[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-20]
RESERVE COMPONENT DUTY STATUS REFORM
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 27, 2019
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-881 WASHINGTON : 2020
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
JACKIE SPEIER, California, Chairwoman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
California, Vice Chair PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico MATT GAETZ, Florida
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
Dave Giachetti, Professional Staff Member
Dan Sennott, Counsel
Danielle Steitz, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Kelly, Hon. Trent, a Representative from Mississippi, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel................. 1
WITNESSES
Barrett, Patrick J., Deputy Chief, Navy Reserve, U.S. Navy....... 5
Busch, Jerilyn B., Director of Military Compensation Policy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 3
James, MajGen Bradley S., USMC, Commander, Marine Forces Reserve,
U.S. Marine Corps.............................................. 6
Roper, MG A.C., USA, Deputy Chief, Army Reserve, U.S. Army....... 4
Scobee, Lt Gen Richard W., USAF, Chief, Air Force Reserve, U.S.
Air Force...................................................... 5
Taheri, Maj Gen Michael R., USAF, Director of Joint Staff,
National Guard Bureau.......................................... 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Barrett, Patrick J........................................... 41
Busch, Jerilyn B............................................. 26
James, MajGen Bradley S...................................... 49
Roper, MG A.C................................................ 37
Scobee, Lt Gen Richard W..................................... 44
Speier, Hon. Jackie.......................................... 25
Taheri, Maj Gen Michael R.................................... 33
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Council of Governors Letter.................................. 59
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mrs. Davis................................................... 63
Mr. Gallego.................................................. 64
RESERVE COMPONENT DUTY STATUS REFORM
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 27, 2019.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:58 p.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jackie Speier
(chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Ms. Speier. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the
Armed Services Committee is called to order. I want to welcome
today all of our panelists who will be testifying.
We are going to hear from those who lead the Reserve
Components, the service members that will be most personally
affected by the proposed changes to the Reserve Component call-
up authorities.
The patchwork of 30 duty statuses and accompanying benefits
have needed modernization and streamlining for a long time. And
these necessary changes are ones that we are anticipating you
are going to provide great guidance and light to us today.
I want to thank our witnesses for sharing their views on
how these changes will improve and streamline Reserve Component
activations. They should make orders and benefits more
consistent and predictable for our Reserve Component members
and their families.
I worry that the confusion generated by having so many duty
statuses is having an effect on retention in the Reserve
Components. And I hope you will address that in your comments.
The reform of these authorities and benefits have been
addressed by multiple commissions over the years, including the
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves in 2008 and the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
in 2015, to no avail.
Finally, Congress directed the Department to come up with a
plan to address duty status reform in the 2016 NDAA [National
Defense Authorization Act]. The reform concept before us today
is the result of that direction. For too many years, activation
authorities were added piecemeal for any number of reasons
without thought for maintaining a coherent and usable system.
Some tweaks have responded to the changing ways the Reserve
Component has been employed over the last 18 years of conflict.
Due to these changes' partial, reactive nature, the activation
of any portion of the Reserve Component has turned into a
jumble of statutes and pre- and post-mobilization benefits that
are not easily understandable by our service members or their
families.
The reforms presented today must simplify this system of 30
different call-up authorities. I believe that reducing the
call-up authorities to four categories, as you propose, would
accomplish that. But benefits must not be lost and must
maintain parity with those for service members doing the same
job.
I am interested to hear from you about how these reforms
address the inequities and disruptions in pay, benefits, and
medical care that have impacted the Reserve Component, as well
as your thoughts on benefits parity in the proposed system.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Speier can be found in the
Appendix on page 25.]
Ms. Speier. Before I introduce our first panel, let me
offer Ranking Member Kelly an opportunity to make his opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MISSISSIPPI, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairwoman Speier, and thank you for
working so hard to help us have this hearing. I really
appreciate it.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and your
continued service to our great Nation. Congress has worked
closely with the Department of Defense over the past several
years to improve personnel policy.
