Page 1       TOP OF DOC
[H.A.S.C. No. 108–21]



FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005—H.R. 4200






 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

MARCH 18, 2004



One Hundred Eighth Congress

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
HOWARD P. ''BUCK'' McKEON, California
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
JIM RYUN, Kansas
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
ED SCHROCK, Virginia
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
TOM COLE, Oklahoma
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
LANE EVANS, Illinois
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
ADAM SMITH, Washington
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
James M. Lariviere, Professional Staff Member
Justin Bernier, Research Assistant




    Thursday, March 18, 2004, Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act—Fiscal Year 2005, National Defense Authorization Act—H.R. 1741, A Bill to Redesignate the Position of the Secretary of the Navy as the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps


    Thursday, March 18, 2004


 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services

    Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services


    Dudley, William S., Director of Naval History, Naval Historical Center

    Howard, Hon. Daniel, Former Under Secretary of the Navy and Acting Secretary of Navy

    Mundy, Gen. Carl, Jr., USMC (RET.) Former Commandant of the Marine Corps

    Turner, Adm. Stansfield, USN (RET.) Former Director of Central Intelligence

[The Prepared Statements can be viewed in the hard copy.]

 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
Dudley, Dr. William S.

Howard, Dan

Jones, Hon. Walter B., a Representative from North Carolina

Mundy, Gen. Carl E., Jr.

Saxton, Hon. Jim

Skelton, Hon. Ike

[The Documents submitted can be viewed in the hard copy.]

[There were no Questions and Answers.]


House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 18, 2004.
 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 8:11 a.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (chairman of the committee) presiding.


    Mr. SAXTON Good morning. We are going to get started, as all of us have a full day.

    The committee meets this morning to receive testimony on H.R. 1741, a bill sponsored by Representative Walter Jones to redesignate the Office of the Secretary of the Navy as Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.

    Our witnesses are: William S. Dudley, Director of Naval Historical Center; Admiral Stansfield Turner, U.S. Navy, Retired, former Director of Central Intelligence; General Carl Mundy, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, Retired, former Commandant of the Marine Corps; Honorable David Howard, former Under Secretary of the Navy and Acting Secretary of the Navy in 1992.

    Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. We are very pleased that you are here. We all look forward to your testimony and appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee.

    Let me recognize the very hard work and diligence of my friend and colleague, Representative Walter Jones, in relation to this issue. For four long years, Congressman Jones has worked this bill and brought needed visibility to this very important issue.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I must say that I am impressed with the level of support for this cause, as evidenced by the caliber of our witnesses today. Some may view this issue as a minor one. But I am sure our witnesses today will give us a new appreciation of the significance of this office redesignation.

    The redesignation of the Office of Secretary of the Navy to include the Marine Corps is a change I personally support. Since 1775, when the Continental Marines were created by an act of Congress, our nation has benefited from the outstanding Navy and Marine fighting team which now exists within the Department of the Navy.

    The team has worked together from the Revolution to the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But while both services have made tremendous contributions to the cause of freedom, only one service in this team is recognized in the title of Secretary of the department.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we need to address this issue. Too many times, we take simple recognition for granted here on Capitol Hill.

    We must step forward and give honor where honor is due. And H.R. 1741 does just this in my opinion.

    We look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning. Let me recognize my friend and colleague, Vic Snyder, the ranking member (Acting), for any remarks he may wish to make.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton can be viewed in the hard copy.]


    Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be brief. I have kind of my list—I am sure we all do, Mr. Chairman—of topics we would like to see the full committee handle. Of course, I think there ought to be a series of hearings on lessons learned from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

    In fact, this eight o'clock slot may be a way to go, Mr. Chairman, as a way of finding additional time. I know that there are members that have interest in hearings on other topics. And Mr. Jones has been working this issue for a long time.

    And my understanding is that one of the arguments the Senate used against us last time was the fact that we had not held hearings on it. So we are here this morning to do this. And maybe we can use this 8 slot for other interests that we all have as time goes by.

    So thank you for holding this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Jones, for your effort.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Skelton can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Let us just go right to our witnesses then. And we will begin in the order of introduction with Mr. Bill Dudley.


    Mr. DUDLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee. I appear before you today to offer a historical perspective on the Office of the Secretary of the Navy and its relationship with the Navy and the United States Marine Corps.

    I have a longer version of this statement that I would like to make part of the record.

    Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.

    Mr. DUDLEY. The origins of the Office of the Secretary of the Navy are to be found in the experience of the United States during the naval events of the American Revolution and in developments that followed the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.

    The Continental Navy and Marine Corps were established sequentially on 13 October and 10 November, 1775. Marines were considered to be naval personnel at the time and have been so ever since. The respective birthdays of the services are now celebrated on those days.

 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    From 1789 to 1798, there was no Navy and no Marine Corps under the establishment of the War Department. Even then, naval administration was a matter for the Secretary of War until 1798.

    Attacks against American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean pushed President Washington's War Department to propose, in 1794, the building of six frigates to protect American shipping. Congress adopted an act to provide a naval armament, which President Washington signed on 27 March, 1794.

    The act authorized the President to provide, equip and employ six armed ships and directed that each ship's complement was to include Marines, a lieutenant, a sergeant, one or two corporals, a drummer, a fifer and 40 or 50 privates. Thus, the first naval legislation under the Constitution included Marines as part of the reestablished Navy.

    The construction of these ships was well along in 1797 when another more serious threat appeared in the Caribbean. French Navy warships and privateers were attacking American shipping to British and French colonies. When President John Adams ordered our ships to prepare for war, he also decided that the leadership within the War Department was not adequate for a vigorous campaign.

