[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 111-70]

HEARING

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

BUDGET REQUEST ON MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

__________

HEARING HELD

MAY 21, 2009

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

51-108 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas JOE WILSON, South Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
Michael Higgins, Professional Staff Member
John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
Rosellen Kim, Staff Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009

Page

Hearing:

Thursday, May 21, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense
Authorization Act--Budget Request on Military Personnel
Overview....................................................... 1

Appendix:

Thursday, May 21, 2009........................................... 33
----------

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009
FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee.................... 1
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking
Member, Military Personnel Subcommittee........................ 2

WITNESSES

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Manpower
and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps........... 7
Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III, USN, Chief of Naval Personnel,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Total Force.................. 6
McGinn, Gail H., Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and
Readiness, Department of Defense............................... 3
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff,
Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force........... 8
Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,
Headquarters, U.S. Army........................................ 4

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Coleman, Lt. Gen. Ronald S................................... 117
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 37
Ferguson, Vice Adm. Mark E., III............................. 105
McGinn, Gail H............................................... 39
Newton, Lt. Gen. Richard Y., III............................. 147
Rochelle, Lt. Gen. Michael D................................. 91
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 38

Documents Submitted for the Record:

[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

Ms. Bordallo................................................. 161
Dr. Fleming.................................................. 161

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

Mr. Loebsack................................................. 165
FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST ON
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Military Personnel Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, May 21, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mrs. Davis. Good afternoon. The meeting will come to order.
We are happy to have everybody here. Today, the
subcommittee will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2010
national defense budget request for military personnel.
Each of your written statements makes clear the heartfelt
commitment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the services
to protect and enhance the programs that support service
members and their families. You can be sure that the
subcommittee shares your view that the men and women who serve
our Nation in uniform are deserving of the highest praise and
our best efforts to protect the programs that are the
foundation for their quality of life.
I was pleased to observe that Admiral Mullen, the chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, feels as strongly as we do that
personnel programs must be protected. In a speech at The
Brookings Institution on Monday this week, the admiral
indicated that tighter budgets will put increasing pressure on
leaders to reduce programs that sustain people and that those
leaders, including him, needed to resist the temptation to make
those cuts.
The admiral did note that health care and other personnel-
related costs were growing and that more needed to be done to
control such costs because the rate of growth associated with
personnel programs was not sustainable over time.
We have all felt the budget pressures increasing in recent
years. For example, the ongoing cuts to recruiting and
retention are understandable, so long as the military continues
to attract and retain quality people. However, the cuts must be
structured so as not to preclude our ability to respond when
the economy begins to recover.
Other less prominent indicators of budget pressures are
more troubling. For example, the Navy's freeze of permanent
changes of station (PCS) for the remainder of the year is
causing hardship for many of our families. There are rumors of
funding cuts to programs such as the Army Knowledge Online that
is so important to communication within the Army and the
Virtual Army Experience, that is important to understanding the
recruiting of a new high-tech generation.
We now know that the Marine Corps Reserve will, for the
third consecutive year, not achieve its authorized end-strength
during fiscal year 2009. And the Air Force, the one service
most reliant on retention, continues to struggle to achieve
certain goals.
Our purpose today is to better understand how those budget
pressures will be translated to fiscal year 2010 and how those
pressures will impact end-strength; recruiting and retention;
force structure; compensation; and service member, retiree, and
family morale and welfare.
Once again, thank you all for being here. We look forward
to your testimony.
And I want to turn to Mr. Wilson for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 37.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis.
In many respects, the military personnel systems today
reflect a degree of success that would have been questionable
three to five years ago. In large part, that success is due to
the efforts of the witnesses who will testify today.
I want to particularly single out Lieutenant General
Michael D. Rochelle, the Army G-1, and Lieutenant General
Ronald S. Coleman, the Marine Corps deputy commandant for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs. This likely will be their last
appearance before this subcommittee. Each will complete more
than 30 years of exceptional service before retiring. Both men
are directly responsible for successfully directing the
personnel programs of their respective services through an
extraordinarily difficult period.
I personally want to thank you for your service to this
Nation and wish you both well in our future endeavors. And I
particularly know of your success, having the privilege of
representing Fort Jackson, representing Parris Island, the
Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort and Naval Hospital at
Beaufort. So thank you both for your service.
With regard to the fiscal year 2010 military personnel
budget request, I have three areas of concern.
The first is the $800 million reduction in the services'
recruiting and retention budgets. While I know that the
downturn in the economy has made recruiting and retention
somewhat easier, the experience of this subcommittee is that
reductions in recruiting and retention funding inevitably prove
to be too deep. So I am interested in hearing the personal
assessment of each of the service personnel chiefs as to where
risk exists in the proposed cuts to recruiting and retention
resources.
My second concern focuses on the number of nondeployable
personnel in the Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve.
Clearly, the fact that there are at least 27,000 nondeployable
personnel in the active Army and at least another 21,000
nondeployables in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve must
have a range of effects on these components. I would like to
hear more about those impacts and how the Army believes they
might be mitigated.
The third area of concern relates to the recent testimony
by the service chiefs, particularly those of the Marine Corps
and Army, that dwell time will not significantly increase in
the foreseeable future. I would like to understand why, with
increased end-strength, there will not be a significant change
in the dwell time for the active and Reserve components.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 38.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
I now want to introduce our first panel.
Ms. Gail McGinn, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Thank you very much. Welcome back to the hearing. And I had
an opportunity to see you this morning, as well, and talking
about balloting for our military personnel overseas, and I
appreciate your doing that, as well.
Lieutenant General Michael D. Rochelle, Deputy Chief of
Staff, G-1, Headquarters U.S. Army.
And, General Rochelle, we had an opportunity to meet
earlier, and I wanted to wish you the very best as you retire
this summer. This probably is your final appearance before this
subcommittee, and we wish you well. We thank you so much for
all of your dedicated service. Thank you very much.
Vice Admiral Mark Ferguson III, Chief of Naval Personnel,
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations of Total Force.
Thank you very much for being here, Admiral.
Lieutenant General Ronald S. Coleman, Deputy Commandant for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps.
And, General Coleman, we know that you also will be
retiring this summer, and this is probably your final
appearance as well. And, again, I thank you for your dedicated
service. Thank you very much.
And Lieutenant General Richard Newton III, of the U.S. Air
Force, Deputy Chief of Staff, Manpower and Personnel,
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force.
Thank you for being here.
Please, we will start with Ms. McGinn.

STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MCGINN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
PERSONNEL AND READINESS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Ms. McGinn. Thank you.
Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson, and distinguished
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you on the overview of the Department's
programs, policies, and budget dedicated to taking care of our
most precious resource, our people.
As our data shows, we are largely succeeding in attracting
and retaining the best and brightest young people. The
Department of Defense has set high standards for the quality
for the All-Volunteer Force, and the payoff is evident in the
performance of this force in the field, which has been truly
remarkable.
It is vital to our national defense to maintain this highly
skilled and motivated force. We must continue to ensure that we
provide the right combination of pay, benefits, and
compensation. We want to continue to work with you to ensure
that we make the best use of every dollar authorized.
We are still sending our service members in harm's way and
to face serious conflicts abroad. And for those service members
who have returned from these operations wounded and injured,
the Department is committed to doing everything we can to make
sure they receive all the necessary medical care and nonmedical
assistance to return to full-duty status or successfully
transition to the next phase of their lives.
We are grateful to you for your giving us the authority and
resources to make significant progress in restructuring the
disability and compensation systems, enhancing case management,
and hiring additional recovery care coordinators.
However, we know that the work is not done. And this budget
is a testament to the fact that the Department will continue to
devote our energy and resources to our wounded, ill, and
injured.
Furthermore, we understand the sacrifices made by not just
the service members but their families. These brave men and
women cannot do what they do without the support of their loved
ones. And to enforce the ongoing support of these family
members, the Department increased the fiscal year 2010 baseline
for family assistance by shifting funds from the overseas
contingency operations budget to the baseline to ensure
continuity in program delivery. This is a step in the right
direction.
I do have a statement I submitted for the record. And I
would just like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss
these important issues with you today, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinn can be found in the
Appendix on page 39.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
General Rochelle.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. MICHAEL D. ROCHELLE, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF, G-1, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY

General Rochelle. Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
I appear before you on behalf of the 1.1 million men and
women serving here and abroad, in peace as well as the most
violent environments. This combat-seasoned force is resilient
and professional, yet it is strained. More than 1 million of
this Nation's finest citizens have deployed over the past 7
years into harm's way. We realize very well that are costs and
effects associated with this conflict, both visible and
invisible effects.
Our current programs to relieve stress on the force are
vital to maintaining a healthy, balanced, and prepared Army.
These programs help us defend our Nation against some of the
most persistent and wide-ranging threats in our Nation's
history.
The success of these programs are due in part--in large
part, I might add--to the support of the Congress and
specifically this committee. This committee has give us
numerous programs that we have instituted to keep America's
Army strong well into seven-plus years of war.
First and foremost, you have given us the means to recruit
and retain an agile Army and, I might add, the best trained,
the best led, and the best equipped Army in the world. As a
result, for the past two years, we have met or exceeded our
recruiting and retention goals for the total Army. This is a
step in the right direction to get our personnel, our people,
back in balance.
We continue to transform our force into one Army that
consistently use the talents of our active, Reserve, and
National Guard soldiers, as well as our magnificent teammates,
our civilian workforce. This total force approach is key to
restoring balance within our ranks and in our homes.
This Congress has embraced our needs, and we are very, very
grateful. You have given us the means to improve the quality of
life for our soldiers and their families. Soldiers are
remaining in the Army because they see it is a good environment
in which to serve and raise a family, thus making us the
employer of choice.
The Army continues to face challenges which will be
directly in front of us for the next several years. Armed with
lessons learned, it is our intent to stay in front of those
challenges, anticipate them, develop strategies and programs,
and keep them from becoming problems in the future.
One of our largest challenges is the eligible population to
serve in our Armed Forces today. That number continues to drop,
thus creating what I believe is a national dilemma, a national
problem. The Army will continue to work hard to attract and
retain the best, but we need your help in taking on this larger
issue, this larger problem.
The challenging environments that our soldiers serve in
demand that we maintain the standards as set. And we must
remain ever vigilant that our force is manned with both
physically and mentally fit and qualified soldiers, as it is
today.
I have described the challenging environment to you here
today. I am confident, however, that with the operational and
institutional agility America's Army has developed over the
past eight years, we will meet all the challenges that will
come our way.
It is easier to commit to a plan of action when we know
that the Congress supports us. Your leadership and support have
been unwavering. I have appreciated the discussions we have had
over the years concerning the health of this great Army, and I
look forward to taking your questions today.
Thank you for your support.
[The prepared statement of General Rochelle can be found in
the Appendix on page 91.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Admiral Ferguson.

