injury, collateral damage, so to speak, to the normal relationship of superiors to their subordinates? Secretary DE LEON. Right. Chairman WARNER. I mean, if you have a top sergeant, who is making "X" dollars after, say, 15 years of service, and you have a lance corporal who has been in for 12 or 14 months, and if suddenly, by virtue of some Secretary DE LEON. Right. Chairman WARNER.-complication, his salary is equal to the top sergeant's Secretary DE LEON. Right. Chairman WARNER.-and if, let us say if they are both male, it may seem a little chauvinistic on my part, but the wives are not going to be too happy on the top level. Am I not correct? Secretary DE LEON. Yes. Particularly, when you add that at the heart of our chain of command structure is the fact that we are a performance-based organization Chairman WARNER. Right. Secretary DE LEON.-a merit-based organization. So, that E-7 has earned the rights and benefits that he or she has acquired after many years of service. So, there are equity issues between those that are working very hard and those that are more junior personnel that also have a full range of other benefits available to them, a commissary, an exchange, medical, housing benefits, educational opportunities. The key, the solution to the issue is for the Congress to stay on the track that you outlined last year in S4; to continue to increase the pay for our junior personnel, but also through the pay table reform, and potentially subsequent pay table reforms, to make sure that we are increasing pay appropriately for our most junior personnel, but that we are also building into the rank structure the appropriate compensation for a person as they go from E-1 to E3, from E-3 to E-5, from E-5 to 7, 8, or 9. There are significant responsibilities at each of those levels. We have to make sure that we are compensating each of those people. At the same time Chairman WARNER. Well, I think the likelihood of another significant pay increase is not on the horizon at this time. Secretary DE LEON. Well-but Chairman WARNER. I would like to draw your attention to the following. Our distinguished colleague, Mr. McCain, from time to time, has introduced some legislative packages on this. I intend to go back and re-examine that. I am going to ask you to undertake to do the same thing, and just task the Secretary and yourself to come forward with such legislation, as may be necessary, to, let us say, try and bring down the number of persons that are in this category, and in such a way as not to disrupt the essential feature of the military; that is, you are recognized for your rank and so forth. Secretary DE LEON. Right. I would be happy to do that, but let me just elaborate on pay, because I think Congress and the administration-we are at 3.8 percent this year. There will be an additional ECI-Plus. So, I think that pay will continue to go in the right direction, based upon the guidance that we have gotten from the Conference Committee last year, as well as the Secretary's commitment. But I would be happy to respond Chairman WARNER. I doubt if that course of action will ever really reduce to zero for this problem. Secretary DE LEON. It will probably never take it to zero, because for some families there is a need for this benefit. Chairman WARNER. Correct. Secretary DE LEON. But Chairman WARNER. It is now at about 12,000. Chairman WARNER. Out of the total force of 1.3 million or 1.2 million. Secretary DE LEON. Correct. Chairman WARNER. Somewhere in there. So, it is very small, But just think it remains out there as a target. When persons use it in a certain way, it reflects on the management responsibility of the Secretary of Defense and indeed, yourself, as Principal Deputy. Secretary DE LEON. Right. Chairman WARNER. I am going to ask this question, and to the extent that you can respond, I would appreciate it. I say that because I want to be very careful about information conveyed to me in the last several days by the Department in an official capacity, which I have not been able to determine whether it is open right now. It is not highly classified, but it is just that I want to respect the information that comes to me. That regards the peace talks in the Middle East and what missions that our President is on at this time. But there have been open press comments on the possibility of a very significant financial package relating to the military. That would be under the cognizance of this committee to look into it, and indeed authorize it, should that package request and dollar amount come before the Congress. We have seen estimates in excess of $15 billion to $16 billion spread over a number of years, as an integral part of such settlement as all of us hope to be reached. Now, my first reaction to that is that it is extraordinarily high. That dollar figure concerns me, in the light of the request for the military pending before this committee at this moment. We have not only the President's request, we have a number of requests by individual members for augmentation of the President's request. We have the chiefs, who annually come forward to this committee, in their personal capacity and other capacities, and present which they feel is also essential for the needs of their respective military departments. This adds up to a whopping sum, which we simply are not going to be able to meet this year. Then we are looking at this extraordinary