    He appointed the well-connected merchant, Benjamin Stoddert, to be the Secretary of a separate Department of the Navy to administer the ships and to recruit officers and enlisted sailors and Marines. On 28 May, 1798, Congress authorized the warships to capture armed French vessels harboring off the coast, initiating an undeclared quasi-war with France.

 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    That conflict led to the rapid passage of several pieces of naval legislation, including the act that established the United States Marine Corps on 11 July, 1798. The Marines' principal function was to serve as detachments on board naval vessels. But the act also allowed them to be assigned shore duty for the protection of Navy yards.

    Marines were to be subject to the rules and articles of war prescribed for the military establishment and to the rules for the regulation of the Navy. An act for the better organization of the United States Marine Corps was approved on 30 June, 1834, clarifying some of the ambiguities left by the act of 1798.

    The new act directed that the Marine Corps would be subject to the laws and regulations for the government of the Navy. Congress also decreed, ''No officer of the Marine Corps shall exercise command over any Navy vessel or Navy yard of the United States.''

    The 1834 act left the relationship of the Marine Corps to the Secretary of the Navy unaltered.

    The 20th century Marines teamed with the Army in World War I. Between the wars, they developed an advanced base doctrine and, along with the weapons that would implement that doctrine, they demonstrated incredible feats of bravery in carrying out that strategy in the Pacific War and in the Korean War, as part of the Navy and Marine Corps team.

    These led to further enlargement and adoption of new missions in the Cold War era. During the long war in Vietnam, Navy and Marine Corps task forces provided critical mutual support in interdiction and close air support, amphibious, coastal patrol and riverine operations.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Even when the 1st and 3rd Marine Divisions deployed ashore, they fought in coordination with carrier aircraft, battleship New Jersey, cruisers, destroyers and river warfare forces. Integral components of the Marine infantry and aviation units ashore were Navy medical battalions, corpsmen and chaplains.

    In 1980, the commandant of the Marine Corps was made a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And in 1986 under the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Marine Corps was given equal status with the other services in combatant command situations.

    Operations in the Balkans during the late 1990's and Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom again demonstrated the utility of mutually supporting naval components, including submarine, air, surface, amphibious and Marine ground forces. Our Navy and Marine Corps team, in the first decade of this 21st century, operates on and from the sea, deploys around the globe and is more closely integrated than the other armed services.

    In short, from 1775 to the present, the Department of the Navy has successfully accomplished the national strategic missions assigned to it. To do so, it has employed all of its forces routinely in a coordinated, flexible and mutually supporting fashion.

    Despite the growth of both Navy and Marine Corps missions over time, this has been one of the most successful combined arms teams in military history. All this has been accomplished under the direction of a civilian Secretary of the Navy through the Chiefs of Naval Operations (CNO) and the Commandants of the Marine Corps.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dudley can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. I must say that was a very timely ending. Thank you for being so organized.

    We are going to turn now to Admiral Turner.


    Admiral TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I am here because I think it is appropriate that the Navy side of the Navy—

    Mr. SAXTON. Could I ask you to pull that microphone just a bit closer? That is perfect, thank you.

    Admiral TURNER. I am here because I think it is appropriate that the Navy side of the Navy-Marine Corps team supports this legislation. It is a piece of legislation that really acknowledges the reality of life.

 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The Secretary of the Navy has two responsibilities—one to the Navy, one to the Marine Corps. All officers, when they are commissioned, make a choice between the Navy and the Marine Corps.

    And the Commandant of the Marine Corps does not report to the Chief of Naval Operations, but to the Secretary of the Navy. I think this change in title enhances the prestige and pride of the people in the Marine Corps. And it does not necessarily take anything away from the Navy in that process.

    I am particularly impressed today, from what I read in the media, of the degree of cooperation between the Armed Services of our country, which seems to me exceeds my experience very greatly. And I think emphasizing that this is a Navy-Marine Corps team is a very important part of keeping that kind of sight on the objective of teamwork in combat. And therefore, I think this is a piece of legislation that will not have a major impact, but that it is one that recognizes the realities of life and should be passed.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SAXTON. Admiral, thank you.

    General Mundy, we are pleased that you are here this morning. And we would like to hear your comments at this point. Thank you.

 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General MUNDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a privilege to come before this body, which raises and provides for Armies and Navies and hopefully Air Forces and Marine Corps too, but most important of all, that prescribes the regulations for the governance thereof. And I think that is what we are here about this morning.

    I come to speak in support of the legislation introduced by Mr. Jones to redesignate the position, as we have discussed earlier this morning, the title of the executive of the Department of the Navy.

    In my judgment, this action will accurately align the Secretary's title with his present day authority and responsibilities. As is, the title is confusing. It is inconsistent with the status of the four armed services in the Department of Defense. And it acknowledges only two-thirds of the uniformed servicemembers in the Department.

    This proposal does not portend a change in the status of the Marine Corps within the department, as Mr. Dudley has stated here this morning. The status of the Corps, as a distinct service, has evolved incrementally over many years through the actions of the Congress.

    Various pieces of long-standing legislation have effectively defined the Corps as an individual service within the Department of the Navy, along with the United States Navy.

    More recently, there have been two important pieces of legislation, mentioned again earlier by Mr. Dudley: and that was in 1980, making the Commandant a full status member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and then, less than a decade later, the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reform Act, which prescribed that there should be individual service components, including the Marine Corps, in each of the unified combatant commands.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thus, the status of the Corps in the joint force organization and functioning of the Department of Defense, as mandated by Goldwater-Nichols, is clear and operative. However, the titles ''Department of the Navy'' and ''Secretary of the Navy'' lead to confusion in the public mind, as well as among civilian authorities and other servicemembers in both U.S. and allied defense establishments and even, from time to time, in the ranks of the Navy and the Marine Corps themselves as to the partnership of two separate services within a common department.