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. MARK E. FERGUSON III, USN, CHIEF OF
NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, TOTAL FORCE

Admiral Ferguson. Chairwoman Davis, Representative Wilson,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to review our budget request
on behalf of the Navy total force and their families.
During my previous testimony in March, I discussed end-
strength and our successes in recruiting and retention. Since
that time, recruiting and retention have remained strong, and
we continue to achieve our enlisted and officer goals across
both the active and Reserve components.
Our fiscal 2010 active and reserve budget request supports
our ability to attract, recruit, and retain a highly skilled
naval force in support of our maritime strategy. I would like
to briefly highlight the principal themes contained in our
budget request.
First, it includes an increase of our authorized end-
strength to a level of 328,800. It sustains the Reserve force
at an end-strength of 65,500. This increased end-strength above
our 2009 level supports the demand for individual augmentees
for the joint force and demonstrates our commitment to
sustaining our current deployment dwell times to minimize
stress on the force.
Our request sustains the recruiting successes we achieved
last fiscal year, where we met medical goals for the first time
in five years, and this year we met nuclear Zone A retention
goals for the first time in over 30 years.
While the budget reflects a slight decrease in advertising
expenditure, it increases the amount for enlistment bonuses and
sustains our recruiting force in the field at their current
levels to support our projected accessions.
The budget request also supports our stabilization strategy
to balance the force in terms of seniority, experience, and
skills, while safeguarding the careers of our top performers.
We have adjusted incentives and bonuses in response to sailor
behavior, and this request sustains our enlistment bonus
programs at 2009 levels.
The budget request also includes increases for selected
medical recruiting programs. Your support for these programs is
essential as we continue to target our investment in critical
skill areas. And, I might add, your support has been critical
to our successes in the past.
The budget request also increases funding for family
support programs and our Navy Safe Harbor, wounded, ill, and
injured, program. It also supports our efforts to build
resiliency and foster a culture that encourages sailors to seek
help in response to stress.
Finally, our request balances our education and training
requirements with growth in important mission areas, such as
cyber warfare, language and culture.
Last week, I had the opportunity to visit our naval
personnel overseas in Europe and the Middle East. Your sailors
today are positive, enthusiastic, and performing
extraordinarily well in meeting the demands of the joint force
and of the Nation. I could not be prouder of their efforts that
they do every day in service to the country.
And so, on behalf of all the men and women in uniform who
sacrifice daily and their families, I wish to express my
sincere appreciation to the committee and the Congress for your
unwavering support for our Navy.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Ferguson can be found in
the Appendix on page 105.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Coleman.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RONALD S. COLEMAN, USMC, DEPUTY
COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S.
MARINE CORPS

General Coleman. Chairwoman Davis, Congressman Wilson,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege
to appear before you today to discuss Marine Corps personnel.
I would like to thank both the Chairwoman Davis and
Congressman Wilson for their kind words. It is an honor to
serve this greater Nation of ours.
I would like to make a few key points.
First, with regard to our end-strength, the Marine Corps is
now building on our success in fiscal year 2008 and will reach
our 2010 goals this fiscal year, two years ahead of schedule.
We owe this success in large part to our recruiters, who
continue to meet all accession goals while maintaining the
highest-quality standards. Thank you for your continued support
of our enlistment incentives which help make this achievement
possible.
Secondly, our active-duty component retention continues to
be successful. In fiscal year 2008, first-term retention was 36
percent. We are building on that success in fiscal year 2009,
having already achieved our fiscal year mission. We thank you
for your support of our Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program.
It will remain the foundation of our retention efforts as we
move from growing our force to shaping it so that we maintain
vital Marine Corps leadership and critical skills.
Third, I want to reiterate that a top priority of the
commandant of the Marine Corps is caring for our wounded
warriors and for the families of all Marines. Our wounded
warrior regiment is diligent at work, implementing a new and
holistic approach to wounded warrior care which makes thriving,
not just surviving, the expectation of our wounded Marines.
Likewise, our family readiness programs have undergone a
host of significant improvements which continue to this day.
They are made possible in large part by the generous funding
that you have provided.
I want to personally thank you, Chairwoman Davis, for your
recent introduction of a House resolution that recognizes the
work of our family readiness volunteers. As you mentioned, they
are a crucial part of the family care and military readiness
equations.
In closing, I want to thank you and the other Members of
Congress for your support and partnership. They have been
central to the strength that your Marine Corps enjoys today.
They will continue to be essential as we work to shape the
Marine Corps of the future so that we always remain the most
ready when the Nation is least ready.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Coleman can be found in
the Appendix on page 117.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
General Newton.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. RICHARD Y. NEWTON III, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR FORCE

