Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Holds Hearing on FY2004 Appropriations

Senate Appropriations Sbucommitee on Defense Holds Hearing on FY2004 Appropriations

DURBIN:

Thank you very much, Senator.

I appreciate your being here today, and I thank you all for what you're doing to serve our country. I have a family affection for the Navy, as I had two brothers who served during the Korean War, and I have a political and personal connection to the Marine Corps by virtue of the fact that the first man I ever worked for on Capitol Hill was a senator from Illinois named Paul Douglas, who in 1942 enlisted in the Marine Corps and went through basic training at Parris Island at the age of 50. That's still an amazing thing as I reflect on what he did in his service, and, of course, he served in combat in the South Pacific and suffered a serious wound but went on with a great public career. Thank you all for being here today.

One of the things that I'd like to reflect on was brought to my attention by Senator Inouye on the floor of the Senate, who rose one day to make a point that I think we should all keep in mind, and that is in World War II—maybe you'll remember the exact percentage, Senator, but you told us that, I believe, over 80 percent of the people in uniform in that war were single, not married. And I believe today, that statistic has changed dramatically, that the majority of those in service to our country are married with families.

Could you tell us for the record, if you know, in each of your branches what percentage of your personnel are married today?

HAGEE:

Yes, sir, I can. As you know, the Marine Corps is a relatively young force. But even though we're a young force, 44 percent of our personnel are married today.

DURBIN:

Admiral?

CLARK:

Senator, I don't have the number. I'll provide it for the record. But what we are fond of saying is that we know that we recruit individuals and we retain families. And the major focus of our retention effort is to make sure that we are touching families and dealing with their needs. So there's no question about that the numbers have changed dramatically over time.

JOHNSON:

And that's particularly true in this time, sir. I was up at Bethesda yesterday, and families are there. We care about the families at home very much. Our sailors and Marines forward aren't as concerned about their own safety as they are about their families being well cared for, and everybody goes out of the way to take care of the families.

DURBIN:

The estimates I've read, Mr. Secretary, suggest that about 60 percent of the service men now in the war zone in Iraq have families back home—service men and women have families back home. That's the reason why I wanted to speak for a moment and ask your thoughts about an issue.

When I meet with these families, as I recently did at the Rock Island Arsenal back in my home state, I find, of course, they're extremely proud of the member of the family serving. They're encouraging them, praying for them, and we're all very proud of them.

But they're also facing some unusual hardships that may not have been the case even a few years ago, hardships involving child care, involving some medical expenses, additional expenses related to separation. And I was surprised to read and learn that the current family separation allowance is $100 a month, and that the eminent danger pay, combat pay, is $150 a month.

I think that perhaps those—particularly the family separation allowance, was a figure that was established at a time when fewer service men and women came to serve our country with a family or had a family and may not reflect the reality of the cost of service to those families. One of the amendments which I hope to offer to the supplemental appropriation bill will attempt to increase both the eminent danger pay as well as the family separation allowance, and I'm working with Senator Inouye and others to try to find if there's a way to do this in a bipartisan fashion.

Could you, either General Hagee or Admiral Clark or the secretary, reflect on the concerns that you hear expressed by the families of those who have been activated to serve, beyond the obvious, that they want their loved ones home as quickly and as safely as possible?

General?

JOHNSON:

May I say something first?

DURBIN:

Of course.

JOHNSON:

You make a very interesting observation. The current environment with family members is much different now. We have women who are quite involved in almost every aspect of our business, not necessarily as a rifle person. And we have the bigger problem that, oftentimes, a husband and wife are in the military, and it looks really bad when we send both of them off to war. But yet that's what they train and desire to do, and when we have to execute it, it looks like we don't care.

We care very much, and we try very hard—and I'll let the two of them talk about the specific programs—to take care of them, and particularly those that have children. They have to have well laid out plans to care for them.

DURBIN:

General?

HAGEE:

Obviously, the most important thing to the families is that their Marine or sailor is well trained and well armed and well prepared so that they will come back. That's obvious. And as Senator Inouye was quite articulate about, how we balance how much money we're able to pay them as compared to how much money we put into procurement and ensuring that they are properly trained and armed is something that we have to work with the committee on. So the number one thing is they want them to come back.

I think we have to look at this from a holistic standpoint. If I could give you one example of the impact of family separation allowance and hazardous duty pay that has occurred to a Marine family out in California—and I strongly support family separation allowance and hazardous duty pay. I'm not sure that we pay them enough for that. I'm not sure that we can pay them enough to that if we come back to the balance again.

But this particular Marine had a child that needed special care and was getting that from the state of California, and the state of California was providing about $80,000 a year in care for this child. That was based on the income of this particular Marine.

When he was deployed to the Gulf, he received family separation allowance and he received hazardous duty pay. That put him above the line, and California, by law, was ready to take that funding away from him.

We are working that issue. I think that we can solve that issue. But that's why I say we have to look at this from a holistic standpoint, sir.

DURBIN:

But what concerns do you hear expressed by the families, aside from that very extraordinary and compelling case? Do you hear any particular concerns of the families of your Marines that are left behind in terms of their economic situation?

HAGEE:

There are concerns. I have been a Marine for 35 years. I have deployed quite often. I know firsthand what happens when an individual Marine leaves their family. The costs actually go up. They do not go down.

As the secretary mentioned, that's especially true today, when we have male Marines, female Marines. Sometimes they're married, and sometimes they're not. They may have children. They have particular challenges, and I have heard those concerns from the families, yes, sir.

DURBIN:

Admiral Clark?

CLARK:

I recall vividly being an ensign in the Navy and being off on my first deployment, and family separation was $1 a day. Any kind of pay like that has to have—you must periodically review it and see if it's at the right level.

I'm not hearing about family separation pay. The one issue I'm hearing raised is the issue of the tax exclusion, which is for most of our people a significant financial issue, so that when they're in a combat zone, in war, it makes a difference. And the issue that's being addressed for my folks is that I've got a large force in the eastern Mediterranean and they're not in it.

I will tell you that we have a large family support structure that is a formal part of our Navy life, whether we're at war or not. It runs on the back of volunteers and people who are determined to be involved, and they make it work.

DURBIN:

I'm not going to dwell any further on this, other than to say to you, Admiral, that we are particularly proud to have your training facility at Great Lakes in my state. I've visited there and seen the wonderful work that's being done there, and we want to continue to help you in any way we can to train the sailors to serve our nation.

CLARK:

Thank you very much for your support. Great Lakes is doing superbly.

DURBIN:

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Senator.