Our service men and women who sacrifice so much deserve an
understandable, predictable personnel management system. Much
of the reform in this area in the past has focused on the
Active Component. But the Reserve Component also needs
attention.
The multitude of statutory authorities and duty categories
currently in law causes unnecessary confusion and inequities in
pay and benefits. In fact, we have heard several examples of
two reservists mobilized for the same mission in the same
location yet receiving drastically different benefits simply
because of their duty status.
In addition, we have heard of multiple complaints regarding
a disruption in pay and benefits as service members transition
from one status to another.
That is why the fiscal year 2016 NDAA included a provision
that required the Department of Defense to conduct an
assessment of potential for consolidating authorities. I
appreciate the work that the Department has done so far and I
am glad the Department has included the Reserve Components and
the National Guard Bureau in the discussions as they explored
these reforms.
I understand that National Guard has expressed some
concerns regarding a perception that earlier drafts of the
legislation may have modified the authorities of Governors to
control our National Guards. I want to caution you here.
Adjutant generals are, and when I say I don't mean all, but
I mean the majority of them by a heavy majority, are very
concerned about losing those authorities. I encourage the
Department and the National Guard to work together to resolve
any remaining concerns.
I am optimistic that the consolidation of duty statuses
will not only help with service member pay and benefits parity
but will also make it easier for combatant commanders to make
troop requests by simplifying determination of the appropriate
duty status.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
the current challenges associated with having nearly 30 duty
statuses and how consolidation will remedy these challenges.
Specifically, I am interested to hear more about how the
changes will ensure equitable treatment regarding pay, benefits
for service members, and improved predictability.
I am also interested to hear how the current system impacts
combatant commanders looking to mobilize Reserve units.
And finally, I would like to learn more about the process
the Department used to come up with the consolidated statuses
and how the Department addressed concerns and differences
throughout the process, particularly related to the National
Guard and the adjutant generals.
With that, I yield back.
Ms. Speier. We are in a period of time where we are going
to have votes relatively soon. So what I would like to
recommend is that you forego your oral statements and your
written comments will be made part of the record. And I want
you to give us, if you can, a 2-minute Cliff Note version of
what you think is the most important for us to glean today.
We will start with you, Ms. Busch, 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JERILYN B. BUSCH, DIRECTOR OF MILITARY
COMPENSATION POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Busch. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the most
important thing to glean for you goes to what you were saying.
Today's system is so complex and arcane that it creates
disparities in pay and benefits, disparate treatment, and
impedes an efficient and effective use of the Reserve
Component.
I think that the proposal that we have as currently drafted
addresses all of those concerns. And what it does is it creates
the means to align pay and benefits to four broad categories of
use and utilization of our Reserve Components.
It creates parity across those categories. So regardless of
the purpose that a member serves on, whether they are downrange
in Afghanistan or fighting a wildfire in California, they will
still receive that same pay and benefits package.
So by simplifying and streamlining the multitude, as been
referred to, the multitude of authorities and statuses, we
provide the means to eliminate disruptions to provide for that
pay inequity and to improve efficiency.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Ms. Busch. You did it in less than 2
minutes. And I also want to point out that you are Director of
Compensation Policy at the Department of Defense.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Busch can be found in the
Appendix on page 26.]
Ms. Speier. Next we have Major General Mike Taheri of the
United States Air Force, National Guard Bureau Director of
Staff.
STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN MICHAEL R. TAHERI, USAF, DIRECTOR OF JOINT
STAFF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
General Taheri. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a
couple comments and I think Ms. Busch highlighted this very
well in terms of the types of benefits that we would see.
And from our perspective from the National Guard Bureau, we
all have many stories and all of us who are serving in uniform
have many stories of the types of disparities that take place
and the disruption that it results in particularly for our
members that are out there in the fight and in training
situations. And so we firmly believe that we have to find a way
to get those corrected.