General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Wilson,
and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss our efforts as they relate to the fiscal
year 2010 budget to ensure we attract, recruit, develop, and
retain a high-quality and diverse fighting force.
Airmen are the focal point for providing the critical
capabilities that the Air Force contributes for winning today's
fight. And while the Air Force has innovative technologies and
equipment, it is the hard work of our dedicated men and women
in uniform and our civilians who underscore our success.
Without a doubt, the tremendous talent of our total force
airmen and civilians is the backbone of our United States Air
Force, and our budget proposal recognizes this fact. These
dedicated volunteer servants are our most important asset.
Without them, our organizations and equipment would not
function, our operations would grind to a halt.
Therefore, we must ensure we have the proper end-strength
to meet current, new, and emerging missions. For fiscal year
2010, our active-duty end-strength will be 331,700 airmen, with
69,500 serving in the Air Force Reserve and 106,700 airmen in
the Air National Guard. This stops previously planned total
force end-strength reductions. We will also grow our civilian
population to a little over 179,000, which includes 4,200
contractor-to-civilian conversions.
Simultaneously, we will continue to reshape the skill sets
of our workforce, with particular emphasis on stress career
fields and mission areas that need our attention, such as
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, aircraft
maintenance, acquisitions, cyber operations, nuclear
deterrence, operations, and sustainment. For instance, in
fiscal year 2010, our manpower investment includes increasing
our nuclear-related personnel by 2,500 and adding 200
acquisition professionals.
The growth in end-strength goes hand in hand with an
increase in our recruiting efforts, and it goes beyond finding
the right numbers. We must also ensure that the right quality
and the right skills are present in our potential candidates.
And, despite the weak economy, we expect 2010 to be a
critical retention environment for several reasons: an
increased need to retain specific skill sets in certain
specialities; previous end-strength decreases and corresponding
decreases in accessions; increased operational demands; and new
and emerging missions.
Our commitment includes continued support for special pay
and allowances to address recruiting and retention concerns in
our health professional skills and our most critical war-
fighting skills such as pararescue, combat control, tactical
air control party, and explosive ordnance disposal.
Finally, we are committed to taking care of our airmen and
their families, to include our wounded warriors, to whom we
have a never-ending obligation. Over the past year, we tackled
important issues for Air Force families, such as expanding
child care capacity, increasing child care support for Guard
and Reserve families, improving financial readiness, and
providing opportunities for children of airmen, whether they
reside on our military installations or in our civilian
communities throughout the United States.
The Air Force is leaning forward to be all in. Your
continued support of our missions to attract, develop, and
sustain talented and diverse airmen and their families is
mission-essential, and it is also most appreciated. Our efforts
to effectively manage end-strength to recruit and retain,
train, develop, and care for airmen and their families will
enable us to fly, fight, and win in air, space and cyberspace.
Thank you for your unfailing support of the men and women
and the families of the United States Air Force. And I also
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Newton can be found in
the Appendix on page 147.]
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for your presentations.
You have all mentioned end-strength, and let's talk about
that a little bit, because we know that there has been an
increase in end-strength in excess of the 2009 authorization.
And what I think we are interested in is your assurances that
the dollars will be there as we move into 2010, given the fact
that there is likely to be a bow from those higher end-strength
numbers.
What can you tell us about those concerns? And do we have
that all together?
I think I would just turn to the serve chiefs initially and
start with you.
General Coleman. It is not often they let me go first,
ma'am, as I am the junior guy, but I will just jump right up.
Ma'am, I think we are well--we, the Marine Corps--right
now. We do expect that the funds will go down. We can handle
that somewhat. It would be a discredit to you if I came in
right now and said, we have made our retention goal already
this year. We are two years ahead of schedule on our
enlistments, but my fear, our biggest fear is that, if funds
are taken away to allow the critical MOSs to reenlist and to
bring in those critical Military Occupational Specialties
(MOSs), then there would be great concern.
Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you.
Admiral Ferguson. From the Navy perspective, there are
several challenges that we uniquely face and share with some of
the other services. From a shared perspective, changes in
entitlements, as the bill goes through the Congress, can affect
our ability to execute.
Second, we receive cost increases throughout the execution
year for housing allowances, subsistence allowances, and so
those changes in rates greatly affect our ability to execute.
We feel that the money we put in the budget adequately programs
and covers the cost of the end-strength that we have.
In the Navy, a unique case because we received authority
from the Secretary to over-execute at end-strength this year.
In the 2010 request, you will see part of our end-strength is
funded in supplemental, and it covers 4,400 individuals in the
overseas contingency operations to allow us to provide joint
enablers to the joint force, where we provide almost 14,000 to
the force.
And so, for our funding in 2010, the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) and supplemental both cover a portion of our
end-strength.
General Rochelle. The Army, Madam Chair, is in a fairly
unique position, not too dissimilar from my brother in the
Navy, in the sea service here, in that we were funded below the
547.4, which is the number we have grown to 2 years ahead of
schedule. As a result, we have a $1.6 billion shortfall in
2009, which we are hopeful will be covered in full in the OCO
request.
And, now, I realize that is here under deliberations by
this body. But that is key for us if we are, in fact, to be
fully funded across the fiscal year, fiscal year 2010, entering
2010 in a balanced way.
Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh.
General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, you and the committee
members are certainly aware that we were on a glide-path down
to 16,000 active-duty end-strength. We are going to make amends
to that, and we are going to actually, as I mentioned in my
opening remarks, will be active-duty end-strength at 331,700,
and so we have programmed and budgeted for that.
And so we are absolutely committed to make sure that we
uphold, both from a funding standpoint but also as we go out to
recruit and retain, particularly in those critical skill sets,
that we maintain what we have programmed and budgeted for. We
feel that we are certainly adequately positioned to do just
that throughout the program objective memorandum (POM).
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I know that, Admiral Ferguson, you mentioned the
supplemental. And so, do any of you--you mentioned that you are
okay. I think there is a concern that some of that we might
need to look to an additional supplemental to help those
numbers be able to support the increased end-strength that you
have. Is that not a concern for anybody else?
Admiral Ferguson. From the Navy perspective, in the current
supplemental for fiscal year 2009, the House Appropriations
Committee added in their mark of the bill $350 million to
support the Navy end-strength in this year, and that is under
consideration in the Senate.
So, for this fiscal year in execution, that will help us to
alleviate both the permanent change of station issue you
addressed in your opening, as well as get us through and cover
the end-strength.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
You know, I think the big question for all of us is, is
there anything in this that would suggest that you have to
reduce some accounts? And are there impacts on the family and
welfare accounts that might be felt in 2010?
General Rochelle. I go back to the $1.6 billion Military
Personnel Army (MPA) shortfall for Army. And, again, the marks,
as they make it through the House and the Senate, will
determine the answer to the question you just posed. It is
pretty significant for us.
Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh. All right.
General Coleman. Madam Chairwoman, for 2009, we feel good.
But when you speak to 2010----
Mrs. Davis. No, we are talking about 2010.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. We are concerned that a large
cut in 2010, especially in recruiting and retention and our
family readiness programs, that would be brutal to us, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
My time is up. I will turn to Mr. Wilson, and we will start
the round of the panel.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Again, thank all of you for your successes.
And right in line with discussing some budget cuts,
recognizing that there has been a cut in the recruiting and
retention of nearly $800 million--and I indicated my concern
about that in my opening statement--I am interested in hearing
your assessment, all of you, as to where the risk may exist in
the proposed cuts in recruiting and retention. And, in your own
view, does the budget request cut too deeply for 2010?
General Rochelle. Well, let me start, if you will,
Representative Wilson.
First of all, you are familiar with my experience in the
recruiting world directly. And my concern would be that we
are--we are funded adequately in 2010. However, however, we
must be careful that we don't yo-yo across the POM, we don't
yo-yo the resourcing of the recruiting initiative. Frankly,
because it is imperative that we have a fairly steady stream
and predictable stream of resourcing to resource both
recruiters, advertising, and all of the associated support
structure that, day to day, helps our recruiters be successful.
As a matter of fact, hours before I came to the Hill, the
new commanding general of U.S. Army Recruiting Command paid a
visit on me, and we had this very discussion. The discussion
centered on the fact that we are in a very positive place today
relative to where the Army was in 2005, the year I left
Recruiting Command, a very different place, largely because of
the economy. But there are already signs that the economy is
beginning to make a slight turnaround. And so we must think
strategically about recruiting in that new environment and not
be lulled into a false sense of security from where we are
today.
Ms. McGinn. I would just say that we are very aware of the
risks involved when you cut the recruiting account and believe
that we have taken a prudent risk here with this particular cut
because of the status of recruiting and retention and the
overall status of the economy.
But my colleagues and I watch recruiting data monthly. They
probably watch it more frequently than I do. So we need to be
very vigilant in terms of keeping an eye on what is happening
both in the economy and with the recruiting endeavors so that,
if there is something to be corrected, we can correct it.
General Coleman. I would say again, sir, our concern in the
Marine Corps is more drastic in the reenlistment bonus, the
retention side of it, than the initial accession of it. So, too
large a cut would be--because you can't make that up when there
is critical MOSs and critical Marines to fill those MOSs, and
when they go out, you can't get a seven-year veteran by someone
coming in the front door.
So I think it is imperative that we maintain our selective
reenlistment bonuses, sir.
Admiral Ferguson. With respect to Navy, we did take a minor
reduction in advertising, where we felt that was a prudent risk
to take in balance, but yet we increased our accession bonus
program, and we kept the number of recruiters in the field. We
figured that is the strength of our program, in bringing in new
sailors.
General Newton. Sir, may I also add from, perhaps, a
different approach, the pool of talent and American youth that
we can go after--I know we have discussed this previously in
other hearings--is a challenge for all the services and
particularly for the Air Force.
As you go about trying to find specific critical skills,
not only from a recruiting standpoint but a retention
standpoint as well, because even though we are in a downturn of
our economy, many of those skills that airmen bring to the
fight are skills that a lot of employers in the commercial
sector put an eye on the prize as well.
So there is no letup, there should not be any letup, and
the same effort, either in a downturn or an upturn, as General
Rochelle described, you know, the strategic effort ought to
still be maintained.
Mr. Wilson. Well, I appreciate all of you.
And I want to point out, I appreciate Chairwoman Davis
visited with me at Fort Jackson, the recruiting and retention
school, last year. And that was an extremely rewarding
experience to me, to see the dedicated personnel. But it
reinforced my concern over budget cuts, in that, General
Rochelle, you all have helped create an extraordinary
technological base. It makes you feel really good to know of
the capabilities that you used to recruit people for the
opportunity of military service.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
And thanks to all the briefers today for your continued
service to our country.
And I especially want to highlight General Rochelle and
General Coleman. Thank you for your great service to our
country. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. And
we are very proud, as a Nation and a Congress, for all that you
have done.
Part of my questions, frankly, were already addressed by
the opening statements and also by the questions, so let me ask
and try and drill down a little bit.
General Rochelle, you mentioned, as did General Newton just
a second ago, about the eligible population to join the
military is declining, and that is a national issue. You all
have physical fitness standards, and you have a great
leadership model on how to get your folks in tremendous shape.
What advice do you give to Congress, what do you think we
should do? I know this is kind of, probably, out of the box;
you probably didn't prep for this. But what would you advise
the Congress of the United States, what should we be doing to
inspire the American people to follow your lead?
General Rochelle. I will defer to the junior member of the
panel.
General Coleman. Thank you, sir.
If we could just continue, as a Nation, to emphasize
physical fitness. It is a lot easier, I think we all would say,
to stay in shape than it is to get in shape. So I think if we
can--and I think you probably know this, sir, having served:
There is a large percentage of the population that is not
physically fit. And that is deplorable, when you think about
what it was when we were growing up, when you had to take gym,
and now you can opt out of gym. And you can't regain those
muscles in a short period of time.
So if we could stress, and I don't just mean for a day, but
if we could stress physical fitness. And I think a healthy body
leads to a healthy mind. So, as a Congress, as a Nation, if we
could stress physical fitness, I think we would be on the right
track, sir.
General Newton. If I may add, Representative Murphy, it is
also, to add to what General Coleman said, it is a call to
service, as well. It is one that--I believe our generation has
seen a more fit lifestyle, a more fit approach. Certainly, as I
have gotten into my fifties, it is planning for the future as
well.
This is a national challenge we have. One of the largest
challenges we have with regard to being able to reach into
America's youth, much less to entice them to come into the
service, is because of the obesity issue we have among American
youth.
And so, that behooves us who are perhaps more senior,
regardless if you happen to be a Member of Congress or serving
in the military, you be fit to fight, as we say in the United
States Air Force. And so we have walk the walk and talk the
talk and show our commitment in resources and so forth. But I
believe it is a significant call to service that somehow if we
can fill that gap.
General Rochelle. Sir, first of all, I would like to thank
you for your very gracious comments about General Coleman and
my service. And I would simply add that, not unlike all of our
great soldiers and Marines and airmen and sailors who serve, it
is our families who really deserve the credit.
To your question, and just to add on to what my wingman
said here about obesity, the larger issue is high school
completion and the declining rate of high school completion.
A couple of data points--and I will try to do this very
quickly. If you look at high school graduation rates nationally
and segment those rates by race, ethnicity, levels of poverty,
and then the general population, you see some pretty alarming