    While the Marine Corps, from the establishment of its predecessor, the Continental Marines of 1775, has always been subject to the authority of the civilian executive of the Department of the Navy, too often a presumption is made that Marines are part of, or subordinate to, the U.S. Navy. To be sure, Marines have, over their history and to the present, served proudly and affectionately alongside sailors as elements of a balanced fleet and under the operational authority of Navy commanders.

    But they have also served continuously as elements of land combat power under the operational authority of Army and Marine commanders. Indeed, it is interesting to note that in the congressional resolution of the 10th of November, 1775, which created the Marine Corps, the two battalions of American Marines ordered to be raised were to be ''considered a part of the number of which the Continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of.''

    That intent of the Continental Congress was a unique and important distinction for Marines, which was reinforced by the U.S. Congress in the National Security Act of 1951. Unique among the American Armed Services, that act set into law the composition, the structure, the roles and the mission of the Marine Corps.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Corps was prescribed by the Congress to provide forces ''for service with the fleet,'' but also ''for such other duties as the President may direct.'' Thus today, there are 55,000 Marines forward-deployed or forward-based throughout the world; 4,500 of those, about 9 percent, are in the Fleet Marine Force, performing service with the fleet. The other 50,000 are performing such other duties as the President has directed outside fleet operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, the Philippines and similar locations throughout the world.

    This unique duality of roles began in 1775 and has continued ever since. Not only throughout the litany of fleet operations—large and small, in peace and war—but also in virtually every employment of land forces over our nation's history.

    Marines are and were created to be forces of great utility and flexibility across the spectrum of operations in both peace and war—soldiers of the sea for duty at sea or ashore, as part of either a naval campaign or a land campaign. This is a role mandated by the Congress, understood clearly within the Department of Defense, practiced daily in the joint force employment of Marines, but not represented by the title of the department or the civilian executive over them.

    As a concluding point, I would note for you that the Marine Corps is second in seniority among the American armed services. It is in its 229th year of service to this nation. Yet it remains undistinguished by titular recognition within its own executive department.

    I believe the changes proposed in H.R. 1741 will do much to clarify the relationship, the responsibilities and the functions of the appointed civilian authority who presides over the two proud services in the presently-titled Department of the Navy. Further, it will strengthen the understanding of naval force structure within our defense establishment and in the two services that comprise it.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Perhaps most important of all, it will signify to the 220,000 men and women who wear the eagle, globe and anchor of our Corps that they are recognized for who and what they are. Finally, many secretaries of the Navy, including the one to my left, have on many occasions taken pride in introducing themselves as the Secretary of the Marine Corps.

    I believe that any present or future Secretary will be very proud to bear officially the title ''Marine'' as well as ''Navy.''

    I thank you again. And I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of General Mundy can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. General, thank you very, very much.

    Mr. Howard.


    Secretary HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, for over 200 years, our nation has been well served by our Navy Department and its Secretary that administers two separate military services. It is the only department to do so.

 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    The bill would change the name of the Secretary of the Navy to that of the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Corps. As I understand it, the bill would make no other administrative changes within the department.

    It is largely a symbolic change. But that is important in its own right.

    It would allow the Secretary to present himself or herself as the equal sponsor of both of these great services. If those body chooses to act positively on this matter, it will not be the first time that it has engaged in providing symbols that the warfighters consider to be of value.

    The official seal of the United States Marine Corps, now so familiar to all, is not that old. And the fact that we now have a seal for the Department of the Navy as a whole and a seal for the United States Navy and a seal for the United States Marine Corps is a result of a long campaign by a member of this body and action of the Congress in making it so.

    Administratively, as has been said, the commandant of the Marine Corps is in no way subordinate to the Chief of naval operations. Neither is the Marine Corps a part of the United States Navy.

    These are facts. But as General Mundy pointed out, any poll would reveal much confusion on this point among even otherwise well-informed citizens.

    I honor our magnificent Navy. This is the greatest Navy the world has ever known.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I do not believe that any of the sponsors of this proposed legislation intend any criticism or slight of the United States Navy. No one wishes to undercut the power, authority or span of control of the United States Navy. Otherwise, I could not support the bill.

    I served with pride in the Marine Corps. But I worked side by side with sailors doing precisely the same job.

    I respected my teammates as equals. My father-in-law landed on Saipan and Tinian as a Marine. My son is a Department of the Navy scientist. My son-in-law is a Naval Academy graduate and is currently serving proudly as a United States Navy F/A–18 pilot.

    We are truly a Navy and Marine Corps team family. Both of these great services are accorded all due respect around our house.

    However, I have noticed that almost all of those who actively promote the virtues and synergy provided by the Navy-Marine Corps team are Marines. There is certainly good cooperation between these two services. The dialogue between the CNO and the Commandant is frequent and positive.

    I believe that the three-way communication between the Secretary and those two service chiefs is also very solid. However, I believe that this simple name change would allow the Secretary and Under Secretary to better present the Office of the Secretary as representing both of these great services equally.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    On many occasions during my tenure, as General Mundy said, I was introduced as the Under Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, or even the Under Secretary of the Marine Corps. And I have all of the memorabilia, from desk nameplates to flight jacket name tags with titles like that on it.

    I urge the committee to support this bill and make official what is clearly the de facto case today. The Secretary of the Navy is already the Secretary of both the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps in every way except under Title X.

    I thank you and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Secretary Howard can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. We are going to go to the author of this bill for a minute. But Mr. Howard, when you were talking about your family, I could not help but think about this family and our closest Marine Corps—of course, Colonel Kline, two seats to my right, is our adviser on Marine Corps activities.

