once they come out and come back to their reserve or guard unit, then that comes back into a different program. And that is where I think I know the department, that I think you are going hear from in the next panel, that is what we are trying to look at, that is where some of the studies.
And that is one the things I know you here in Congress are looking at.
How do we manage that process so that nobody falls in the crack?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAYES. Thank you all.
Thanks, again, Mr. Chairman.
My point—and you have raised additional ones—when that mom, in the example of 4 o'clock in the morning with a young child with the croup, I want to be able to get to somebody and get help for that child. And that is so important.
Thank you all. Thanks particularly to the soldiers, the sailors, airmen, Marines that you serve.
Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding this important hearing today. Because I know all of us hear more about these issues back home probably than any other military issues.
I have a question about restructuring the guard, and perhaps these will be more appropriate for the next panel but I would like your insight if at all possible.
It seems to me that restructuring the guard and reserve may end up destructing a significant part of it. Perhaps that is good, but we don't know.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I am wondering if you gentlemen have any information about how many National Guard battalion headquarters may disappear as a result of various restructuring proposals that are coming forward?
Secretary ZAPANTA. Mr. Cooper, I am going to punt to the gentlemen that are going to be right behind us because that is really their lane.
But to the more fundamental and broader part of your question is, the rebalancing in our estimation, what we are trying to be able to do, is get those kind of units that are not being utilized—some of the heavy structure combat units, whether it is artillery or armor—into the areas where civil affairs, intelligence and some of the ones that are really on an OPTEMPO.
And they are doing that right now in such a way that you don't want to kill the structure so that you can't basically deploy what you have to deploy when you need it.
And so it is a combination of looking at that mission: What is the real capabilities?
The beauty of the guard and reserve—and I am going to get on my soapbox for a minute, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman—the ability that the guard and reservists brings is that civilian-acquired skill that would cost us a heck of a lot of money if we try to keep it in the active, and that is the ability to reach back and bring those kind of individuals and that can come and take that six-months or a year out of their life—not just all about combat infantry units.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so, answering your question, those are the kinds of things when we restructure—and I think you are going to hear it—that the RC is trying to put in place that we can give it the depth while at the same time not costing a big price tag.
Mr. COOPER. Thank you.
General BURNETT. Congressman Cooper, responding to your question about the battalions, again, I would defer for the most part to General Blum and Lieutenant General Schultz.
However, I would say this: As we restructure, I think it is important we have this TTHS account—transient, trainees, holdees and students. The Army Reserve has come out strong saying we should have this. The Army has it.
It gets into a question of how many people can we send downrange to do business? So if you have force structure here, and assigned strength here, when the Army calls us, this is what they see, this high level, and they say, ''Come to the fight with this,'' and we say, ''Well, hang on.'' I have between here and here to get there.
For example, sir, in Tennessee, I think you have 10,700, which is your force structure, and I think you have assigned 9,450. Well, when you start mobilizing some of those elements, you have to pull from here and there—for example, 11-Bravo is the infantry soldier—pull one from here to there that used to be an 11-Bravo is now doing something else, went forward for a promotion opportunity, but we have to pull them back.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think some of the plans I have heard, General Blum's advance, brings that down to where when they call us—we are assigned to have this, we are paid to have that, and if we recruit right, train right, all those things, I think it will happen.
Back to your question on battalions: It is very, very important to the National Guard and reserve component that we have promotion opportunity for leaders. Folks who are trained to lead want to lead at the next level. It is not about rank or pay grade. It is all about responsibility and accountability in stepping up and making a difference to those that follow.
So if we don't have the battalion headquarters and brigade headquarters, we are at promotional opportunity to lead at the next step, the level is not there, I can assure you, we will have not good formations, we will not have good companies, we won't have good battalions, because they don't see that mentoring piece to move up.
So I think we have to look closely as we work through this balancing act we talk about. And again, as I use the word, ''integrity of process,'' it is very important that we don't build something that looks good maybe in one city, maybe looks good on paper, but doesn't fit that soldier down there in Armory USA, because that is what it is about.
Mr. COOPER. Any idea how many armories may close in individual counties? Because a lot of folks focus on that.
General BURNETT. Well, sir, that is something to look at. I know in Tennessee you have 109 armories, and I am certain that is a concern for folks.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This soldiering piece is all about small town America, armories all over this great nation that supply troops. And maybe one town can't supply 100 troops when you need them. Maybe they can supply 85, but it is that 85 that makes a difference in the fight. We have to look significantly—at that side of the equation we start balancing this act.