trends. Only one out of three, anywhere in the Nation,
regardless of race and regardless of the level of income for
the family, will graduate--I beg your pardon, I said that
incorrectly--30 percent will not graduate.
If you now add the level of income at or below the poverty
level, that number that will graduate, irrespective of race or
ethnicity, drops to 50 percent. Add one more layer of
segmentation, and we are now looking at race, poverty level in
general, and 70 percent will not graduate on time.
And I have talked about this a number of different times in
various committees on the Hill. It really is a national
tragedy. And for us to think that we can remain strategically
competitive, not to mention a strong defense, with those types
of trends is foolhardy.
Mr. Murphy. I know my time is up, but I thought that
President Obama's speech at the State of the Union when we
talked to the American people, looked them in the eye and said,
``When you graduate--if you drop out of high school, you are
not just quitting on yourself, you are quitting on your
country.'' I thought that was exactly the right tone, and
putting the burden back on not just the teachers but it starts
at home, education. And we need that accountability and that
responsibility.
And I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you very
much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Dr. Snyder.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wanted to ask--as you may know, another subcommittee here
is doing a study of professional military education in
residence, professional military education (PME). In fact,
General Coleman, I now understand why, when I was at the Marine
Corps University yesterday, I was the only one eating the
donuts and the Marine officers were not. It all becomes clear
to me now.
But I wanted to ask two questions and have you each
respond. The first one is with regard to faculty the in-
residence PME schools, and the second one is with regard to
students.
The first one is, how are faculty selected for the in-
residence PME programs? Both how they are selected, and then
what does that mean for them down the line? I won't tell you
which service, but we heard from a couple of people yesterday
that said they were told by all their friends, don't take the
position, it was a dead-end for them to be assigned as a
faculty member at one of the schools.
And then, second, with regard to the students, how are
students assigned to these schools? And how are decisions then
made with regard to what their next assignment--you know, when
and how is that process, as far as their next assignment after
the school?
General Coleman.
General Coleman. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
As far as the faculty, the faculty is selected both by the
head of our MMOA--that is the manpower management officer
assignment side of it--in conjunction with the president of the
university. So his or her record jacket is screened, goes to
the school, and the school has say, the Marine Corps
University, in, yes, this person should or should not be an
instructor.
Dr. Snyder. But what are the criteria by which you make the
decision to send those to the school to be looked at?
General Coleman. Sir, probably one of the first things
would be promotability. I will use myself as an example. When I
was an instructor at our Amphibious Warfare School, which is a
company-grade school, 12 members of the faculty, seven us were
selected to general officer. So, in the Marine Corps, if you go
to be an instructor at a school, you know that you have been
selected.
Now, whether it means that you have all A's or all B's, I
don't think we do that. We look at the jacket. We look at
intelligence. We look at personnel appearance. We look at
physical fitness. We look at the whole-man or whole-woman
concept. And then the president of the university still has
some say, maybe not the final say, but he or she does have some
say in that person coming to the school.
As far as the students, there is a board that convenes,
just like a promotion board. And I would say, for some schools,
like our top-level schools, your chances of making colonel are
better than they are getting selected to school. So it is a
hard nut to crack, from where I sit, sir.
Admiral Ferguson. From the student perspective, when naval
officers go through--I will speak about the unrestricted line--
when they go through their screening boards at the O-5 and the
O-6 level, generally if you are in the upper half of the group
that screens and you are assigned a code, it makes you eligible
to go to a senior war college. And then the distribution
process will allocate those among National Defense University,
the Naval War College, the various seats that we have to fill.
So for our unrestricted line, they are screened by a board and
then assigned a code that generally represents the top half.
We are driven in those pay grades primarily by command
opportunities. And so we don't ascend them right away; it is
adjusted based upon when their command tour is of a fighter
squadron, let's say, or a submarine or a surface ship.
With regard to the faculty, the faculty are generally
senior officers, O-6, at the Naval War College who have had
prior master's degrees, most have had a prior tour, but they
are nominated by the Bureau of Personnel to the president of
the Naval War College for selection.
General Rochelle. Army's procedures are not terribly
dissimilar from those of the Marine Corps and the Navy, the sea
services. However, for our intermediate-level education, I
believe you know, sir, that that is universally offered to all
officers at a certain grade level. Whether it is done in
residence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which is our flagship
intermediate-level education institution or whether it is done
in a distributed fashion at one of several installations across
the United States, where you can get the same level of training
and education but it is broken up into segments and some of it
is done via distance learning, it is universal intermediate-
level education.
Your question about faculty--make no mistake about it, the
Army is challenged right now to ensure that we have the very
best faculty in place in our institutions of higher learning
and training. The demand for that very best talent, from
theater and elsewhere around the globe, is enormous. However,
having said that, as my fellow witnesses have stated, the
leaders of each of these institutions has a voice in whether or
not an officer is acceptable to be on the platform.
Let me go to the next level, the Army War College. First of
all, for that level of education and training, the capstone, if
you will, for most officers, that is a board selection
process--best qualified. The availability of the officer to
attend, however, is somewhat impacted by the level of demand on
the Army today.
And one final point, if I may return to the intermediate-
level education, two years ago we launched a pilot program,
which I coined the phrase, ``leader development assignment
panel.'' The leader development assignment panel was designed
to take a look at, are we, in fact, sending our very best and
our brightest to our intermediate-level education in resident
training? With a view toward where I think your question is
heading, are we making the appropriate investments for the
future, for the next Global War on Terror or downrange?
And for two years, we have received very, very positive
feedback from the panel members. And we have indeed adjusted,
as a result of those pilots--we will do a third one this year--
whether individuals are sent to fellowships, whether they are
offered an opportunity for a graduate-level education, or the
resident intermediate-level education. All of the above are on
the table.
General Newton. Sir, just briefly, a similar process in
terms of selection, both for our faculty and students. Our
faculty, first we look at their professional credentials as
well as their academic credentials and, also, their desire to
serve as instructors, particularly at our Air War College and
Air Command and Staff College.
I can also tell you, from a student selection standpoint,
those for intermediate development education or senior officer
development education, again, those are board results. We take
generally our top 15 to top 25 percent.
The actual selection and where they attend school could be
at Air Command and Staff College or Army Command and Staff and
so forth. I actually chair that board every fall and identify
which students will go to what particular development education
from that point on.
But it is, again, one that we put a lot of attention to.
Because, as we are trying to not only develop certain
professional qualities, it is also how they go about in their
strategic thinking. How are they beginning, again, now, to
become those strategic thinkers and those strategic leaders as
early on as we possibly can to impact their professional
development.
General Coleman. Can I add one more thing, sir?
Dr. Snyder. Please.
General Coleman. And I should have started off with this.
If you are not what we call PME complete, so if you haven't
attended or haven't completed the schooling for your grade,
then you do not get promoted.
Dr. Snyder. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks to all of you for being here.
And, also, in particular, General Rochelle and General
Coleman, it is my third year in Congress, and I have gotten to
know you some. And I am going to miss you, but hopefully I will
see you in another context in the future.
Just to follow up on some of the earlier comments that were
made and questions asked, while Mr. Murphy is out with the
baseball team preparing for the big game in June, I normally go
out running. And I go over by the Armory and go out into the
Robert F. Kennedy Stadium parking lot, along the river there,
and across over the Anacostia and go into the park on many
days. And I see a lot of the folks from the services who are
over there working out, doing their tests, running, that sort
of thing. And, you know, I wish I could stop and talk to them
and encourage them to continue to do it and all the rest, but
of course they are running and I am running and that is not
possible. But I think that it is just absolutely fantastic. And
I think if we take a lifelong approach to this, too, I think
that is really the way to do this.
Also, on the education front and the high school dropout
issue, there are at least two of us on this subcommittee who
are on the Education and Labor Committee. And the dropout
factory problem is a huge one across the country, high schools
where there are disproportionate numbers of folks who drop out
and don't graduate. And we are trying to address that on the
committee. I actually have legislation, myself, trying to deal
with that issue, as well. So we are going to continue along
those lines, and this is where we can cross over, as far as
committees are concerned, I think.
But, along those lines, what, if anything, is being done by
services as far as encouraging--I mean, it is a problem, but
encouraging folks to stay in school and helping folks to get
their high school degrees?
General Coleman. For us, sir, that is a recruiting tool.
And we look at every Marine as a recruiter. But as our
recruiters visit schools, I think that is the best way we can
do it. And I would say that most Marines would never pass up a
chance to go speak to a school or to children in any part or
any fashion. But it is one of those things that you have to be
accessible and they have to allow you in it. But I think that
is the key.
Mr. Loebsack. If I might follow up, when the recruiters go
to the high schools, they also then obviously encourage
students to stay in school? Is that something they do as well?
General Coleman. Yes, sir. And that is service- and also
DOD-directed because of the propensity of a high school
graduate to do well in the service and stay. So, yes, sir.
Admiral Ferguson. Some of the other services--the Navy
Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (NJROTC) program in the
high schools, we have 75,000 students. Most are diverse and in
lower-privilege areas. But when they complete to graduation, 65
percent go on to higher education and 45 percent come into the
service. That is a real strong program for us, and we have over
600 units around the country.
General Rochelle. Sir, I would add one thing that we are
very proud of. First of all, every soldier encourages young
people, whether it is in his or her community or on a military
installation, and the high school resident on that installation
encourages young people to stay in school. And that is
especially true of Army recruiters, as well.
But since we are at such an epidemic state on this--and
you, obviously, know quite well that it is epidemic--the Army
has launched an Army Prep School at Fort Jackson, South
Carolina. And the Army Prep School is our effort, with DOD
support--I recall having several conversations with Dr. David
Chu about this, and he was very supportive. But as a result of
those efforts, in 2009, 1,500, almost 1,600 young persons who
would not have received a high school diploma did so through
the Army Prep School.
Now it is an equivalent today. But, working with the
Governor of South Carolina, we expect that, before the end of
fiscal 2009, it will indeed be a certified high school diploma.
That is a small effort, but it is a start.
General Newton. Just as a short follow-up, we also see our
airmen as role models in whatever communities they serve. There
is a total force aspect of that from those who are serving in
active duty, but Guard and Reserve as well. I almost see that
as a responsibility that they have as wearing the uniform.
I would also add that it is not just the students
themselves, but to go after the influencers in the communities.
And that could be found in the school, it could be found in a
variety of organizations throughout.
The last point I would raise, in terms of the challenges
that we have with regard to recruiting, whereby perhaps we
focused on high school, 11th, 12th grade, perhaps we are now
being compelled to reach into lower grades, as well, to begin,
because of the challenges that we have already discussed here.
Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you all.
General Rochelle. Sir, may I please edit my numbers? The
1,600 are the numbers who were entered into the program. The
number of graduates is 1,376.
Mr. Loebsack. Okay, thank you.
And, Madam Chair, if I could, I would like to submit a
question for the record, also, on access to family services,
especially for the Reserve component.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 165.]
Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I would love to hear more at some other time about the prep
school. It is South Carolina-specific?
General Rochelle. Yes, ma'am, it is, because of the support
from the Governor of South Carolina.
Mr. Wilson. But students from across the country.
General Rochelle. That is correct. I beg your pardon. I
didn't understand that was your question. They are from across
the country.
Ms. Tsongas. I was going to say, you are doing very well
here.
I am going to change the subject a little bit, if I might,
and I think this will be directed to General Rochelle and
General Coleman. General Casey mentioned at the Army posture
hearing last week that we can expect the operational tempo to
increase through fiscal year 2009 and into 2010. This is
despite the fact that both the Army and the Marine Corps are
projected to achieve their programmed end-strength increases by
the end of this fiscal year.
How soon can we see a reduction in the operational tempo
and an increase in dwell time for Army and Marine Corps combat
and support units?
General Rochelle. Thank you for your question, ma'am.
First, let me elaborate on what the Chief said and say it in
the way that I would articulate it.
Before we see a net reduction in demand, we are probably
looking at 12 months to 18 months into the future. And that is
if everything goes according to plan, with responsible drawdown
in Iraq and buildup to some acceptable level of forces in
Afghanistan.
It is a little bit like, an analogy, if I may, of having an
aircraft carrier battle group replace an aircraft carrier
battle group in the middle of the Pacific. For a period of
time, the Chief of Naval Operations has two equivalents of
battle groups tied up that he can't do anything with until the
one being relieved recovers. It is no different for a brigade
combat team. It is no different for a combat aviation brigade
replacing another combat aviation brigade.
If that demand, eventually, at the end of 12 to 18 months,
does begin to diminish and we see a net reduction--and, by the
way, history suggests that demand continues to rise. Yesterday,
in testimony in the other body, I used the analogy, if the past
is indeed prologue, then we may be headed for trouble.
But, optimistically. If we see the demand reduced, then we
will be able to see also an equivalent reduction in the current
dwell time, which, for the active Army, is one year deployed
for every 1.3 years at home. That is unsustainable, completely
unsustainable. For the Army Reserve and Army National Guard,
the dwell is one year deployed for less than three years at
home. Even at that rate for an operational reserve, that is way
too high.
So the long answer to your question, 12 to 18 months from
now, if all goes according to plan.
Ms. Tsongas. And let's assume for a moment that things
don't go according to plan and, in fact, there is a need for