And one of the things that we have looked at and I have had
a number of discussions with a number of people on this, but
one of the things that we are being very careful of is we
recognize that full implementation of this is going to take a
very long time and it is going to go across many departments
and there will have to be many adjustments that are made across
the departments' regulations and policies.
Through this process, National Guard senior leaders, the
adjutants general, and the Council of Governors maintain that
their existing authorities must remain safeguarded in any
proposed duty status reform legislative action process.
States and Governors are going to remain focused throughout
this process on ensuring that they maintain accessibility and
unique authorities with respect to the State and, you know,
State National Guard.
Now, we at the National Guard Bureau, I will tell you that
we have been working collaboratively to everything that has
come to our attention and the concerns that have come to our
attention at the National Guard Bureau.
We have been working very closely with OSD [Office of the
Secretary of Defense]. We are very confident that many of those
are being addressed and are in the process of being addressed
and we are really very optimistic that we can find a way to
help get this language through while we preserve those
essential capabilities.
So we continue to focus on that, ma'am, and that is where
we are going from here.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Major General.
[The prepared statement of General Taheri can be found in
the Appendix on page 33.]
Ms. Speier. Next is Major General A.C. Roper of United
States Army, Deputy Chief, Army Reserve.
STATEMENT OF MG A.C. ROPER, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE,
U.S. ARMY
General Roper. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this
opportunity. The bottom line is our vision at the Army Reserve
is to be the most capable, combat-ready and lethal Federal
reserve force in the history of our Nation.
But all of that is dependent upon our soldiers. And what we
have assessed as we looked at this proposal that this helps us.
It helps provide simplicity and it helps provide continuity as
soldiers shift across this wide spectrum of almost 30 different
authorities when they are mobilized or called into Active Duty.
The bottom line for us is the Army Reserve--we know that we
can make this better as a part of this team, and we have been
involved in this since December 2015 when our first action
officer was assigned.
And as a member of the Secretary of the Army's Army Reserve
Forces Policy Committee, I have been involved and received
regular updates as a part of that committee. We would meet
quarterly. And as the action officers worked through it, they
would make those presentations to us.
So we have been aware of it. We have been a part of the
team. And we would look forward to it continuing through the
process and coming to fruition. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Roper can be found in
the Appendix on page 37.]
Ms. Speier. Mr. Barrett. Patrick Barrett is the Deputy
Chief, Navy Reserve.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. BARRETT, DEPUTY CHIEF, NAVY RESERVE,
U.S. NAVY
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I would like to
actually thank the Office of the Secretary of Defense to try to
wrangle in the different six to seven, if you include the Coast
Guard, Reserve Components and get them into agreement. That is
a high task. They have actually done a great job of doing that
and this has been a long process for them.
As they brought us in and they have heard of all our
complaints, they have been able to encapsulate those and really
put together a rock-solid plan.
As you mentioned in the opening remarks, it has been a
piecemeal approach. Virtually 100 years there has been a
problem and an issue, so we have addressed each one
individually. That is what has given us the patchwork quilt
that we have today.
So this effort has been very collaborative and I think we
have hit it in a comprehensive manner to honestly just
simplify. And I say that because the errors that we have had
are also because of some of the clerks who actually write these
orders to push soldiers downrange and sailors.
It is so complicated they have a hard time trying to keep
track of the different authorities and as they are doing just
computer data entry. So the simplification will help from the
administrative clerks all the way to operators that have to go
downrange. So thank you.
Ms. Speier. Okay, thank you, Mr. Barrett.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrett can be found in the
Appendix on page 41.]
Ms. Speier. Lieutenant General Richard Scobee, United
States Air Force, Chief, the Air Force Reserve.
STATEMENT OF LT GEN RICHARD W. SCOBEE, USAF, CHIEF, AIR FORCE
RESERVE, U.S. AIR FORCE
General Scobee. Madam Chair, I tell you, both you and
Ranking Member Kelly have codified the problem exactly right
for what our members are going through. I will put a finer
point on it.