I think we can do that and still keep armories open, because it is an unbelievable important piece of our recruiting base, the communities which we serve, because we are citizen soldiers.
Mr. COOPER. If some of our troops are converted to other skills, who pays for that conversion? How does that work? Our only artillery battalion being retrained right now is MPs.
General BURNETT. I would have to let General Blum, General Schultz address that. Basically you pay for it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. COOPER. So the taxpayers.
General BURNETT. Yes, sir.
Secretary ZAPANTA. The whole area of cross-leveling, Mr. Cooper, and the area of the retraining and all, the services are taking it out of hide, and I think they will tell you that.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But that is okay in the sense that they are trying to make sure that they can manage their resource and their ability to build those units to be able to deploy.
But, yes, it costs money, and we are talking about equipment as well to try to upgrade it. And so there is a price tag to it. I am sure they will bring it up.
Mr. COOPER. My last question, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, and perhaps other questions have covered this: The current utilization level of guard and reserve seems to be about 100,000.
General BURNETT. It is 132,000 that are mobilized today, sir.
Mr. COOPER. Does that apply total, or is that a spike? Is that a plateau? Is that a spike? It looks like for the foreseeable future that level, or about, is going to be necessary to supplement our active duty forces.
General BURNETT. Yes, I think we are going to see that for the foreseeable future. As the Army came down from 900,000 to 482,000, certainly our country knew that we would be using the National Guard, and I think our soldiers understand that, the distinction being between equal and equitable, which Dr. Snyder well pointed out in his January 21st testimony.
Equal is like the football stadium. I think you said, sir, 10 commodes in the men's bathroom and 10 commodes in the women's is equal. But that is not equitable, because the line is going to be a long line outside the women's.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think we all in the military need to adopt that as equal and equitable, because it certainly applies to the guard and the reserve and the active.
And I think we have a great partnership, and I think honorable people are working to flatten out these spikes so we have some symmetry of knowing we are going to be mobilized.
Mr. COOPER. I thank the chair.
Mr. MCHUGH. I thank the gentleman. He asked some very important questions.
Talk just a bit about medical hold, medical deployability. And you have all talked TRICARE for the guard and reserve, and certainly we have asked that certain steps be taken. It hasn't gone as far as some of us would like.
But let me just pose to you what we hear in return and let you comment upon it.
Statistically, 80 percent of the reserve Force has private health care insurance. So you have about a 20 percent universe out there that obviously is in need of assistance.
And yet, with 80 percent covered, we still have a very, very significant medical hold issue and nondeployability issue with respect to not being fit under medical conditions. Those 80 percent apparently are not utilizing their available health care coverage prior to deployments to keep up that level of deployability.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How would you respond to when we are told extending TRICARE across the board makes no sense either because 80 percent isn't using it to begin with? Can you give us any help there?
General MCINTOSH. I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MCHUGH. General McIntosh?
General MCINTOSH. The standard for deployment, T–1 issue and other issues is, as it should be, higher for a military person that it would for one of us walking the street and working our civilian jobs.
And that 80 percent is getting from their insurer, their insurance company, rights under that insurance to maintain a standard that is quite often lower than what the military would require on day one of mobilization.
So that is a reason for part of that disconnect. And I don't know if that is helpful or not.
If TRICARE were implemented at a shared-cost basis, and the instruction to the guards and reservists, when they signed up for TRICARE, that they would maintain T–2 status for their teeth and other health requirements, then the issue that you just brought up, I believe, Mr. Chairman, would go away very rapidly.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.
Mr. Zapanta?
Secretary ZAPANTA. Mr. Chairman, I think that if we can pre-screen before people are mobilized, that is going to help us. And I know that the services are doing much more of that.
Because it doesn't make any sense if you have a unit and you may have 10 percent that are going to be dropped out or put on medical hold.
Because when I was a young battalion commander out in California in the 40th Infantry Division, we could not use training time on a weekend to have our people go through medical or physical exams or anything.
But that is changing. And so if we can do that on the front end, we should have no question about bringing anybody on active duty if we already know what the problem is.
And so that is another kind of way to try to, I hope, maybe stem some of that.
What do we do with those individuals? That is another question I think that is at a service and command level.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General BURNETT. If I might, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, sir.
General BURNETT. Sir, I think we, again, as Mr. Zapanta very well said, we need to look at the front end on medicals. For example, on the Air National Guard side, annually you see a practitioner. You fill out a form, and that form has a matrix, and the matrix for what you get looked at is a function of age and other things—EKG at 35 and those kind of things. It is a preventive providing system, if you will.