    And you probably also know that Lieutenant Duncan Hunter is currently serving in western Iraq. What you may not know is that my nephew is also in the Falluja area today as a proud member of the Marine Corps.

    So we are pleased to host this hearing here today, not only from a substantive point of view, but also from a family point of view. We feel like we are family members of the Marine Corps, as well.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Jones.

    Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have a prepared statement I would like to submit for the record.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Jones can be viewed in the hard copy.]

    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the witnesses first for being here at 8:00 in the morning. Thank you and this committee for holding the hearing this morning. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Snyder, that maybe we should do more of these at 8 in the morning so there will be other issues that we can bring forward.

    I would like to make just a couple of statements. And then I do have questions.

    I really think that the witnesses articulated this issue as well as anybody could as they spoke, each and individually.

    The whole issue is that the Marine Corps has been designated by past Congresses as the fourth services. It is the service that is in the Department of Navy. It is not part of the Navy. It is the Department of Navy.

    And that means, as each witness has said so eloquently, that the Navy and the Marine Corps are a team; it is a partnership. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I got involved in this four years ago, is that I have the pleasure to represent Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I know that every time for the ten years I have been on this committee, that any time there has been a panel to appear before it and the service chiefs are at that panel, they repeatedly state, time after time, that we are a team. We are a fighting team.

    And I believe sincerely that this is symbolic, as Mr. Howard said. But as Admiral Turner said, and also General Mundy, I believe that this has even a little bit more meaning than just symbolic for this reason: that the Navy-Marine Corps team is like a football team.

    You have both an offense and a defense. But the coach of that football team carries the name of both the offense and the defense. You cannot separate a team.

    In part because of past actions of the United States Congress what I believe sincerely this little bill does, as symbolic as it might be, is to strengthen the team. Because there are people that I hear from time to time, whether it be here in Washington, Mr. Chairman, or down in my district, that do not really know the history of the Marine Corps or the Navy, that think that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy because they do not have a secretary.

    So today, I believe sincerely that if we can pass this bill and it becomes law, that the team that was intended to be years ago will finally be recognized by the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, carrying that title.

    My question will be, which is somewhat simplistic, but I would ask primarily—not to exclude Mr. Dudley, but because of the service by the other three—that there is no way that this could be anything but strengthening the team. And I would ask you—because you have already testified, so I am being repetitive, but just for a moment, to make a point—that there is no way in your mind that you can see where this in any way would be a negative for the Navy-Marine team.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I will start with you, Admiral Turner.

    Admiral TURNER. I agree with you, Mr. Jones. It will not denigrate the Navy or have any adverse effects. If it has an effect on Navy people who are too parochial to want to let the Marine Corps be acknowledged in this way, I hope that we will bring them around in time.

    But it is not an attitude that we ought to tolerate.

    General MUNDY. I do not believe it creates any friction whatsoever. If it does, it does among maybe those of us in gray suits today, but not in the blue and green suits of the current times.

    The Navy and Marine Corps are as integrated and as functionally interdependent and interoperative as they have ever been in the history.

    Yesterday, I was at Bethesda, annual physical. And when I walked in to get something, when they finally let you eat on those occasions, as many here are familiar with, I walked in and there is a Marine lieutenant colonel with her Navy commander husband. And my goodness, I mean, it is a family, as the Chairman has said here.

    There is no friction involved with this. It is a very clarifying and appropriate measure.

 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Mr. JONES. Secretary Howard.

    Secretary HOWARD. I would agree and support the comments of both the Admiral and the General. I do not believe that there will be any negative effects.

    I do not want to mislead the committee. I do believe that the Navy and Marine Corps are, as General Mundy said, as tightly integrated as they have ever been in the Nation's history.

    Administering a department with two military services is a challenge. In times of budget constraints, there are tensions, just as there are among our three navies—our airborne Navy, our surface Navy and our submarine Navy—with which I am sure the committee—all the members of the committee—are more than well aware.

    I do not believe this name change would have any effect necessarily, positive or negative, with having to do with any of those kinds of issues. This is the change that we would make for the warfighters—not the bureaucrats, not the administrators, but the warfighters. Those kids out there who are wearing the uniform—Navy or Marine Corps—today.

    It is a clarifying, symbolic step that we would be taking. And I support it.

    Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, may I make one statement and then I will close?
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you. This is what really brought this to my mind years ago, for a number of reasons, but one is quite frankly—and I have said this to Secretary England and I have said it to Secretary Dalton when I first came to Congress.

    I think that because this organization is a team—they fight together; they die together—that when the Secretary of Navy goes to Camp Pendleton or Camp Lejeune or Cherry Point and he is introduced to 10,000 Marines, for that person, introducing the Secretary of Navy, instead of just saying ''Secretary of Navy,'' he would close by being introduced, ''Let me introduce the Secretary of Navy and Marine Corps.''

    How powerful, how exciting for those young Marines to feel that this is their Secretary, just as well as the Secretary for those in the Navy. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. And congratulations on this bill. We know how hard you have worked on it. And we are going to do everything we can to get it signed into law this year.

    Mr. Snyder.

    Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were praising Mr. Jones. Of course, some of us had thought some time ago that perhaps, since it had been Secretary of the Navy for a couple of hundred years, perhaps it should be Secretary of the Marine Corps for the next couple of hundred. [Laughter.]

 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But Mr. Jones thought, in the spirit of compromise, we ought to just take this baby step. And Congressman Jones, you may feel free to take any of my time here because you may want to have a comment on this.

    But I wanted to ask maybe Secretary Howard or anyone who wants to respond, if we do this—and I think the overall majority, I think, of the committee is supportive of this—it would seem like then that the next step will be for the under secretaries and everyone at the department to say, ''Well now, what am I? Am I the Under Secretary of the Navy? Or is that going to be changed also?''