My colleagues and I are in agreement on all the things that
have been said so far. The military, we modernize our weapons
systems on a regular basis. The importance of this is why I am
here today to testify in front of you because it will
absolutely make a difference in our airmen's and their
families' lives.
So just like we modernize our equipment, we have to
modernize our organization as well. And right now, we are
continuing to operate under some obsolete rules and regulations
that really tie our hands and the combatant commanders' hands
when it comes to employing the Reserves and also the Air
National Guard.
So we need duty status reform. It is going to enhance our
readiness. It is going to increase our flexibility and it is
going to improve our operational utilization.
This effort will also improve the Air Force Reserves'
quality of life for our airmen, as I talked about a second ago.
So these changes are going to not only do that, but they
are going to ensure that our personnel are correctly
compensated for their service. It will prevent disruptions in
pay and benefits, including medical coverage for our Reserve
Component.
And I can tell you from experience having deployed in 2008,
at the time I was a traditional reservist, going from where I
was training in one status, getting ready to mobilize in
another status, actually mobilizing and going downrange into
Iraq and then coming home to reconstitute, I went through six
different statuses as I was doing that.
And me as a colonel at the time it caused a break in health
care for my family, which if that happens to a colonel or a
senior officer in America's Armed Forces, imagine what is
happening to some of our younger folks that can't absorb that
kind of shock.
So that is why this is important and why it is so important
that we take care of this business today. Thank you.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Lieutenant General.
[The prepared statement of General Scobee can be found in
the Appendix on page 44.]
Ms. Speier. Now we are going to hear from Major General
Bradley James, Chief of the Marine Corps Reserve.
STATEMENT OF MAJGEN BRADLEY S. JAMES, USMC, COMMANDER, MARINE
FORCES RESERVE, U.S. MARINE CORPS
General James. Madam Chair Speier and all the distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thanks for having us here today. I
am in absolutely violent agreement with everybody on this
table, as I think we are in unison with this. This is something
that is most needed.
We have seen it since post-9/11 with all of our call-ups
and our demands of our Reserves and through the transitioning
of these and the inequities is tough. It is tough sledding for
us especially from the administration side.
We continue to work through these complexities. I would
just ask that we get this right when we roll it out. The Marine
Corps Reserves, we are in agreement that this needs to be done.
Currently we have increased administrative responsibilities. As
I say, we worked through that.
We do have a higher demand for Reserves. We have
transitioned from that Strategic Reserve to the Operational
Reserve and we anticipate continuing to keep our Reserves busy.
To this day and age about a third of our Reserves will go out
to support geographic combatant commanders on an annual basis.
The Marine Corps, we can say we fully support the OSD's
efforts. We appreciate those efforts, and anything that we can
do to redesign and simplify the current Reserve duty status is
we are onboard for.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Major General.
[The prepared statement of General James can be found in
the Appendix on page 49.]
Ms. Speier. I hope all of my colleagues witnessed that this
was done within 2 minutes and----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Speier. Very impressive. So I am going to forgo asking
my questions to the end because we are trying to beat the clock
here. So I am going to turn it over to Ranking Member Kelly.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Speier. And it
doesn't surprise me that you guys hit it quick, so I am going
to try to be quick because I know you guys are timely.
Ms. Busch, you mentioned that a large number of duty
statuses causes challenges for combatant commanders who are
requesting Reserve Component troops and can also cause
disconnects in programming and budgeting. Can you explain why?
Ms. Busch. So yes, sir. I think that the answer very much
goes to what you were talking about. When you have a myriad of
duty statuses our combatant commanders are hampered by the
complexity.
They don't know with clarity the benefits that their troops
are going to receive when they are called up. They don't know
even the status that might be the most appropriate for the
nature of the work that they need our members to perform.
I believe that our proposal as it is currently constructed
provides for that greater clarity, provides for that
predictability and the benefits troops will be using. I mean,
they need to be concerned about their personnel once they are
called to duty.
So we know that our proposal will do that and help them in
that way and make the utilization of the Reserves that much
more effective and efficient.