overall increases, what kind of planning and thinking is taking
place to respond to that?
General Rochelle. We are actively considering--and this is
a discussion we are having inside the Army at this point and
will soon have at the Department of Defense level. We are
actively considering whether or not, in order to mitigate the
risk that you are articulating, ma'am, if we shouldn't look at
other means of having a temporary wartime allowance. But that
is an internal discussion, at this point.
Ms. Tsongas. General Coleman.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am.
At this time, with our growth, we have seen improvement in
our dwell time. Our overall average now, where it was--and,
unlike the Army, the Marine Corps is seven months out, seven
months back, and our goal is three to one. We started off at 1-
to-1.8. We are now at 1-to-2.4, so almost 2.5, a cycle back.
With the drawdown in Iraq, with the increase to our
202,000, I would suggest to you that during fiscal year 2010,
we will conceivably get to where we want to be. But, again, as
General Rochelle says, that is contingent upon things coming
down out of Iraq in the way we think and depending on what
happens in Afghanistan. But we have seen an increase in our
dwell time.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I think my time has run out.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
And good afternoon to all our witnesses.
I would like to ask you, General Rochelle or Ms. McGinn, a
question about the Army National Guard's end-strength. I
represent Guam, where National Guard and Reserve personnel
outnumber, per capita, any State in our Nation. And our ranking
member, Mr. Wilson, will attest to that, because we attended a
ceremony where these records were revealed.
The Guard is authorized for an end-strength of 352,600,
according to your reports here, but is currently at an end-
strength of over 368,000. Given that the Commission on the
National Guard and Reserve has indicated that the National
Guard is a highly cost-effective means of national defense and
that the National Guard has demonstrated through innovative
means that it can meet end-strength goals, can you describe the
benefits of permanently increasing the Army National Guard's
end-strength to 371,000? And I want to also add to that,
keeping in mind that they have a domestic role to play.
Ms. McGinn.
Ms. McGinn. I think that is a good question. General
Rochelle may have a better answer, but I think I would need to
consult with my colleagues back at home to give you that for
the record so that I can give you a thoughtful response to it.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 161.]
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
General.
General Rochelle. It is a very good question.
First of all, let me say that the Army National Guard--and
I know it is true for the Air National Guard, as well--is an
extraordinary force, more so today than ever in the past,
because it has migrated from the strategic reserve context to a
much more relevant context, that of an operational reserve. And
we are asking a great deal of our Army National Guard and Air
National Guard soldiers, airmen, and leaders.
However, an operational reserve--first of all, let me say
that 358,200, which is the current authorization, is
sufficient, in my estimation, to cover down on both operational
reserve demands in the Global War on Terror today, as well as
to address the needs of governors across the United States and
Guam.
Whether or not it would be efficacious to grow the Guard
beyond that should be based upon operational demands, either in
the state or operational and increased demand that we see for
forces--Army forces and air forces--in the current environment.
And I think it would be a prudent move, with that, to look at
it strictly from the perspective of the demand for those
forces.
There remains some reshaping that we may need to look at
for the Guard in terms of structure, what is in those forces at
358,200.
But I would like to conclude by simply echoing, once again,
Lieutenant General Clyde Vaughn, who you may know, a great,
great leader who will retire on the 1st of June, is both my
next-door neighbor and dear, dear friend. And he deserves many
of the same accolades that the chairwoman and others have
bestowed upon General Coleman and myself.
Our Guard, the Army National Guard in particular, is
awesome.
Ms. Bordallo. If I could just add to that, what are the
potential benefits of creating a Trainees, Transients, Holdees,
and Students (TTHS) account for the Guam National Guard?
General Rochelle. Actually, I would expand my answer to
your question. Creating a TTHS account for the Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve would be a very prudent move, very
prudent.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
And one other short question, Madam Chair, just a short
question. I think Ms. McGinn would probably be the best to
answer this. This is for my own information.
What are the percentages of members of the military
personnel--now, this is the active military personnel--who
continue in the military service, make it a career, as opposed
to those who leave the military service? Do you have any
numbers? And that would include all the branches.
Ms. McGinn. I think it would vary by branch. The Marine
Corps has had--and General Coleman can speak to this--Marine
Corps has had higher turnover of first-term Marines than the
other services. And so I think that we would have to get you
those numbers by branch.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 161.]
Ms. Bordallo. I would appreciate that. And I didn't want to
go into all the branches here, but just overall what the
retention is.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
I want to turn to a discussion about those service members
who are unavailable to deploy, we call them nondeployables, but
who are not able to deploy with their units for whatever
reason.
General Chiarelli mentioned recently, the Army Vice Chief
of Staff, that the number of Army service members who are
nondeployable has become a burden on the force that threatens
the Army's ability to fill deploying units to required levels
and to achieve its objectives to reduce operation tempo and
increase dwell time between deployments.
It sounds like that active nondeployable population is
around 27,000, is that correct, as of April of 2009?
And I wonder, General Rochelle, if you could comment then.
Given this current number, was the Army forced to give up the
brigade combat teams (BCT), going from 48 to 45, as a result of
that? Is that at play here, that the additional end-strength
for manning those levels couldn't be achieved at the higher
level? Where does that come into play? I mean, obviously, the
shift from 48 to 45 BCTs has an impact, in a number of ways,
for the ability to carry on the operations.
General Rochelle. An excellent question, Madam Chair.
And let me say at the very outset that the shift from 48 to
45 brigade combat teams, as has been testified in the past by
both the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the
Army--and I think the Vice Chief, as well--was intended to give
us the ability to thicken our forces. In other words, we
weren't chasing that additional structure inside a 547,400 end-
strength, which would have stretched us even a little bit more.
So it was a prudent move, but it remains to be seen over time
relative to demand.
To your specific question, 26,936 nondeployables, temporary
as well as permanent nondeployables, were indeed reported
through our unit status reporting process in the month of
April. And I want to emphasize that it is a moving target. A
soldier who is nondeployable for a temporary reason this week
may be fully deployable next week, and vice versa. So it moves
fairly substantially.
But I will bring it into focus at the brigade combat team
level. The Army G1 tracks, through rear detachment reporting,
for our next-to-deploy brigades what the nondeployable rate is
inside that brigade, frankly because it is a measure of whether
or not we are going to meet our very, very critical gates in
terms of operational manning for that deploying unit. And we
are committed to ensuring that we deploy, as I said in my oral
statement, the best trained, the best equipped, and the best
led, and that includes the best manned.
The last 14 brigade combat teams, as we looked at their
average nondeployables, averaged 11 percent, which is up, I
might add, from over a year ago, prior to the surge, where
nondeployable rates were trending between 8 percent and 10
percent. As we look at the most recent brigades, five, to
deploy, of that 11, we saw an uptick to 12 percent.
Now, that is somewhat alarming for two reasons. I think it
illustrates the cumulative effect of seven-plus years of war.
It represents the impacts of too short dwell, 1.3 years at home
for every one year deployed. And it is cumulative. And we are
gaining some tremendous insights as a result of that.
To your question, however, we are able to deploy today the
best trained, the best manned, the best equipped, and the best
led soldiers downrange to do the Nation's bidding. Back to the
question of risk, in terms of the future, my concern would be,
if we cannot bring that dwell down, then we will begin to see
other problems in addition to the ability to meet the manning
levels.
Mrs. Davis. Yeah.
Others? General Newton, would you like to comment on that?
General Newton. Other than the fact that, again, we try to
focus on our Expeditionary Air Force and our expeditionary
airmen to make sure that their contribution to the fight, that
they are ready, they are trained well for whatever the joint
war-fight may take us.
Mrs. Davis. Admiral Ferguson.
Admiral Ferguson. The Navy population of limited duty or
medically not able to deploy is relatively small, roughly in
the two percent to four percent range of the enlisted force. So
it is not a significant problem. And our Safe Harbor Wounded
Warrior program has about 400 individuals, for example. So, for
us, it is not as significant an issue.
Mrs. Davis. General Coleman.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. For us, the nondeployables--
and we have and I would believe all the services have what we
call P2T2, and that is the Patients, Prisoners, Trainees,
Transients. And that is an everyday occurrence, and every day
that changes.
But when you take that away and you are talking about
combat units deploying, the Marine Corps will not deploy a
unit--infantry battalion is deployed at 100 percent. Now, what
that means is that a unit deploying has 100 percent but the
unit back home may not be at 100 percent because we stole from
Peter to pay Paul.
Mrs. Davis. And I guess we end up with more individual
augmentees as a result of that, too, which creates some
additional problems; is that correct?
General Coleman. Not in infantry battalions, ma'am. When
you go to an infantry battalion, you have--for the Marine
Corps, anyway--we have a six-month buildup. So when you deploy,
you have been with that unit for 6 months before they deploy.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you.
General Rochelle. In our case, because we are committed to
eliminating stop-loss, the challenge that I just articulated
makes the mountain that we have to climb just a little bit
higher.
Mrs. Davis. Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Actually, the brigade combat teams question,
the number reduced from 48 to 45, was my interest. So I
appreciate that that has been discussed.
And so I would be happy to defer to Dr. Fleming.
Mrs. Davis. Dr. Fleming, welcome.
Dr. Fleming. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Well, first of all, let me say that I thank you for being
here today to testify. And on the issue of personnel, that is,
in my opinion and I think the committee as a whole, to be the
most important asset that we have in armed services. So I
appreciate your focus on that.
More specifically, Ms. McGinn, in your testimony you
mention that DOD is looking at altering the meritorious award
system, medals, based on the new realities of the war on
terror. Can you elaborate on that some?
Ms. McGinn. Yes. As a result of action from the Congress,
we have new medals now for Iraqi Campaign Medal, Afghanistan
Campaign Medal, Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal, and
the like. And so what we have been doing is systemically going
through our records and policies for awards of medals and
meritorious citations, and we are updating our policies on that
to reflect the new kinds of decorations that we have for now.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you.
Is there any change in the Valor Award criteria?
Ms. McGinn. That I don't know. I will have to get back to
you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 161.]
Dr. Fleming. Anyone else on the panel have any input?
General Rochelle. Sir, let me comment on that, if I may. I
was a member of the panel, a member of the board, if you will,
working that issue in the Department of Defense. And almost
unanimously--I believe it was not unanimous--but I want to
mention something here that I think is very important.
Each of the service senior enlisted advisors were present
on this matter of valorous awards. And, to a person, they felt
that we should not change the valorous award criteria--and I
concurred with that and supported it--while we are in our
current conflict.
Dr. Fleming. Okay.
I will ask a totally unrelated question. You know, there
has been this problem or issue with two wars that have gone on
longer than we would have liked at levels that are more intense
than we would like.
I would love to hear from the panel, whoever would like to
step up on this one, what is the sustainability of that? You
know, we have a very active Reserve. They are not a reserve
Reserve in the classic sense any longer. And some people who
have been in the Reserves have had several deployments, have
been more active-duty than they have not-active-duty.
So I would love to hear comments from the panel on this.
Ms. McGinn. Can I just say that, if you look at the
retention statistics from the services, where just about every
retention goal has been met, it tells you that the All-
Volunteer Force is working.
The Gates Commission that was the commission that
recommended the All-Volunteer Force had predicted that, in a
time of prolonged conflict, it wouldn't stand up. But it is
doing very, very well, thanks to the work of my colleagues here
and thanks to your help. Because what is very critical are the
bonuses and the funding for recruiting and retention that we
get. And so we are sustaining very well, at this point.
General Newton. Sir, if I may, just to briefly chime in, it
is certainly a total force effort, not only from an active-
duty, Guard and Reserve standpoint, but also the aspect of how
we, as the United States Air Force, contribute to that joint
fight.
I would also mention to you that, for 2009, we have
dedicated it the ``Year of the Air Force Family.'' And the
reason I say that is the balance of effort and resources and so
forth, it is important to us not only on our men and women in
uniform, regardless of active-duty, Guard and Reserve, but also
our family members as well, that we emphasize their value,
their service, and their commitment.
Dr. Fleming. Anyone else?
General Rochelle. Sir, for the Army, it is about dwell. It
is whether or not we will have the ability, as predicted, to
have a slightly less demand--or a substantially less demand
that would allow us to get to the optimum levels of time home
against time deployed for the active component as well as the
Army Reserve and Army National Guard components.
And the current level, as I said earlier in my testimony,
the current levels of dwell are unsustainable.
Dr. Fleming. Okay.
Yes, sir?
Admiral Ferguson. In our survey data of members and their
families throughout the conflict, what we have seen is that the
support of the Congress, in terms of compensation, health care
is extremely important and access to it, the family support
programs. We have had to expand our own health care programs,
providers, as well as family support programs. And that has
been the biggest ability that we have demonstrated, I think, to
support families and has kept morale high.
General Coleman. Thank you, sir.
Sir, I would say that, for the Marine Corps, we are doing
extremely well. Our reenlistment rates are higher amongst those
marines that deploy than those that do not deploy. I believe
our families, thanks to you all, are being taken care of much
better than ever before. And, as importantly, the American
people support the military to a higher degree.
Ms. McGinn. Can I throw one more thing into the mix? One of
the things that we are doing now, it is really a new
initiative, is building a civilian expeditionary workforce so
that our civilian employees can step up to do some of the
missions that our military personnel have to do right now,
particularly in the phase-four post-conflict operations,
stability operations, humanitarian missions. We are asking
civilians who would be willing to come forward and volunteer to
be sent on those kinds of assignments to identify themselves.
And we have a few thousand in the mix, and it is a brand-
new initiative. So it is very small right now, but hopefully it
will pay off in the future.
Dr. Fleming. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just close the
loop on this very quickly, let me say that an All-Volunteer
Force is an expensive force, but I think it is a great
