Budget Request for the Army - Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee

Federal News Service February 25, 2004 Wednesday
Copyright 2004 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service

February 25, 2004 Wednesday

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE ARMY

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA)

LOCATION: 2118 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES: ACTING ARMY SECRETARY LES BROWNLEE; ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL PETER SCHOOMAKER

BODY:

REP. HUNTER: The committee will come to order. This morning the committee will continue its review of the fiscal year 2005 defense budget requests with a look at the Department of the Army. Our witnesses today are the Honorable Les Brownlee, acting secretary of the Army, and General Peter J. Schoomaker, United States Army chief of staff of the Army. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.

This year's defense budget requests is $98.5 billion for the Department of the Army, which is $5.2 billion more than the fiscal year 2004 peacetime budget. Unlike similar hearings in the past, today we don't have to theorize about how the Army is doing or will do in the field of battle. Today's Army has been and continues to be on the front lines in the war on terror.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, General Schoomaker, and Secretary Brownlee, thank you both for being here today and for everything you do for our country.

General Schoomaker, I realize you have a large number of responsibilities, one of those is health care at Walter Reed. I have recently been informed by representatives of the Disabled American Veterans that their representatives and Walter Reed are not allowed to visit patients and inform them of the programs, the opportunities, that our nation can provide for soon-to-be-discharged veterans. I don't know this to be true, but I was just told this. Just as Secretary Brownlee was so kind to tell the committee that he appreciates us coming to him and saying-making suggestions, I would hope, in that light, since we are now taking young 18-, 19-, 20-year- old soldiers who probably never dreamt that they would get hurt and who now find themselves leaving the Army under circumstances not to their liking.

I don't think it could hurt to have one more group making them aware of the benefits that this nation owes them, and so I would ask that you would look into that and, if that is the case, I would ask that you would reconsider that policy.

GEN. SCHOOMAKER: Yes, sir, and could I comment on that, sir? Just so you'll know, when we first started receiving soldiers who were wounded and some of them, as you know, very grievously wounded, at Walter Reed and other places, we wanted to ensure that, you know, many of these soldiers want to stay in the Army. But certainly some of them are disable to the extent that they can't, and they are going to become disabled veterans and be transferred to the Veterans' Affairs Department.

I called Tony Principi. We agreed, together, that we would put together a seamless operation so that no soldier gets dropped at the footstep. We have had our people meet together; we have people from the Veterans' Affairs Department working in Walter Reed and other hospitals. They start to counsel those soldiers very early on, and we have people with them, too, and our goal is that none of these soldiers gets dropped off in this transition. We hand-carry them. I, personally, do not see anything wrong with the Disabled American Veterans being a part of this, but if you'll let us check, we'll find out, sir.

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.

GEN. SCHOOMAKER: I know, in some cases, they provide marvelous assistance, and I am personally aware of that.

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you and, again, it was just reported to me. I do not know it to be true, but I think it is a reasonable request on the part of that organization.

GEN. SCHOOMAKER: We'll find out, sir.

REP. TAYLOR: I very much appreciate, Secretary Brownlee, you coming by yesterday and talking about IEDs. I very much appreciate your awareness of the problem and your willingness to address it, and I will honor your request not to get specific on it, since you've given me your assurance that you're working on it. I thought it was a reasonable request.

SEC. BROWNLEE: Thank you, sir.

REP. TAYLOR: I was told that, as a part of the mobilization last year of the guardsmen and the reservists that dental-that a large number of guardsmen, in particular, were not able to be mobilized on fairly short notice because of dental problems. I would hope that-again, you have so many things on your plate, but I would hope that you would try to address that, since it is my opinion that we are going to be counting on the guard and reserve for a long time, and that not all of these mobilizations will be able to give them a lot of notice that we're calling them up. I know that we should strive to do so, but that's always not going to be the case. In a sense, it has been identified as a problem towards mobilization. I would hope that you all could do something towards that.

The last two things-a number of guardsmen and reservists are going to be facing a tough decision when they get home. You know, they get caught up in the moment while they're over there. We've had, as you have said, very high reenlistment rates in theater, but for those who have not reenlisted in theater, they are going to get home to a spouse, two children, two employers, who are going to be putting some questions in their minds as to whether or not they should stay in the service.

I would think that one of the things that we could do to tell those people that we value their service, that we want them to stay, is to revisit their retirement benefits. I know that a number of reserve organizations are asking for a 20-year retirement. I don't know that we, as a nation, can do that, but I would ask that you would consider rewarding those guardsmen and reservists who serve more than 20 years by lowering their retirement age on some sort of a formula based on how much longer they have stayed in the guard and reserve past their 20 years.

I would also ask that we find a way of rewarding those guardsmen and reservists who have done extensive duties of active duty-active-extensive periods of active duty, whether it was voluntary or involuntarily, because, obviously, a guy spending one year in Afghanistan or one year in Iraq is a heck of a lot tougher duty than the guy who is doing one weekend a month-that just stands to reason and we, as a nation, ought to find a way to reward those folks. So I would hope, as you look at your budget for this year and in the following years, that you would consider that. I think it will be a good thing for the guardsmen and reservists, I think it would be a good thing for our nation.

SEC. BROWNLEE: Sir, we'll certainly take it under advisement. As you well know, the whole benefits issue probably needs to be reviewed. We need to ensure that we are, in fact, recognizing and rewarding those who serve, and we have, as General Schoomaker can tell you, a large reservoir of reserve components, many of whom have not been called. And so we want to be sure that we recognize and reward those who have served on active duty and have been called up or volunteered to come up and do that.

The kinds of programs you've described, you probably know better than I do, what those cost, and imposing those costs and absorbing them within our current budgets, of course, is very difficult, and so we've not gone there. But we certainly agree with you that this kind of service deserves recognition and reward, and we're always looking for ways to do that.

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General.

END