Mr. Kelly. And you all don't have to answer it. You know,
if somebody will answer it succinctly and if one person is the
right person then please answer this. Under the proposed new
statuses, what additional benefits will service members
receive? And will reservists lose any benefits?
Ms. Busch. So sir, I will take a stab at that. So I think
that one of the things to go to your second question first
about what they lose, I think they are losing today. And today
they lose because of this complexity we have and the fact that
it is piecemeal and there are a myriad of these statuses.
So that when Reserve Component members and guardsmen are
called up to perform similar work they end up with different
benefits. Under the proposal that we have constructed in our
initiative, we eliminate that disparity.
We assign pay and benefits according to the categories. And
as long as a member remains in a particular category their pay
and benefits package doesn't change. And they don't have to go
from status to status, so it streamlines that.
So I think under the proposal, our concept as it is
currently drafted, we create the winners for our members.
Now in terms of, you know, what we are doing with benefits,
again, I go to what I just talked about in aligning the
benefits to the nature of the work they perform. And that is
how we get to that.
Mr. Kelly. Did anyone else have anything to add to that?
Yes, sir?
General Scobee. Ranking Member Kelly, I will tell you from
my perspective as I go out and talk with our airmen, this is
what I hear all the time. It is about doing what is right and
being fair to our airmen as we execute our duty statuses. That
is what everybody is looking for.
As you mentioned in your opening remarks, having two people
deployed at the same time in the same place under different
statuses and being compensated differently, that causes a lot
of misunderstanding of how we are taking care of our airmen and
their families, which is so important to us.
So I really think it boils down to whatever we do when we
change this, our airmen, our sailors, our soldiers, and Marines
have to see it as fair.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. And you know, and one of the things I just
want to make sure we address, and I am sure that we did, but
many times a duty status determines what type of RFI [Rapid
Fielding Initiative] and other things you get that you get to
carry forward on the deployment.
So if you are in one status you get RFI which is cold
weather gear and those things and if you are not you don't,
which means you don't have the cold weather gear. So when a
unit from Florida goes to Kosovo they probably don't have that
stuff in their regular kit that they are issued. And so just
make sure that we are addressing the RFI issues that I have
seen in the past based on the different duty statuses.
This question is for Ms. Busch and Major General Taheri.
The adjutant generals of several States are concerned about a
perception that these reforms may erode their authority and the
Governors' authority over management of the National Guard. Can
you explain that concern and how you addressed it?
And, you know, Major General Roper mentioned that he got
quarterly updates in this whole process, you know, and you
might answer why we didn't have the adjutant generals getting
these updates so they are not getting one big 1,000-page
document at the end?
Ms. Busch. So Ranking Member Kelly, I will start off and
then turn to my colleague that we did try and be as
collaborative as we possibly could throughout this entire
process. And we have worked closely with our colleagues in the
National Guard and all the Reserve Components and across
government, as a matter of fact.
We have worked with the Department of Veterans Affairs and
we have worked with OMB [Office of Management and Budget] and
CBO [Congressional Budget Office]. So we have tried to be
inclusive, open and transparent. But we are aware of concerns
that the TAGs [the adjutants general] and the Governors have
raised.
And as my colleague, General Taheri, said at the outset, we
are working on those collaboratively now to address those
concerns and to make sure that we maintain the line of
demarcation between Federal authority and State authority and
jurisdiction.
And so to the extent that there have been issues and
concerns identified to us, we are working to address those
concerns. And we will continue to work collaboratively to
address any others that may arise as we move forward.
Mr. Kelly. Major General Taheri.
General Taheri. Yes, sir. So from my perspective absolutely
right. I know this process has been ongoing for a number of
years. There have been a number of briefings. There have been
times that we have presented the briefings to the adjutants
general.
Now in all fairness to the adjutants general on that, when
they see a briefing slide and they see PowerPoint
presentations, that doesn't necessarily show them the exact
verbiage that is going to show up in the language that may
change the law fundamentally, right?