However, on the Army side, you only get a actual eyes-on physical every five years. There is a Department of the Army form that the soldier fills out, but its administrative in nature, as I understand it, and of course, the idea is if a soldier be forthright, but everybody can't diagnose things, you know, onset of diabetes, those kinds of things.
But they fill this form out and at the end of five years, someone looks at them.
So in my view, we need to bring these two programs together and perhaps take a look at funding more medical practitioners in the guard, because we can recruit them, we certainly do in Florida, we are full up—so that we can get a better look at folks up front.
And, sir, I will have to go back and check my data because I know I must be wrong, but I don't think we are anywhere near 80 percent of our soldiers having medical care. And even if they have dental care, a lot of times it doesn't cover the bigger cost of things like oral surgery, which is huge, and that is where our big money has been spent.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. Well, two comments.
One, you are right, that is an average. My dad used to say, you know, if you have two one-legged farmers walking their cow to market, on average everybody has two legs. So there is a wide variance there.
The second thing is, I am not sure it does include dental. I think it is health insurance which, if you are in the Federal Government, for example, does not include dental.
So those are important differences.
Are we properly incentivizing unit commanders to make sure that their units are medically deployable? And if so, how are we doing that? And if not, what should we do?
General BURNETT. Well, it is something that we have looked at. And I can tell you, two years ago in Florida we went back and said, ''Okay, what do we think is going to happen and what do we need to do to be prepared for it?'' So at the mobilization site, for the United States Army, you say, ''Our states are ready to do business.''
So we went back and started looking closely at a lot of things like that. And perhaps your message here is instructive; we need to go back and take maybe a closer look at how that works.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Certainly we are trying to do those things. But we have 39 days to train, and again, if we were funded C–3, if we had more full-time, I think we could overcome the concerns you have stated.
Mr. MCHUGH. Have you worked up a figure on the different costs between current C–3 funding and C–1? That is a big number and maybe you haven't.
General BURNETT. Sir, it is probably a huge number. The Air Force does fund the Air National Guard for training at that level. We can deploy from where we are right to the fight and get it done.
And I think, in all candor, sir, that is the one issue that—I have called five of six adjutant generals and they all said, ''Doug, tell them: Got to fund training at C–1.'' And, sir, I don't know what the cost is.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you.
Mr. Zapanta?
General McIntosh, any comments on the incentivization of unit commanders' medical deployment?
General MCINTOSH. I think General Burnett hit the nail on the head. I think we need to look at that.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But, again, the front-end loading of having a vehicle where people can keep their teeth, for example, in deployable status is what the commanders will come back to us and ask for and say—if I had that, if our individuals had funding through a TRICARE program or some kind of program where they had supplementals or civilian insurance to stay combat-ready medically and didn't have to take it out of their pockets, then I, as the commander, could solve that overnight.
Secretary ZAPANTA. I think some of the services will tell you that they may have a physical exam that they have their individual members go through, but it may be only once every four or five years, not every year.
And I know they are looking at that.
So, what is the right tempo so that you are able to screen as you go through over a three-to five-year period?
But I do think on the front end we could really eliminate a lot of these problems.
Mr. MCHUGH. If my colleagues will bear with me, I had a general from my district, a guard general, who was also a physician. And he was talking about the good old days when they used to have teams of medical professionals who traveled to the various guard training sites, and I got the impression in between drills they conducted the physicals, that the main challenge for commanders and soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines, Coast Guard, alike, is getting away to get that physical.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Can we meet that need of the training requirements and also the medical deployability examination requirements by perhaps going back to the good old days and having traveling units? It sounds to someone such as myself who probably is not as informed as I should be that would not only work, it sounds cost-effective. Any thoughts on that?
Secretary ZAPANTA. I will take it from my day as an infantry——
Mr. MCHUGH. In your good old days.
Secretary ZAPANTA [continuing]. Guardsman. So in the old days, that was back in 1980.
We couldn't use training time to do that. And so what I did is quietly—because we were at Los Alamitos Armed Services Reserve Center, so you had all the services there. We had a general hospital there, and they were not getting enough training.
And so it was just happenstance that the head of the hospital and I had a chance to visit. And so he said, ''Geez, can you send me some of your soldiers and we would love to be able to put them through our process so I can keep my people trained.''
And so we would take a company at a time, or a platoon at a time, and try to just rotate them through while not degrading the training time. And that was, of course, when we were at that site.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, the other times as we were shooting out where it is now the National Training Center (NTC), you really don't have enough time to really impact or cut into your training. Because you are really trying to put a lot in that five-pound bag, so to speak.