    Or as time goes by and we have a Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, will young folks coming in who see the number two or someplace that just says the ''Under Secretary of the Navy'' think, ''Well, that is just for the Navy because it does not say ''Navy and Marine Corps.''

    Do either of you have any comments about what is going to happen with the other titles and how that should be handled? I think the intent of the bill is that this be the only change. Is that correct, Mr. Jones?

    Mr. JONES. I will let Mr. Howard—

    Secretary HOWARD. The intent of the bill is that this be the only change. I believe that in doing so, you give the Secretary of the Navy the authority to designate for internal purposes whatever titles he deems appropriate.

 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Our historian, I am surprised he did not bring this up, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was assistant Secretary of the Navy, which in essence is the same job as the Under Secretary of the Navy today, he designed the flag. The Secretary of the Navy had a flag, with which you are all familiar, a blue background with four stars in the corners and a coiled anchor in the center of it.

    When FDR became Assistant Secretary, he decided he wanted to have his own flag. He said, ''Well, this department has two military services. So why don't I have my flag?''

    We have the blue one to represent the Navy. And that is why the Under Secretary of the Navy's flag is sort of the reverse of the Secretary's flag. It has the same symbols but with a red background to represent the Marine Corps.

    These symbols are important. Although the title of Under Secretary of the Navy again is under Title X, I do not think that modification will be necessary. This one alone will be all right.

    Mr. SAXTON. Sir? Mr. Howard, could you pull the microphone a little closer to you, please?

    Secretary HOWARD. I am sorry, sir.

    The Under Secretary serves as the Acting Secretary of the Navy when the Secretary is away or when there is no Secretary of the Navy and, in that capacity, would certainly be the Acting Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, as well. So I do not see a problem with that.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. JONES. I would say to my friend, the intent was simply to Secretary of Navy and Marine Corps. But I would assume that, should the name change take place, then there would be other considerations. Whether they should be changed or not, I think that would be left up to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, coming to the Congress maybe.

    But the intent of this is primarily the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.

    Dr. SNYDER. Does the staff know? Does anyone know, would there be any necessary follow-on, statutory language to change, like the Under Secretary of the Navy to Under Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps? Or do we perhaps need some language that would authorize that to be changed?

    That may be something we want to look at prior to—

    Mr. SAXTON. That is a good question. So before we move to mark up, we will certainly look at those. Thank you for bringing that up.

    Dr. SNYDER. Dr. Dudley, there is a lot of agreement here in the panel. So we have to look for any statements that appear to be even slightly expressing concern about.

    You had the concern in there, in your view, if I understood in your written statement, the term ''Navy'' has always historically included not just ships on water, but every aspect of the Navy, including Navy planes and Marine Corps. So I think what you were saying is if we all had the common understanding when we used the word ''Navy'' that it includes everything, that perhaps we would not be advocating for this kind of change.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    On the other hand, would you not agree that there has been a historical development to where people view the Marine Corps as, while part of the Navy, perhaps clearly distinct in terms of mission and function, than what we had originally—the concept of the Navy included?

    Mr. DUDLEY. Yes, sir. I would agree with that interpretation. There has been a change over time.

    I would say originally and traditionally, going back to the early 19th century, Navy was understood to include both Marine Corps and the fleet; that is, the Navy—sailors and so forth. And primarily I think in the 20th century, the expansion of Marine Corps missions and functions—land warfare particularly—has, I think, justified the view that it is a separate service under the department, rather than being part of the Navy, as it was originally.

    So I think we have to acknowledge that a change over time is process. And it will not stop here. And I am not going to get into that, because historians do not make very good futurists.

    Dr. SNYDER. I think that is a good point. This will be my last comment, probably not even a question, because you already touched on the question, which is the impact on function.

    And to me, everything we do here ought to fall into the category of: what effect does this have on national security, which specifically is: how does this impact on jointness? And if I thought that there was any negative impact on jointness, that someone would interpret this to mean, ''Oh, the Marine Corps can pull back and not have to work or coordinate so well with the Navy,'' then I would be opposed to it.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I would hope that perhaps there could be even an argument it could be the other way, which is, ''Hey, we really need to work even closer together because we are every bit as important as you,'' or however people want to phrase it. But if there is any negative impact on jointness, then we ought to revisit this.

    But I do not see that happening. I assume that you all do not either.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

    Mr. SAXTON. Did you want to respond to that, Walter?

    Mr. JONES. I guess I would just say that at one time, we had a United States Army Air Corps that later became the United States Air Force. So I think that sometimes changes are good for the defense of this Nation. And even though this is a name change, I think in the long-run, it does help strengthen the team.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

    Colonel Kline?

    Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing me. Thank you for allowing me to sit up here and recognizing—the panelists should know that this is a rare altitude for me. I usually get to sit down there.

 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    But in honor of my advisory position as the senior Marine and the early hour, I get to sit up here. So I am ecstatic. It is amazing what can thrill you as you get older—not necessarily good news.

    We are talking about what looks to be a symbolic change. But I know that in my years of wearing the green suit, like General Mundy did, that there is a perception out there that the Marine Corps works for the Navy.

    And the Marine Corps has, for all of these years, traditionally assigned a more junior officer or, if there is a Navy officer and a Marine Corps officer, typically there has been a more junior Marine present. You can find it right here in congressional liaison downstairs, I am sure.

    And so I am wondering if this name change, title change, if you think—General Mundy or Admiral Turner or anybody—will affect in any way the way we function in those sorts of arenas?

