Hearing of the House Government Reform Committee - Transforming the National Guard: Resourcing for Readiness Panel II

Federal News Service

April 29, 2004 Thursday

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM SUBJECT: TRANSFORMING THE NATIONAL GUARD: RESOURCING FOR READINESS

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE TOM DAVIS (R-VA)

WITNESSES PANEL II: PAUL MCHALE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; THOMAS F. HALL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;

LIEUTENANT GENERAL H. STEVEN BLUM, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU; MAJOR GENERAL JOHN A. LOVE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO COMBATANT COMMANDER FOR NATIONAL GUARD AFFAIRS, U.S. NORTHERN COMMAND

REP. TOM LANTOS (D-CA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Before I raise my point, let me express my admiration for the work all of you gentleman are doing. You know we are fully supportive of what you are doing. In the 24 years I have served in this body, I have been in many policy disputes, but I have never had any weird inexplicable dispute with an administration spokesperson that I have in this instance.

So let me try to frame my question with great respect, but in the hope that I will get a straight answer. The National Guard Association of the United States wrote me a letter signed by Richard Alexander, Major General, retired, thanking me for introducing HR13- 45.

I will just read a paragraph from this.

"Thousands of Guardsmen and women are currently being called to active duty in support of the ongoing operations in Iraq supporting the global war on terrorism, defense of the homeland, in addition to the multitude of other state and Federal operational missions normally performed. Many members of the National Guard are experiencing financial hardships when they serve their country for extended periods of time due to the difference of income between their civilian and military pay. HR13-45"-which is my legislation - "will help mitigate financial loss by making up the difference between a Guardsman's civilian and military salaries."

Now. Mr. Hall, since you have been the most articulate and vociferous opponent of my legislation, let me ask you to explain something to me which despite my best efforts I am incapable of comprehending you. You and your superiors, all the way up to Secretary Rumsfeld, are full of praise for private companies when they do exactly what my legislation calls for, by the federal government. I have a whole list of quotations from a very large number of important people like yourself showering praise on private companies for doing exactly what my legislation calls for.

Yet, incomprehensibly and illogically, you are vehemently opposed to a legislation which is totally non-partisan in character, and it will help enormously in recruitment, retention, morale, in every conceivable arena that you, as a responsible officer are interested in.

Now please explain to me, how can you praise a private company for voluntarily introducing the precise provision my legislation mandates the federal government to do?

MR. HALL: I will try to be as careful in answering your question as you posed it to me, and I didn't realize I was the most vociferous opponent of your --

REP. LANTOS: You are, sir.

MR. HALL: I didn't know I had that label.

What I try to do is to look upon this issue in a very broad aspect. First of all, I think it's appropriate that we praise those civilian employers who do this. They do not have active duty people in the same foxhole with our Guard and reserve that they have to worry about. All of the reserve chiefs, as Mr. McHugh has said, have come over and have worried about the comparability of an active duty E4 in a foxhole with a Reserve E4, and do they receive the same Federal pay, and they do.

And I spent, as I said, 34 years of my life in uniform commanding young men and women on the active duty side, and we have to honestly worry about that in the federal government --

REP. LANTOS: Now, may I stop you for a second?

MR. HALL: Yes, sir.

REP. LANTOS: Your logic has already left you, because you are applauding the private employer who pays the salary which makes two people in the same foxhole getting different salaries. So you can't have it both ways. You can't praise private employers for doing exactly what my legislation calls for. I mean with a straight face, you can't tell me this, because it makes no sense.

MR. HALL: Well, I do applaud them and they have their own imperatives and their own system and they have chosen to do that, and --

REP. LANTOS: Why don't you answer my question? You have two people in the same foxhole getting different salaries because General Electric chooses to maintain the salary while the person is on active duty, and you are praising General Electric for creating, presumably, a problem for you.

MR. HALL: I have answered it in that federal pay for that active duty and that Reserve soldier needs to be the same and that it is the same, and that is my lane to worry about. And remember, one third of our Guardsmen and Reservists lose some amount of pay, two-thirds have the same amount, or more. And the average loss, and I know we focus on what is in the newspaper of tremendous bankruptcies, tremendous loss, that is not the case.

It's between $3,000 and $4,000. Now, that's an amount of money, we worry about that, but it is not where each and every one of these soldiers are losing their homes and going bankrupt. We worry about that, there are possible solutions such as insurance, but we need to worry about targeting the full range of compensation to those young men and women, and the Guard and Reserve chiefs all together, and the active duty chiefs, have stated their position, that in considering the overall compensation-and I also do not believe this is the major recruiting and retention problem we have this particular pay. There are others that, if we have limited funds, we need to look at.

And I think I've answered it the way I honestly feel based on my background service and my position now.

REP. LANTOS: Well, let me just pursue it a bit, if you'll allow me, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DAVIS: I'll be asking unanimous consent-you can ask unanimous consent to increase your time.

REP. LANTOS: I do.

REP. DAVIS: Any objection to giving the gentleman a couple, two additional minutes? Without objection.

REP. LANTOS: The notion that the current situation hurts only one-third of the people that are serving our country-and that can be dismissed so cavalierly-is absolutely preposterous. We are passing legislation here that helps 1 percent of our population. You are talking about one-third of your manpower or person power which is being hurt by this idiotic policy, it's an idiotic policy. And I'm using the term advisedly. And for you to dismiss it that it impacts only one-third of the people, you need to give me an answer, for you don't give a damn about that one-third?

MR. HALL: I don't dismiss it cavalierly. I've told you how serious I view the compensation for our young men and women, and we look at it in a broad view. I understand yours and I think I've answered it adequately about my concern for our young men and women.

REP. LANTOS: Well, let me for the record state, I think you answer totally lacks logic and internal consistency and is totally unacceptable.

MR. HALL: Yes, sir, I appreciate that, thank you.