So I think that the learning experience to some extent here
in this process at least for me has been and for many of us on
the National Guard side is the earlier we can bring them into
the process and kind of get that fresh set of eyes onto what we
have of the document, the better it is toward the end of the
document, right?
So what we are in the process of doing now is going through
everything that we have identified. Our understanding, and as
you all know, we don't yet have a final document, but we hope
we are somewhat close to getting the final document. As we put
inputs in anywhere that we have identified challenges we are
working to mitigate those challenges that might be in the
document.
Mr. Kelly. Okay.
General Taheri. Because I think it becomes important as all
of us sitting at this table have said, there is a lot riding on
this for our members out there. So I think the adjutants
general want to get there, too. We just need to kind of
mitigate some of those concerns.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you. And I have my final question is just
does anybody know what the cost, the anticipated cost of this
duty status reform is?
Ms. Busch. Well, sir, I am afraid that because our proposal
is still with OMB, I am not able to talk about that here today.
But I can tell you that as we developed the details of our
proposal, we did take cost into account. And we examined all
the cost implications.
Mr. Kelly. And I will just tell you on the process, final
comment, is, you know, yesterday the Speaker celebrated 40
years of C-SPAN being on the floor of the House of
Representatives and the transparency of seeing the sausage
made. And I would just say everybody needs to be able to see
the sausage made, especially people who have a vested interest.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
Now, based on who was here at the gavel and seniority, we
go to Mr. Cisneros.
Mr. Cisneros. Thank you all for being here today.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
You know, I spent half of my time in the Navy as a full-
time support officer. So, you know, every time somebody would
get activated or would go and do something, they never knew
anything about categories, right?
All they knew was pretty much was that whether they were
doing their duty weekend and they were doing an AT [annual
training] or they got involuntary recalled or they volunteered
to get recalled. Why does it have to be any more complicated
than that?
And anybody can answer that question.
General Roper. So sir, I will take a stab at that. Under
this current system when that soldier walks out the door,
family waves good-bye and he or she deploys, let us say it is a
unit deployment. That is under one authority.
As what happened with me when I was deployed, I had one
soldier when the deployment was ending that soldier volunteered
to stay longer. Well, now the earlier deployment is over, now
that soldier has to have a second set of orders under a
different authority, which now benefits could change.
And for the sake of discussion, if that soldier was to have
gotten injured, then that would be a third set of orders. But
the only thing the family saw was their loved one walked out
the door.
They don't even see all the bureaucratic nightmares that
are occurring because every time an order shifted it curtailed
one order and implemented a new order, that is a potential
point of failure because someone has to input and do all the
administrative work that goes with that.
So under this proposal as written, it is all about the
purpose. When that soldier walked out the door on an
involuntary mobilization and then voluntarily stayed longer and
then was injured, all of that is on a single set of orders. And
so that simplifies it for us. There is continuity in pay and
benefits, and we think that is a win for our service members
and our families.
But to talk, when we look back and say how did we get here,
it has just been piecemeal every time we added a new authority,
every time we added a new purpose for call-ups. And now we look
back and now we see we have almost 30 different types of
authorities with all the potential disasters that can occur
with that.
Mr. Cisneros. Okay.
General Roper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cisneros. So how complicated is it going to be to go
from 30 to 6 categories?
Ms. Busch. So sir, I would answer that by saying that there
is complexity in our legislative proposal as it is currently
drafted.
Mr. Cisneros. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Busch. We have identified more than 450 separate
provisions of law that would need to be changed across 21
titles of the U.S. Code and across other uncodified statutes.
We have identified hundreds and hundreds of DOD [Department
of Defense] issuances, Codes of Federal Regulations, DOD FMR,
financial management regulations, and cascading down to
guidance from the services, perhaps even laws in the various
States.
It is going to be a very complex thing to undertake, but
once accomplished it will provide that simplicity that General
Roper is talking about. And a member will have one set of
orders. And won't need to be in six different statuses just to
get to deployment.