    General MUNDY. Well, as I have said, I am of strong conviction that it would strengthen the way we function. As members of the committee may know, today in the new naval force concepts of the employment of forces, the Expeditionary Strike Groups that have been conceived, one of those is commanded by a Navy rear admiral. One of those is commanded by a Marine brigadier general.

    Ships, airplanes, Marines, sailors, doctors, corpsmen, the whole works, submarines, everything else on into that. By the same token, one of the Navy carrier air groups that will deploy, I believe, in the very near future will be commanded by a Marine colonel.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So there is already, I think, a great cohesion and integration and a recognition that who is senior is in command. I think, if anything, this will strengthen that, because it will dispel from the minds of those that you have mentioned, Mr. Kline, who do not understand that.

    I do not think that—there has rarely been animosity with regard to Marines. It certainly has happened once in history. But generally speaking, what you have just articulated is what is often believed by those who are not educated in the facts of the two separate services.

    So I think it would enhance. And I see no problem with there being an inversion.

    One more point, Major General or then-Brigadier General Jim Mattis was the first flag officer, flag or general officer, to command Task Force 58—ships, planes, sailors, Marines and everything—during our insertion of forces into Afghanistan, I think since the days of World War II, Admiral Nimitz and people of that category.

    So we have already had Marine generals, despite what was articulated by Mr. Dudley as to the origins of the Corps. We have already had Marine officers who have commanded naval task forces.

    Mr. KLINE. Mr. Howard?

 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary HOWARD. Sir, I certainly agree with everything General Mundy has said, and I would point out that it is conceivable that one could find a critic who would say, ''Well, this is just the first step. You give those Marines an inch and they will take a mile.'' And, you know, ''They want their own department,'' or something of that sort.

    That is just simple foolishness. These two extraordinary military services are inextricably co-dependent.

    And I can remember standing down at Parris Island, South Carolina, in front of my bunk, being taught the history and traditions of the United States Marine Corps and being told—instructed with pride—that one of those young warfighters raising that flag on Iwo Jima was a United States Navy corpsman.

    They are proud of the association. So I do not see that as a problem at all.

    Mr. KLINE. Thank you.

    Mr. Howard, let me ask just one other brief question. It seems to me that in your days as the Under Secretary, you mentioned that sometimes you were called the Under Secretary of the Marine Corps.

    But it seems to me that I recall that you were sometimes called the Secretary of the Marine Corps. Is that——

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC
    Secretary HOWARD. Yes.

    Mr. KLINE. And you probably felt pretty good about that. And those around you did, as well.

    However, it underscores the perception problem that we are talking about here, I think. The Secretary of the Navy is the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Marine Corps is the Under Secretary of the Navy. And I know that is widely perceived out there. And I think that this is an important change to help make that change in the minds of everybody, that the Secretary of the Marine Corps is not the Under Secretary of the Navy.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

    Mr. Reyes is next. But we have a former Navy officer over here who would like to just briefly be heard before he has to leave.

    Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the reason I am asking to jump rank is for two reasons: one, I have another appointment; and two, if Colonel Kline could get by with it, I figured I could too. [Laughter.]

    In the full spirit of disclosure, I am a retired naval officer and proud of that. And it was interesting the comment that we appreciated you getting up this early to get here at 8. And I noticed the puzzled looks on Admiral Turner and General Mundy's faces—8 is halfway through their days. [Laughter.]
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    So we are pleased to have you here. I was privileged to serve in Vietnam with a lot of Marines. I have a lot of Marine friends.

    In fact, I went to school with Retired Lieutenant General Ray Ayres, who is a wonderful guy and a person for whom I have respect. And for those here who do not know about Admiral Turner and General Mundy, I can tell you that in my career, I looked at them with great admiration.

    They are two of the finest patriots this country has ever produced. And we are really honored to have them today.

    It is almost a shame we are here. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. Walter Jones should not have had to get to this point where we had to have these hearings.

    We need to get it done. And we need to get it done mighty quick.

    It is interesting, General Mundy, I do not know how many of you noticed, but he is second in seniority. So my question is: is it going to be the SECMACNAV or the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps? Because if you did it by historical precedent, clearly the Marine Corps would come first.

    But that is something I am not going to get into. I will let others deal with that.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And for those who worry that the coordination, the working together of the Navy and Marine Corps might be hampered, let me tell everybody that for the first time in history, a commander of an air group on an aircraft carrier now is being headed up by a Marine Corps colonel. That is history-making.

    So I can assure you, with that kind of relationship, there will be no problem at all, no matter how they term this thing. So my response to this, let's get on with this.

    My voting card is poised and ready to vote ''yes'' on this. And the sooner we do it the better.

    And I think Walter Jones has fought this for a long time. And I am sure this is a great day for him. But we just need to get this done and get it done quick.

    And thank you all for coming.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Thank the gentleman.

    I would just say to the gentleman, this is taking on a life of its own. And if things keep going the way they are, I live right outside of Philadelphia. And I may be driving across the river to watch the Army play the Marine Corps in the fall. [Laughter.]

    Secretary HOWARD. To the congressman's point, my wife came up with a title last night. It is SECNAVMAC.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC


    Secretary HOWARD. Yeah.

    Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Reyes.

    Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it may seem strange that an Army veteran is here to support this effort.

    But I am for two reasons: one, the Marine Corps has played an important part in our family, as has the Navy; and the second reason is my birthday is on November ten. So I always like to say that the Marines like to celebrate my birthday. [Laughter.]

    But I am here because I believe that symbols are important. And the part of this that I think is most important is exactly what others have articulated here this morning; and that is that for every young warfighter out there wearing the Marine Corps uniform, they have to feel connectivity to the Secretary.