investment. I think it is worth every penny of it.
My understanding is that the active-duty member today is
likely to have a family, as opposed to in previous years. And
it would be my sense that they can perform much longer overseas
in harder conditions if they know their families are well taken
care of, which I think is such a high priority today. And so I
thank you in your efforts in doing this.
I yield back.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. I hate to pick on you, General Rochelle, but
since you mentioned stop-loss, I just am curious: Again, do you
think that you can achieve the timetable that is in place? And
is it subject, really, to the dynamic of how we are able to
bring down soldiers in order to respond to the needs in
Afghanistan?
General Rochelle. It cannot be done in isolation from the
challenges of deployers, nondeployers, et cetera. It
exacerbates the challenge. But we can do it. We can absolutely
do it. But we will be challenged.
Ms. Tsongas. So the timetable, you still feel confident,
or----
General Rochelle. I do.
Ms. Tsongas. You do.
And then the follow-up question is, in terms of the
sustainability and the issue of dwell time being so key,
General Chiarelli, I think, recently testified of the enormous
mental strains that our soldiers are currently experiencing,
and the need we have for mental health care professionals,
chaplains and I think he said substance abuse counselors.
So, as you face many questions, really, around how quickly
you are going to be able to address the issue of dwell time,
knowing the great strains that are going to continue to be
placed on our soldiers, how are you responding to that in terms
of the need for these professionals?
General Rochelle. Well, we have actually had much help from
the Congress and help even from Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) on addressing health care professionals. The ability to
do direct hire for civilians, which has helped us a lot in
isolated areas. The ability, if you will, to bypass some of the
merit-based hiring practices that are extraordinarily
cumbersome.
For the Congress, we have been given the authority to offer
very attractive bonuses, and for individuals going through the
Health Professions Scholarship Program, to offer them
additional incentives as well. So we have received support in
both.
Ms. McGinn. Can I jump in on that from a DOD-wide
perspective?
We have been aggressively pursuing more mental health
providers in our health care system. We actually have, since
2007, I think 1,900 more in our military treatment facilities
and about 10,000 more in our contracted TRICARE operation.
We have expanded the number of confidential counseling
sessions you can have with our Military One Source, which is
also a call-in support line we have for our families. And we
have provided for confidential mental health counseling under
TRICARE.
Today, I think we rolled out a major mental health campaign
called Real Warriors, which is a marketing campaign designed to
do away with the stigma of showing up for help if you have a
mental health problem and to reinforce the fact that leaders
should encourage their service member subordinates to seek help
for that just as they would seek help for anything else.
So we have been working very closely with the Department of
Veterans Affairs and established a Center of Excellence on
Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. And we have
been moving very, very aggressively towards solving the mental
health problem.
Ms. Tsongas. Would any others like to comment?
It seems as though we have made great strides. And I know
that Congress wants to be a partner with you, but that we just
can't seem to keep up with it, that even General Chiarelli
said, ``I need more, and I don't know where I am going to get
them.'' So I think it is an ongoing challenge that we all have
an obligation to face.
But thank you.
Ms. McGinn. It is. It is a national problem, in terms of
shortage of mental health providers.
General Rochelle. If I may follow up, ma'am, one of the
things we are learning is that our basis of authorization for
mental health providers was designed, if you will, in a Cold
War environment. And it is inadequate for what we are facing
and what our soldiers are experiencing today.
And I would especially mention the fact that, in addition
to what Ms. McGinn said, I fully agree with, that there is a
challenge nationally to grow the mental health care providers,
health care providers in general, that we need. It is
especially acute in our ability to find individuals capable of
donning the uniform and providing those services to our
soldiers in Afghanistan at Sharana and--you name the combat
outpost.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas.
And it is really interesting because I think that, almost
every discussion that we have lately, we turn towards mental
health issues. I mean, we end up talking about them. We will be
having a hearing solely on mental health issues, post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the
impacts on family, as well, because we want to highlight those
issues and we know it is critical.
I am delighted to hear about the program that is being
unveiled. And we know that the issue of stigma is an important
and a critical one.
I wanted to turn quickly, Ms. McGinn, to an issue that is
going to hit us in the face here pretty soon. And we are seeing
the first concurrent receipt legislative proposal offered by
the Administration. And it is a very welcomed shift, I think we
all feel that way, in the concurrent receipt landscape, which
will really set a precedent for future initiatives.
The President's budget request does provide sufficient
mandatory offsets to support the legislative proposal, but none
of those offsets are within the Defense accounts and,
therefore, not within the management reach of the House
Committee on Armed Services.
And I am wondering, Ms. McGinn, what the Department's
position on the offsets is. And will the Department and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assist the committee in
identifying some offsets that are most likely to be available
for inclusion with the provisions in the national defense
authorization bill?
Ms. McGinn. Well, Madam Chairman, I wasn't part of the
conversation around the offsets, so I will have to get back to
you on that so I can get a good answer for you.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. What it does is limit our ability to act
in some other areas. And, while we welcome it, we really are
interested in how you all are going to be handling it, as well.
So that would be of help to us.
I know that there are a number of family initiatives that
you have been speaking about and are considering. I would like
you to just let us know what initiatives that you are really
most proud of that will result from a 2010 funding request.
What are you hoping that is new, provides additional services
to our families, that we might be able to follow and evaluate
in the future?
General Coleman. Ma'am, I would say for us, the money that
this Congress has allowed us to work with as far as family
readiness, it has allowed us to hire folks rather than a key
volunteer or someone working with and for the families on an
all-volunteer basis. We have been able, thanks to you all, to
hire folks to do that.
So I don't know that there is anything more important than
the funding that Congress has given us to take care of our
families--nothing more. And as long as we maintain that,
because a Marine or any service man or woman that deploys and
knows that his or her family is taken care of is a much better
service man or woman.
Admiral Ferguson. I would offer, too, is the important
support of the Congress on recruiting and retaining medical
personnel--dental, nurses, Medical Service Corps, mental health
practitioners. Those bonuses are very important to us, and to
protect those is important.
In terms of the programs for the Navy, we have rolled out
what we call the Operational Stress Control. And we have
introduced this training to up to 16,000 service members,
everyone going into theater, coming out, and then also
expanding it to the whole force. And the budget request
supports us expanding that, essentially, education awareness of
service members and how they react to stress and be able to
remove the stigma of it. I think that is an important program
that you will see from us in the future.
Ms. McGinn. I think that a lot of what is in the budget is
an expansion of the important things that we are already doing;
child care being principal among them, to try to meet the unmet
demand for child care.
There are a couple of things--obviously, there was a litany
of them in my testimony. The spouse career accounts, where we
provide funding for spouses to get certifications for careers
and we can start to build a career base for our spouses. I
think spouse employment is incredibly important.
And I also think that the Yellow Ribbon Program, where we
reach out to the Reserve component upon their deployment and
their coming home, working with their families and easing the
stress of the deployments for the Reserves is another very
important one.
General Rochelle. I would echo Ms. McGinn's opening
comment, which is that much of what you see in the fiscal year
2010 budget is a continuation of the wonderful programs that
the Congress has authorized us to have and to offer primarily
to our families. I would echo the words of General Creighton
Abrams, a former Chief of Staff of the Army, who said that the
Army isn't about people, it is people. And that is very, very
true. It is perhaps even more true today than it was then, if
that is possible.
I would highlight one particular area that is fully funded
in the budget that is vital, with those two previous comments
in mind, and that is, one, the family readiness support
assistance, which the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of
Staff of the Army two years ago carved out of existing
authorizations and existing funds to resource down to the
brigade and battalion level in order to address what they
clearly recognized as the fragile fabric of that family
readiness. And repeated deployments: Once again, dwell being at
one year for every 1.3 years back at home. And for our Army
National Guard and Army Reserve, the same.
General Newton. Madam Chairwoman, as I mentioned earlier,
2009 is the ``Year of the Air Force Family.'' And as we move
forward into the fiscal year 2010 through 2015 budget years, we
are also continuing to make a deep investment in our families.
There is a balance in terms of our men and women in uniform and
our civilians, but also our family members as well.
I believe Dr. Fleming had talked about the operations tempo
and so forth in a previous discussion. The stress on the
families is significant, and we are anticipating it to remain
significant. We have taken great steps, through the support of
this committee and support of resources, to narrow down our
open child care spaces from over 6,400 nearly down to zero by
fiscal year 2011 and so forth, as we continue to make sure
that, again, we take care of what are mission-critical efforts
for our Air Force family, as well.
And I will just close on this point, that we hosted a Year
of the Family symposium that lasted two days where we looked at
a number of initiatives that we are going to follow through,
not necessarily just for fiscal year 2009 but for the out-years
as well, from family support and Guard and Reserve support,
school support; the challenges that children have, on average
moving five, six, seven times.
I was an Air Force kid; I moved 13 times in 12 years of
school and so forth. I brought my wife Jodi with me today, and
I think we are on our 18th or 19th move. But can you imagine
the impact that has on a lot of our service men and women? That
will continue to remain.
Thank you.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Jodi, for being here. We appreciate it. We
know that you sacrifice a great deal and are a great support.
And thank you very much for being here and for being part of
this.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Admiral Ferguson, a few minutes ago you
mentioned Navy JROTC. And I want to give you a first-line
report.
Saturday, I went to an awards dinner at Chapin High School,
Chapin, South Carolina. There were nearly 400 people there. And
Colonel Buddy Slack, Chief Charlie Cook, the personnel you have
there, it was just really uplifting to me. My wife and I were
just so impressed by the young people serving the families. We
have known so many of the families over the years, and to see
these young people, what an extraordinary opportunity. And they
will have a great future.
Another issue you mentioned was individual augmentees. I
would like to know what the status in the Navy as to individual
augmentees and what the Navy is doing for families who have had
individual augmentee deployments.
Admiral Ferguson. That is a great question.
Presently, there are about 11,000 on the ground in Central
Command Navy personnel. And, on any given day, there may be
more personnel on the ground than there are at sea in the
waters off Iraq.
And so, last October, the Chief of Naval Operations
designated a four-star, Admiral Greenert down at Fleet Forces
Command in Norfolk, to be the lead executive agent for
individual augmentee support and family support.
We have formed a federated council: the Chief of the Navy
Reserves; the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Admiral Robinson;
Admiral Greenert's deputy; myself. And we formed together and
look at all the ways to support families and do that. And so,
having a four-star in charge of that, with us as a council to
help him, has provided that to the families, where we do
following, we assign mentors for them, we track them and
provide assistance where we can.
Mr. Wilson. Well, it is really, again, inspiring to me to
know the talented people serving in the Navy who have
volunteered to serve around the world as sand sailors, many of
them trained at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
Admiral Ferguson. That is correct.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
Before we close--and I certainly appreciate everybody
having been here. I know that members have other committees to
go to today. But one of the areas that we speak about often are
the critical-need areas that we have in the services. And I
wondered if you believe that we should open up some ideas about
how we might have more commissioned officers who don't
necessarily always come from the ranks of citizens, that
perhaps have green cards, have talents, have abilities that we
might look to for help in the services. We have some
opportunities with the Reserves and also with the enlisted, but
not with commissioned officers.
Any thoughts about that and whether or not that is an area
that we ought to explore more?
General Rochelle. I would like very much to offer a
thought, Madam Chairwoman.
First of all, a little background to get to your question.
Several years ago, when I was the Commanding General (CG) of
Recruiting Command, I was called to the Pentagon and asked if
we could launch a program to recruit Middle Eastern-born
individuals, primarily in the Dearborn, Michigan, area, which
was where it began. That program is called--and it still
exists--the O-9 Lima Interpreter Program. It broke the mold a
little bit because these, indeed, are citizens, in many cases,
but they were unable to pass the standard Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery.
A few years later, last year, to be precise, fiscal 2008,
if my memory serves correctly, we launched the Military
Accessions Vital to National Interest Program--in fact, it may
have only been this year, this fiscal year--which was targeted
toward visa holders. And what we saw is that we were able to
attract a much better educated individual. Nothing wrong with
the O-9 Lima interpreters, but we opened up a whole new vista.
And that program has proved very, very fruitful for the Army. I
have not tracked so closely the other services' accessions in
it.
To your specific question, I believe, because of the
challenges we face, which we have talked about today, in terms
of health care professionals, scientists, and individuals with
very highly specialized skills, that it is time to ask the
difficult question: Should we, indeed, change Title 10 United
States Code to allow us to commission individuals in a
military-accessions and skills-vital-to-national-interest
style? I believe it is.
Mrs. Davis. Anybody else want to comment on that?
Well, it is a discussion, perhaps, that we need to have in
the future. And I appreciate the fact that sometimes, when one
is retiring, you can bring up some issues that might have been
tougher earlier on.
General Rochelle. No, Ms. McGinn just said my opinion
hasn't changed.
Mrs. Davis. It hasn't changed; it has been there. Right.
Well, I appreciate that.
And we always really encourage people to stick out on
issues which may not always be easy but have, certainly, some
merit as we move forward. Because people are critical, and
being able to reach out and really engage Americans, people who
are in our country, productive and contributing, is always an
important issue for us.
And so I want to thank you very much again.
General Coleman and General Rochelle, thank you for your
dedicated service. We will miss you at these hearings, but we
wish you well.
And thank you to all of you being here.
The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