package, although it is spread over a number of years and there is no clarity as to how many years. Then you have the ancillary question that the policy in that region, for this assistance to our very valued and important ally, Israel, has gone on for many years. As a balancing portion to it, mainly, that has been given to Egypt. Now, it does not equal what Israel has received, but nevertheless it is a significant sum. You know the various amounts that we have had. What can you inform this committee about this morning? I am looking at the possibility of having a special hearing on this issue. I will consult with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because the primary responsibility would rest with that committee. But our committee has, in years past, tried to authorize financial requests, which are clearly within our providence, even though they come in through supplementals and the like. What can you inform us on the status of that situation, right now? Secretary DE LEON. I have heard that there were a few calls that were made in the last 24 hours or so, I have not seen those talking points. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I could respond on that for the record. Chairman WARNER. All right. I think it is important you do so. I have those talking points here. Again, I want to respect these in the manner in which were brought to my attention. So, we will— we will await that. [The information referred to follows:] To facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and/or Syria, we have looked at a wide range of alternative assistance packages. The supplemental assistance in question was being evaluated in the context of peace negotiations that are no longer ongoing. Chairman WARNER. I would last like to ask the clerk to hand both of our witnesses this chart. Chairman WARNER. If anyone else desires to look at it, I have extra copies right here. I am greatly concerned about the question on domestic terrorism. This chart was prepared by the organization, Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, the Monterrey Institute of International Studies. But for those who cannot see it, it is about as complex as any chart you might imagine. Now, in my judgment, it is the responsibility of this committee and other committees of the Senate and House to begin to focus on, I think, certainly, the structure and whether or not this com plicated structure well-serving the growing threat that I and others perceive to domestic terrorism. We are going to undertake, in this committee, the subcommittee under Mr. Roberts' chairmanship has already done a great deal of work on this issue. But we are going to undertake a review of this in the context of whether or not we need to frankly legislate on a structure which, in the judgment of this committee, would be more efficient and more responsive to this issue. Have you ever seen this before? Secretary DE LEON. I have not seen this chart, but I am familiar with the confusion and the complexity of how this issue is coordinated. Chairman WARNER. Well, I thank you for those comments. I suggest you tuck it in your drawer We may call on the General Counsel to give you some very helpful advice that we will receive. But we cannot, as a nation, be unrealistic about the growing nature of this threat. No matter how well-intentioned the disparate agency's departments of this government may well be, we cannot let bureaucracy, in an entanglement, such as portrayed by this chart, get in the way for rapid response to whatever may befall this nation. So, I am just going to ask if you would kindly put that on your right-hand side of your desk and expect that you and I will be discussing that, perhaps other members of the committee, in the weeks and months to come, to see whether or not we can improve this. Mr. Secretary, over the past several years, we have seen the risk associated with the military services' ability to execute the National military strategy increase from low to moderate, from moderate to high. What actions do you believe can be taken to reverse this decline in our readiness? Secretary DE LEON. On that question, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a combination of activities. Some of them are on the capabilities side. On the other side, is more structural on OPTEMPO. On the capabilities side, one critical area where I think with this budget a new investment has been made, and that is the use of UAVs, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which are critical for intelligence generation. There is, I think, $400 million in this bill for systems like Global Hawk. Right now, one of the highest operational TEMPOs are for U-2 pilots. They are in high demand in each of our regional areas, in terms of the generation of the unique intelligence data that they generate. So, one of the critical capabilities that we need on this side is to expand UAVs. There are several other issues. Some are structural. We have already discussed recruiting and retention, but I know both CNO, as well the Chief of Staff of the Army, want to make sure that there is full-time manning of critical combat units; that the Air Force configuring itself to an Air Expeditionary Force, will have more flexibility in responding to critical missions. I know the CNO and the VCNO have initiatives on sea duty to make sure that our ships are fully manned. 71-951 D-01--2 |