    And changing this title like this, I think, pays the respect to those young warfighters that I think is due to them. So I do not have any questions. I just want to thank the Chairman for calling this hearing, because I know in the past, that has been used as an excuse for not moving forward on it.

    So I am glad to be here. And I want to also commend my good friend, Mr. Jones, for doing this.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Sil.

    Mr. Bartlett.

    Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I want to thank my colleague, Walter Jones, for authoring this bill. I am a big supporter of this. This should have happened a long time ago.

    But, Mr. Chairman, I think that because this is a hearing on this bill, that we ought to have on the record any objections that there might be to this, because this ought to be a complete record. And so, what I would like to do is to go down the panel and have each of you give at least one objection that somebody might lodge against this and then refute that, so that we will have this on the record.

    Can we start as we did with the witnesses, just go down the line? And I know that you know people out there who may have an objection to this, for one reason or another. Please state what that is and then refute it, Mr. Chairman, so that we will have this on the record.

    Why shouldn't we do it?

    Admiral TURNER. The only reason I can think of is it is only a matter of time before somebody proposes this be the Secretary of the Marine Corps and Navy. [Laughter.]
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    General MUNDY. I can think of none, other than that it has always been that way; that it is tradition. Or there could be some again, once again I say mostly in gray suits, that would say, ''Well, the Marines are getting too big for their britches.''

    But the Marines are a third of the Department of the Navy now, in manpower, in aviation, anything you want to measure it by. So that is the only objection, Mr. Bartlett, that I could think of.

    Secretary HOWARD. And the only objection I can think of is the one that I mentioned earlier, that someone says, ''This is just the first step.'' But I do not believe that that is what it is at all.

    The Marine Corps constitutes 30 percent of the uniformed personnel under the Department of the Navy. It consumes, if I remember correctly, about 12 percent of DOD table of allowance (TOA), supplies close to 50 percent of all of the infantry in the field, about 30 percent of all of the front-line combat aircraft.

    General Mundy, how am I doing?

    General MUNDY. You are doing great. Those are bigger numbers than I have ever heard. And I like everything you are saying. [Laughter.]

    Secretary HOWARD. But the Marine Corps is very, very proud of its tooth-to-tail ratio, the fact that the majority of those people who wear the uniform are ''trigger pullers,'' as they describe them. The only reason they have that high a tooth-to-tail ratio is because their co-dependent service provides much of the support that allows that to be possible.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Do you agree with that, General Mundy?

    Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Dudley, is there anything in the history of these two services that would be a negative, relative to this name change?

    Mr. DUDLEY. I was figuring on how I would answer this question, sir, because I do work with traditionalists. And I can imagine—and perhaps I have already heard—some say that this is a bad thing because it is really a contradiction in terms of what the Navy has always been.

    The Navy has always been Navy and Marine Corps. And they would say: why do we need to do this? Is this icing on the cake or something like that?

    As I have said already, I believe that this is a logical process, that this has come about for real historical reasons that we are talking about this today. But I would say that you will hear from traditionalists to say this was perhaps not a necessary move.

    And others, who may be more cynical, may say, ''It is not just symbolic. It represents a real move in terms of resources.'' And that is, this represents an evident symbol of a surging service that is, of necessity, competing with Navy for resources within the Department of the Navy.

    So if you are looking or anticipating opposition, I would think that that is where it would come from. I do not know anyone in positions of power. I am just speculating at this point as to where that opposition might come from, not that it would amount to very much.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, if, in the next few days, any of the members of the committee get an input from anybody as to why this should not happen, I would hope that we would hold the record open so that this could be included with a refuting argument. Because there will be those who say, ''Gee, why do we need to do this?''

    And I think our record ought to be as complete as possible, with all of the possible objections and the reason why those objections are not sustainable. And again, I want to thank Mr. Jones for this. I think it is exactly the right thing to do.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.

    Ms. Davis.

    Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I appreciate that.

    As someone who represents thousands of Navy and Marine personnel and reserves in San Diego, I appreciate this discussion. And I know they have existed certainly independently as separate entities and performed exceptionally, both. And so this particularly is interesting to hear and I think to try and talk to people in the district, as well.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Mr. Dudley, I wonder—as a historian, you obviously have been able to share with us where you think some of the concerns, the opposition may come from. And I am just wondering, from your perspective, as well, and in understanding the uniqueness of both and the dynamics, where you feel the impact on culture might be as a result of this kind of a change. What do you think, I guess down deep, in terms of the culture, could be affected?

    Mr. DUDLEY. That is an interesting question. And I would have to ask you a question, if I may.

    When you say the culture, do you mean the culture of the Navy and the Marine Corps? Or do you mean culture of the United States in general?

    Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thinking of the specific services.

    Mr. DUDLEY. The specific services. I am speculating here, but my own speculation is that this is a change which can be accepted without much upset, without much objection—at least verbally.

    You may see some essays written in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings objecting to this and that, as we always have. But I think that debate is generally a good thing. And differences of opinions are good to be aired so that ultimately we can come to a reconciliation.

    And my feeling is, as a historian, I like to hear all viewpoints and then attempt to reconcile those, because it is going to be a synthesis that is going to go ahead. Will the culture be affected? Will there be more friction between the services within the Department of the Navy?
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    I do not think so if this is as far as it goes. There may be, as I hinted, process. If things do not go well, it could go in the direction that Air Force went with Army.

    But my feeling is it will not go that way. It should not go that way. And that it will be generally accepted.

    Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. And I appreciate Mr. Bartlett asking for where that opposition might come from. You mentioned traditionalists perhaps. Where; within the services?