=======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

May 21, 2009

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

May 21, 2009

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

=======================================================================

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

THE HEARING

May 21, 2009

=======================================================================

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO

Ms. McGinn. The Department supports the President's Budget.
The end strengths for the Reserve components are as follows:

Army National Guard 358,200
Army Reserve 205,000
Navy Reserve 65,500
Marine Corps Res. 39,600
Air Force Reserves 69,500
Air National Guard 106,700
Coast Guard Reserves 10,000
------------------
Total 854,500

[See page 20.]

Ms. McGinn. The percentages of Service members who enter active
duty that can be expected to remain until the 20-years-of-service point
and retirement is as follows:
Service Officer EnlistedArmy 36% 13%
Navy 35% 13%
USMC 35% 8%
USAF 40% 22%

The continuation rates are consistent with historical rates and
what managed attrition and career field manpower pyramids demand of
retention to maintain a balanced force. Desired retention is a
component of end strength and grade requirements. Strength is generally
derived from three components that must be continually balanced--
recruiting capable people, controlling initial term attrition, and
retaining the skill and grade mixes required to fill the critical
military structures. The continuation rates across the Military
Departments are further complicated by the needs of specific military
occupational specialties within each of the Services which have varying
manpower grade structures. [See page 21.]
______

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING
Ms. McGinn. In answering this question, the Department's assumption
is that the question refers to the high-level valor awards that are
common to all Military Departments, which includes: The Medal of Honor,
Service Crosses (Distinguished Service Cross--Army; Navy Cross--Navy
and Marine Corps; Air Force Cross--Air Force), and Silver Star.
There have been no changes to the Department's valor award
criteria. The Department's policies and procedures for awarding
valorous decorations and awards are outlined in Department of Defense
Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, DOD 1348.33-M. The manual
promulgates, without elaboration, valor award criteria as stipulated by
statute and Executive Orders. Application and adherence to the criteria
in recognizing the valorous actions and performances of Service members
fall primarily under the purview of the Secretaries of the Military
Departments. The Military Department Secretaries are directed by
Department of Defense policy to establish procedures in their
respective Departments to ensure compliance with the policies and
procedures outlined in the Department's Manual of Military Decorations
and Awards.
Additionally, there have been no changes to the valor award
criteria contained in each respective Military Department's military
decorations and awards manuals, regulations, or instructions. [See page
23.]
?

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

May 21, 2009

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK

Mr. Loebsack. What is each of the Services doing to improve access
to family support services, including child care, for both the active
duty and the Reserve Components? What challenges do you face in
providing family support to the Reserve Components? What plans are in
place to overcome these challenges? Do you believe that sufficient
resources are allocated to make families of the Reserve Components
aware of the services available to them?
General Rochelle. In 2007, the Army unveiled the Army Family
Covenant, a commitment to provide Soldiers and their Families a quality
of life commensurate with their level of service and sacrifice to the
Nation. In the two years since the Covenant was unveiled, the Army has
developed aggressive improvement strategies resulting in significant
improvements in Soldier and Family quality of life, including Family
programs and services; increased accessibility to health care; improved
housing; excellence in schools, child, and youth services; and expanded
education and employment opportunities for Family members.
Since the Covenant's inception the Army has implemented the Army
National Guard's Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program to minimize
stresses of military service, particularly the stress of deployment and
Family separation. We have added more than 1,000 Family Readiness
Support Assistant positions to enhance administrative and logistical
support to Family Readiness Groups. We also established Army OneSource
to provide Soldiers and their Families access to standardized services,
programs, and support. We supported 249 Army National Guard Family
Assistance Centers, which provide Soldiers and Families support
services, regardless of geographic location, and expanded community-
based outreach to geographically dispersed children of deployed Active,
Guard, and Reserve Soldiers through Operation: Military Kids.
Reaching geographically dispersed Soldiers and Families with
information and services, especially those in the Reserve Component, is
one of our greatest challenges. In 2008, the National Guard Bureau
created the Soldier Family Services and Support Division to provide
Family program resources, guidance, and training to all states and
territories. The Reserve Component also communicate consistently with
State Offices or subordinate commands to improve processes and update
programs based on changing needs. Through coordination with the Reserve
Component, we will continue to improve programs and services and ensure
all Soldiers and Families are aware of the programs and services
available to them.
Through the Army Family Covenant, Army leadership has committed to
enhancing the quality of support to Soldiers and their Families across
the entire Army and has doubled its investment in base funding from
fiscal year 2007 to 2010. So, yes, we believe the Army has sufficient
resources to inform both Active and Reserve Component Families of the
services available to them.
Admiral Ferguson. Through a Navy-wide network, which includes Navy
Installations Command, Fleet and Family Support Centers, Navy Reserve
Forces Family Support Coordinator, five regional Family Support
Administrators and their Navy Operational Support Center (NOSC) staffs,
Navy continues to make significant strides in improving resources and
support for families of active and reserve Sailors, placing particular
emphasis on those who do not reside in Fleet Concentration Areas where
services are more readily available. Initiatives include:

Reducing waiting time for child care and expanding access
by adding approximately 7,000 new child care spaces through
construction of 26 child development centers (including 24/7
facilities), converting existing pre-school age spaces into infant
spaces to meet the greatest demand, establishing commercial contracts
in communities across the United States, and expanding military
certified home care.