So my sense is, it can be done, but it has to be done in a way where those local commanders can actually massage what they have to get done while at the same time give them that resources or time where they can go to that medical facility to get it done.
Can they travel? I mean, that is one that I think I am going to let my colleague here to the left answer that.
Mr. MCHUGH. The medical teams travel, not——
Secretary ZAPANTA. Oh, excuse me, I didn't hear you. I thought you meant the unit.
Mr. MCHUGH. No, the medical teams travel to the sites.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Oh, definitely.
Mr. MCHUGH. By the way, that was a benefit that the general-doctor, doctor-general had listed as well in that the medical teams get training they might not otherwise get.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secretary ZAPANTA. Exactly.
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, sir.
General?
General BURNETT. Mr. Chairman, if I may—we are doing that, sir. In Florida, we use contract doctors, and this is a lot of bang for the buck. It really is.
In fact, one group had a huge van, and they had a cycle, a process, set up that was very efficient. I forget the numbers of soldiers they could process through that.
But I felt it was very cost-effective. Again, this is something the National Guard Bureau has funded for us, and it works very well.
On the Air Guard in Florida, we have a medical squadron in Jacksonville at the fighter wing, and eight other units, and they deploy a team, every drill weekend they go somewhere to one of my other eight units scattered around Florida—they are support and not flying units—and they take care of the immunizations, some of the dental. And a lot of that is done up front.
So I think we are being pretty efficient in that point. We need to better, though.
Mr. MCHUGH. I think that is great and I am glad to hear it. But it may not be necessary to buy it all. I mean, you have medical units in the guard that could come to you in the same way without the same costs. Is that not true?
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General BURNETT. Yes, sir, we do. But with 10,500 Army soldiers in Florida, and I think I have 15 physicians and 15 physician assistants, it is spreading the peanut butter pretty thin to cover that base.
Mr. MCHUGH. Oh, they couldn't do it all.
The Georgians appreciate your promotion of peanuts.
[Laughter.]
It couldn't do it all, I agree with you. But it could be a part of it, I would think.
General McIntosh, any comments?
General MCINTOSH. I guess back, Mr. Chairman, what I said before, I think certainly after this conflict or in the midst of correcting things that we have seen, we will take more seriously the medical screening up front.
But again, it comes back to an authorization funding issue relative to how that individual does those things they need to do to stay medically fit once they are identified with a shortcoming.
So I think it as a two-piece issue.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, sir.
Gentlemen.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I like that peanut butter metaphor because I like yours about legs and cows. I am still trying to sort that one out. [Laughter.]
Mr. MCHUGH. Well, you have four legs on the——
[Laughter.]
Dr. SNYDER. Just a couple of comments, really, in response.
You know, I was a family doctor before I got into this business. And it is interesting to me, you can't talk to anyone today, I don't think, anywhere that doesn't recognize that we have some real stresses and challenges in our health care system. I don't mean just for the military, I mean for every person.
And so all this conversation, what you all are talking about and what we are talking about, what your written statements are talking about, is you all are trying to solve the fact that American society as a whole has not solved the problem of health care.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And whether you talk to business or doctors or hospitals or consumer groups or folks representing the uninsured, we have a real challenge to the point now that you all are testifying here today that our health care system is affecting our military readiness. You think about that.
Your testimony here today—we are the richest country in the world, that our health care system is failing us at the national security level. I think that is a pretty profound statement. I hope your voices get heard a lot more.
My recollection—and I am not a military historian—but my recollection is that some of our commodities and nutrition programs began in one of the waves of drafting young men into the military when they were all coming in undernourished and they just had some real nutritional problems. It was an impetus for doing something about it because it was affecting our military readiness.
And what you all are telling us today is, we have the same thing going on, probably not to the extent it was in the past. But I think that is a big constituency.
I think it is going to be a difficult challenge for us because we are trying to plug holes. I mean, you are going to have people coming in and out all the time. It is going to be a new group of people who are coming in. And your folks, sometimes they are going to have health insurance and sometimes they are not.
We say there are 43 million uninsured, my recollection is that impact over a year's time is something like 75 million people. Because on January, somebody is uninsured, they get a job in February and they do have health insurance, they got some pre-existing problems here but they get rid of that, but then somebody else has health insurance, they lose their job, they move to something else.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think it is very difficult for everybody in this room, as smart as you all are, to solve this problem when we haven't solved it as country.