    Mr. DUDLEY. I think if you are talking about within the services, it is going to come from more senior people who might align themselves traditionalists versus progressives and sort of talk about it in that sense. You might also find opposition among veterans outside the services, properly speaking, and that this would be a question of popular perception. And I think, therefore, it has to be explained very clearly to veterans that this is not a threat to their prior service, if it is naval veterans we are talking about.

    That is all I can think of right now.

    General MUNDY. May I follow on, Ms. Davis? I think culturally, let me give you a description of a cultural impact. One of those great carriers that side up at your piers in Coronado today set sail. And there is a visit by the Secretary of the Navy.

    Those of naval traditions know that you are ''bonged'' aboard; that is, you get a certain number of bells when you come aboard and an announcement that the 7th Fleet is arriving or whatnot. Those carriers will deploy with Marine squadrons aboard them, as well as Navy squadrons—predominantly Navy, but Marine squadrons.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    If the Secretary comes to visit, you will hear four bongs, eight bongs, how many bongs? Four bongs. And the bosun's mate will say, ''Navy arriving.''

    What is the Marine squadron to think? Think of the impact. Bong, bong, bong, bong. Navy and Marine Corps arriving. I mean, I get chill bumps thinking about that. [Laughter.]

    I am getting old and emotional. But think of that.

    There is another culture. Sailors and Marines in the operating forces have always joined hands, fought together, given each other their rations, bled together, worshipped together, been truly comrades in arms.

    The only divisiveness really that you get to in the Navy and the Marine Corps is inside the five-sided building where the competition for resources goes on. And there is a mindset—has long been a mindset—less today, I believe than it has been in the past, that that little piece of the Department of the Navy—I like to use the term ''gray dollars'' that go to the Department of the Navy. There are others who consider that all the resources that come to the department are ''blue dollars,'' a little chink of which is carved off to buy the Marines some of that trivial stuff that they need.

    Now, that has been a mindset. So what you do in reinforcing that this is the department of—if it were I writing the bill, I would say it should be the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    But what you do, by indicating that the civilian authority that is considering the allocation of those resources is the representative of both the Navy and Marine Corps, is to send to the legions of younger officers who are down there struggling and fighting amongst themselves for those resources that there are two services to be supported here today, as opposed to just a piece of the loose change to be given to the Marines.

    So I think you have strong cultural signals in both directions.

    Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you.

    Secretary HOWARD. Let me add to that. That fight for resources is not going to change at all as a result of this change. I do not mean to say that this is insignificant legislation.

    But the significant changes were, as the historian indicated, evolutionary with the growth of the Marine Corps. The legislative changes were those that made the Commandant of the Marine Corps a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And I believe that was 1980–1981.

    The second truly sweeping piece of legislation was Goldwater-Nichols. In fact, these are two independent services within the same military department.

    This change in title is simply recognizing the reality. It is not changing the reality or moving it in a new direction.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    Ms. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, do you know if the Department of Defense has taken a position on this? Or do we expect that they will?

    Mr. SAXTON. I have not heard any position.

    I am told the Department of Defense position is whatever Congress decides. [Laughter.]

    Thank you, Ms. Davis.

    Mr. Cole.

    Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was with Colonel Kline at the Republican Freshman Saint Patrick's Day festivities last night. So I have my orders.

    Mr. Jones has my vote. And I have no questions. [Laughter.]

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Jones, do you have anything further?

    Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the witnesses for being here, the members of this committee that came today, you and the staff for allowing this hearing to take place. I believe sincerely that when people review the testimony and those that—there are many groups that do support this legislation.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    The Fleet Reserve Association is here today. There are other groups that will be submitting letters; former commandants will be submitting letters and also several Secretaries of the Navy from the past.

    So Mr. Chairman, I thank you. If I can show you—Dan, hold up the poster. This is on the back of the coin of the Secretary of Navy, Gordon England, who I hope will become the first Secretary of Navy and Marine Corps. And I believe that shows it is a team.

    And God bless our men and women in uniform. Thank you.

    Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Jones, thank you.

    Let me just say, in conclusion, that this change just seems to me to be the right thing to do. And there are some pretty good reasons for that.

    Mr. Jones and Commandant Mundy talked about the feeling of Marines when they are introduced as members of the Department of the Navy or when someone is piped aboard and the Navy is arriving. And that says something about the esprit de corps in the Marine Corps.

    And we always need to be mindful of that. And we want to make sure that when people are doing a job, that they get the recognition that is deserved.

    But it would also enhance recruiting. When my nephew joined the Marine Corps and he went off to boot camp, when he came home for a little break for two weeks, the recruiter picked him up and took him to the high school where he graduated from.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    This is a big deal, getting good people signed up in the Marine Corps. And if you walk in the school or you have a sign-up on the side of the recruiting office that says, ''Department of the Navy and Marine Corps,'' that says something to a young man or woman who is trying to decide what his or her future may be.

    And so I think from a recruiting point of view, it would be important. And from a retention point of view, to be part of the United States Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is also important.

    So we make changes from time to time. And they are all meaningful.

    This would be a very meaningful change. We have other organizations that have come to be from time to time and have changed from time to time.

    For example, we had the representatives here yesterday from U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM). That was a change that came about because there was a special need for that kind of a change.

    We spend a lot of time with Special Operations Command. It did not always exist. It is a newly formed organization—relatively newly formed organization—because there was a need for it.

    So we make changes. And this is one of the changes. I agree with Mr. Jones and every other member that has been here this morning. We think this is an important change that needs to be made.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC

    And I know Chairman Hunter agrees with that, as well. And so, we are going to proceed to make this change as expeditiously as possible. And hopefully, we will get agreement on the Senate this year, because it is important.

    So thank you all for being here. We appreciate your participation very much. And we look forward to working with you further on this subject.

    Thank you. And the hearing is adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 9:18 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]