Reaching remotely located families through information
technology, providing virtual family discussion groups and workshops,
publication of a monthly E-newsletter and distribution of Family,
Sailor and Command Individual Augmentee (IA) Handbooks.

Developing and delivering an electronic deployment
toolkit/sea bag to better equip school administrators and staff in
working with children of deployed Sailors.

Providing a comprehensive Personal Financial Management
(PFM) program that emphasizes a proactive, career life-cycle approach
to family and individual savings and investment, delivered through a
network of accredited financial counselors and educators at Fleet and
Family Support Centers and Command Financial Specialists, with
collaboration from partner organizations.

Launching a family awareness effort of Operational Stress
Control (OSC) initiatives incorporated into existing family support
programs and services that center on promoting psychological health,
reducing stigma associated with seeking psychological services and
improving resilience in Sailors and their families.

Implementing a ``Give Parents a Break'' program and
embedding Child and Youth Behavior Consultants in our programs to
provide a resource to observe and train our professionals in
intervening to assist families facing challenges during deployments.

Launching a new Navy-wide School Liaison Officer program
designed to assist families and local school districts with dependent
education issues arising from frequent moves and deployments.

Challenges in supporting the Reserve component are centered on our
ability to reach remotely located families impacted by deployment
demands, and in restructuring support services to include extended
family members of single Sailors. While we have made significant
progress in providing resources and support to geographically dispersed
families, repeated deployments continue to put strain on the system.
Work remains to integrate available resources into an
institutionalized, sustainable delivery system and to provide effective
outreach to families and service providers informing them about
resources available to them and how they may access them.
The President's budget includes the resources necessary to continue
our efforts to improve support services for active and reserve Sailors
and their families, including making them more readily accessible.
General Coleman. Over the past year, the Marine Corps initiated a
multi-year strategy to transition family support programs to a wartime
footing, per the Commandant's directive. To measure the effectiveness
of our services and family support programs, we conducted a series of
program assessments and received feedback from our Marines, their
families, and our commanders. In response, we implemented key reforms
at every level of command and aboard each installation. Central to our
transformation efforts, we expanded the depth and breadth of our family
readiness training and support programs and established the Unit,
Personal and Family Readiness Program to educate our Marines and their
families and to empower them to achieve and maintain a high state of
personal readiness and resiliency. We continue to aggressively
institute new Family Readiness Programs, revitalize services, and
proactively reach out to our Reservists and their families to ensure
our programs and services meet the changing needs and expectations of
our Marines and their families.
As part of transformation efforts, we are placing full-time Family
Readiness Officers (FROs) at the battalion/squadron level and above,
staffed by either civilians or Active Duty Marines, who serve as the
focal point for our families and support the Commander's family
readiness mission. Every Marine Corps Reserve unit throughout the
country has a Family Readiness program that serves as the link between
the command and family members--providing official communication,
information, and referrals. As the ``communication hub'', the FRO
provides families with information on the military lifestyle and
benefits, provides answers for individual questions and areas of
concerns, and enhances the sense of community and camaraderie within
the unit. Outreach is conducted through various forms of communication
to ensure that every family member is afforded access to the
information. This includes live sessions conducted on or near the
Reserve Training Facility, telephonic contact, email, USMC websites,
links to on-line support services, newsletters, and marketing of
national military resources to include the Joint Family Services
Assistance Program (JFSAP).
Understanding that communication is a key quality of life issue
important to our Marines and their families, we conducted research and
analysis to identify the communication needs of Marines and their
families; the effectiveness of our current communication methods, and
to develop a formal organizational communication system that would
facilitate three-way communication: commands to Marines and families;
Marines and families to commands; and Marines and families to each
other. As a result, we are implementing a Mass Communication Tool which
enables simultaneous broadcast of official communication via email,
text messaging, or phone, and other technology enhancements to expand
communications between the unit and Marines and their families
regarding official communication or important unit training events. All
of these tools are available to the Reserve Component as well as the
Active Component.
The Marine Corps' partnership with the Boys and Girls Clubs of
America (BGCA) and the National Association for Child Care Resources
and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) continues to provide a great resource
for our service members and their families in selecting child care,
before, during, and after a deployment in support of overseas
contingency operations. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America provide
outstanding programs for our Reserve Marines' children between the ages
of six and 18 after school and on the weekends. Under our agreement
with BGCA, Reserve families can participate in more than 40 programs at
no cost. With NACCRRA, we help families of our Reservists locate
affordable child care that is comparable to high-quality, on-base,
military-operated programs. The NACCRRA provides child care subsidies
at quality child care providers for our Reservists who are deployed in
support of overseas contingency operations and for those Active Duty
Marines who are stationed in regions that are geographically separated
from military installations. We also partnered with the Early Head
Start National Resource Center Zero to Three to expand services for
family members of our Reservists who reside in isolated and
geographically-separated areas.
We restructured our Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) and
established a continuum of care for our Marine families (on active duty
30 or more days) enrolled in the program. This program, which is fully
staffed at both the installation and headquarters levels, is helping
nearly 6500 families gain access to medical, educational, and financial
services that may be limited or restricted at certain duty stations. A
Marine Corps-funded Respite Care Program provides up to 40 hours of
free respite care per month to all enrolled families, and can be used
in conjunction with the TRICARE Extended Care Health Option (ECHO)
benefit. We are working with the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and
TRICARE to resolve health care access and availability issues at
several bases. In addition, legal counsel is now on staff to advise our
exceptional family members on state and Federal entitlements and
processes.
We fully recognize the strategic role our families have in mission
readiness, particularly mobilization preparedness. We prepare our
families for day-to-day military life and the deployment cycle (Pre-
Deployment, Deployment, Post-Deployment, and Follow-On) by providing
educational opportunities at unit Family Days, Pre-Deployment Briefs,
Return and Reunion Briefs, and Post-Deployment Briefs. Educational
opportunities at these events include access to subject matter experts
in areas such as Military OneSource, VA, TRICARE, legal, financial
counseling, Chaplain, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR),
Combat Operational Stress Control (COSC), and other resources that unit
Commanding Officers determines would be beneficial to the unique
circumstances of the Marines and families. This is accomplished through
unit level Family Readiness programs that are the responsibility of the
Commanding Officer, managed by the full-time, non-deploying FRO and
supported by trained volunteers and Force level programs such as
Lifestyle Insights, Networking, Knowledge, and Skills (L.I.N.K.S.). The
L.I.N.K.S. program is a training and mentoring program designed by
Marine spouses to help spouses, children and parents thrive in the
military lifestyle and adapt to challenges--including those brought
about by deployments.
To better prepare our Marines and their families for activation,
Marine Forces Reserve is fully engaged with OSD to implement the Yellow
Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP), much of which we have had in place
for quite some time. We continue to implement an interactive approach
that provides numerous resources and services throughout the deployment
cycle. Available resources include, but are not limited to, family-
related publications, online volunteer training opportunities, and a
family readiness/mobilization support toll free number. Family
readiness educational materials have been updated to reflect the
current deployment environment. Specifically, deployment guide
templates that are easily adapted to be unit-specific were distributed
to unit commanders and family readiness personnel, as well as Marine
Corps families, and are currently available on our Web site. Services
such as pastoral care, Military OneSource, and various mental health
services are readily available to our Reserve Marines' families. Also,
through the DoD contract with the Armed Services YMCA, the families of
our deployed Reserve Marines are enjoying complimentary fitness
memberships at participating YMCA's throughout the United States and
Puerto Rico. Our Active Duty Marines and their families located at
Independent Duty Stations have the ability to access these services as
well.
Managed Health Network (MHN) is an OSD-contracted support resource
that provides surge augmentation counselors for our base counseling
centers and primary support at sites around the country to address
catastrophic requirements. This unique program is designed to bring
counselors on-site at Reserve Training Centers to support all phases of
the deployment cycle. Marine Forces Reserve has incorporated this
resource into post-demobilization drill periods, Family Days, Pre-
Deployment Briefs, and Return & Reunion Briefs. Follow-up services are
scheduled after Marines return from combat at various intervals to
facilitate on-site individual and group counseling. Additionally, we
are utilizing these counselors to conduct post-demobilization
telephonic contact with Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Marines in order
to assess their needs and connect them to services.
The Peacetime/Wartime Support Team (PWST) and the support structure
within the Inspector-Instructor staffs at our Reserve sites provides
families of activated and deployed Marines with assistance in
developing proactive, prevention-oriented steps such as family care
plans, powers of attorney, family financial planning, and enrollment in
the Dependent Eligibility and Enrollment Reporting System (DEERS).
During their homecoming, our Marines who have deployed consistently
cite the positive importance of family support programs.
Geographic dispersion and proximity to active duty installation
services has been and will continue to be the greatest challenge to
providing support to Reservists and their families. To overcome these
challenges and strengthen family support programs, we will continue to
enhance, market, and sustain outreach capabilities. The current OSD-
level oversight, sponsorship, and funding of family support programs
properly corresponds to current requirements. We are particularly
supportive of Military OneSource, which provides our Reservists and
their families with an around-the-clock information and referral
service via toll-free telephone and Internet access on a variety of
subjects such as parenting, childcare, education, finances, legal
issues, elder care, health, wellness, deployment, crisis support, and
relocation.
General Newton. Guard and Reserve members and their families are
actively included in programs offered to Active Duty Airmen and their
families. To meet the challenges of working with geographically-
dispersed Airmen and their families, we recently conducted a Caring for
People Forum to identify any gaps in service, in which the Guard and
Reserve participated. Additionally, we meet with active, Guard and
Reserve family coordinators to determine areas we can develop and
enhance partnerships to overcome challenges that exist.
In a constrained environment, we provide support to meet the
greatest needs of our Airmen and families. As such, we value our
national partnerships, state relationships, and interagency
partnerships with the Department of Defense and our sister services to
be able to expand our resources. We are further challenged with
identifying the needs for child care as the Guard and Reserve families
are geographically dispersed throughout the country in a wide variety
of settings where local services may not be available.