The second thing, Mr. Chairman, this issue of Montgomery GI Bill, General McIntosh mentioned that. And we have this—you all educated me last time about it—we have this dual bill here where the reserve component of it is taking care—the Montgomery GI Bill, we do in our committee here, and then the veterans part of it is done in the Veterans Committee. And they are not running in tandem.
And so a couple of years ago, a year and a half ago, we made what we thought were some pretty good improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill. And I think if you ask most members, they would say everything is really pretty hunky-dory. But we didn't do anything about the reserve component of it because the Veterans Committee didn't have jurisdiction.
We may want to consider trying to, I don't know, do a joint hearing once a year, or something, on Montgomery GI Bill with our folks from the Veterans Committee to where we could talk about together where those bills are at. Because I think we have left the reserve component behind. I don't think your benefit is anywhere what it was before in just inflation.
I guess there was not a question there except about that legs and cows thing.
Well, thank you all for being here.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCHUGH. I am not sure if Mr. Cooper would want to ask another question or not.
If you could just bear with us for one second.
My point on the cows——
[Laughter.]
Doesn't want to hear my explanation about cows and averages? No? Never mind.
Well, gentlemen, many, many other issues we could explore and need to explore. And I know you both understand and appreciate that.
Accordingly, we would ask: In the immediate future we will undoubtedly share with you some written questions that we would deeply appreciate your responses for the record so that we can ensure that we have as broad a range of opinions from you and suggestions as possible.
Until that time, as I have said before, we deeply appreciate your service. This is a new world, a very different world from the balance between the reserve component and the active component that existed not so many years in the past, and it clearly is setting a field of challenges that we have to address.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If the guard and reserve—so important, in my opinion in terms of this nation's attitude toward its military, and the relevancy of our civilian-based military needs to be preserved and protected, as I have said. We have a lot of work to do to make sure that that happens in support of the great work that you and your organizations do.
We appreciate your service, and thank you again for being here.
With that, have a nice day.
General MCINTOSH. Thank you.
Secretary ZAPANTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General BURNETT. Thank you.
Mr. MCHUGH. Well, let me introduce our second panel of witnesses. It is a weighty panel both in terms of its size and its importance.
We are thrilled to be joined by such an array of distinguished leaders.
Let me welcome you all.
First, let me introduce the Honorable Thomas F. Hall, assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs—Secretary, welcome; Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, United States Army, chief of the National Guard Bureau—General, welcome; Lieutenant General Roger C. Schultz, United States Army, director, Army National Guard—General, good to see you; Lieutenant General James Helmly, United States Army, chief, U.S. Army Reserve—General, welcome; Vice Admiral John G. Cotton, United States Navy, director, U.S. Naval Reserve—Admiral, welcome; Lieutenant General Daniel James III, United States Air Force, director, Air National Guard—General, welcome; Lieutenant General James E. Sherrard III, United States Air Force chief, Air Force Reserve—welcome; and Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy, United States Marine Corps, commander, Marine Forces Reserve—General, welcome.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Generals, welcome all.
Most of you are old hand—oh, I should say experienced hand at this.
[Laughter.]
General Sherrard, I understand you will be retiring, this will be your last opportunity in uniform to appear before us. I want to thank you on behalf of the subcommittee and the committee and the United States Congress but also the American people for your long service and wish you all the best in the future.
We will try to take it easy on you on this your final appearance.
General SHERRARD. Thank you, sir.
Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, sir.
And with that, Secretary Hall, we look forward to your comments. Thank you for being with us. Our attention is yours, sir.
STATEMENTS OF HON. THOMAS H. HALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS
Secretary HALL. Yes, sir.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you can see at the table, from the gray hair and lack of hair, you have, counting my 38 years of active service, 300 years of military service testifying before you today.
I want to echo what you said to Jim Sherrard, he has given most of his adult life in service of his nation, and we, as his colleagues, are deeply appreciative of it.
Mr. MCHUGH. Hear, hear.
General SHERRARD. Thank you, thank you very much.
[Applause.]
I just would question ''most of my adult life''—that could mean just a couple of days, maybe. [Laughter.]
Secretary HALL. Our guard and reserve is 46 percent of our military today, numbering 1.2 million. Today we have 170,000 on active duty, mobilized. We have mobilized a total of 320,000 since 9/11. We have used 37 percent of our guard and reserve in this effort. We have 63 percent we have not touched. This makes it the largest mobilization since Korea.
I will keep my remarks very short because I know you want opening remarks from everyone—but just to say that we are all worried, on this panel, about the same thing: stress on the force.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although since 1995, we have only double, triple or