And so it is a large undertaking and I believe it is long
overdue. And we need to get started.
Mr. Cisneros. Well, once we start, I couldn't agree more,
right? Because like I said, to the soldier, the sailor, the
airman, the Marine, all they know is they have been activated
and that is they are out there doing their duty.
So how long is it going to take us to get to this process
to where we can simplify it and really make sure that we are
taking care of our service members?
Ms. Busch. So I will say, sir, that it will need a
significant amount of time for implementation, many years. I go
to the Blended Retirement System. I thank the Congress that
they gave us 2 years to implement blended retirement, but that
was ambitious.
And this is magnitudes larger than that so there is going
to be a significant time that will be needed to implement this
to get all the policies and regulations changed, to update our
pay and personnel systems.
You know, I am from the Navy, too, and I know that our pay
and personnel systems would need to be updated to accommodate
this and also to train our members, to train force managers,
and to make sure that we are communicating well with our
Reserve Component members and our families.
Mr. Cisneros. All right. I am out of time so I yield back
my time.
Ms. Speier. I thank the gentleman.
Now Mr. Abraham.
Dr. Abraham. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Busch, in its current form, the current form, does this
DSR [duty status reform] legislation in any way change or
modify States' rights, government's authorization, or the
Insurrection Act?
Ms. Busch. So sir, I would say that as it is currently
drafted that it does preserve the prerogatives and the
authority of the Governors and the TAGs. However, having
another set of eyes, as General Taheri talked about, and
getting all the TAGs to look at it and then provide us with
their input, they have suggested some modifications and
adjustments.
And we are working on those even as those are being worked
on even as we are sitting here today. And we are doing it very
collaboratively. And we think that any other things that are
brought up, particularly during our time when we might have
that time period for implementation, that we will be able to
collaboratively resolve anything that needs to be addressed.
Dr. Abraham. And the Governors' positions? Where are they
at this current time-- somewhat of the same?
Ms. Busch. Yes, sir.
Dr. Abraham. Okay, okay.
Ms. Busch. Yes, sir.
Dr. Abraham. So we have got to work with them.
And then just one more question, Madam Chair.
And this is back to you, Ms. Busch. Have you fully and for
how long have you consulted with the States with regard to
title 32 and other National Guard issues during the development
of this DSR proposal?
Ms. Busch. So in developing our proposal, sir, we have
been, I would say, very open and transparent. And we have
collaborated very, very closely with our colleagues,
particularly in the National Guard Bureau about title 32
issues. We have worked with their staff, with their counsel
throughout the process in order to draft our DSR proposal.
Dr. Abraham. Okay. I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield
back.
Ms. Speier. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Haaland.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I will likewise try to be quick. This kind of relates
to the issue that my colleague just raised. In fiscal year
2007, the Department inserted language that would dilute the
Governors' authority over the Guard. That language was
subsequently repealed permanently by Congress.
Fast forward to today, it has been brought to my attention
by my State's Governor, I am from New Mexico, and Guard general
about language that changes the Governor's authority to deploy
their Guard troops. What would be the rationale for such a
move?
Ms. Busch. Ma'am, I would say that that is not the move we
are making. That we have, indeed, preserved the authority of
the Governors, at least as best we know it.
And but we are aware that this other set of eyes that I
alluded to is now looking at every line of our proposal as
currently drafted and has provided us input in identified areas
to make adjustment. And we are making those adjustments.
General Taheri. And ma'am, if I could, you know, I would
say that one of the points that came up is the number of laws
that have to be adjusted. And one of the considerations I think
that the adjutants general are bringing to the table right now
is that is across Federal Government.
But across 54 States, territories and the District of
Columbia, a lot of laws are also going to have to be adjusted.
So there is a period of time in there in which these things are
going to take a little bit of time to kind of settle in and
make sure that we get all the right authorities in place.
To the question about addressing them I would say that the
language as yet is a work in progress. It is kind of the
sausage that we talked about. So we continue to work to ensure
that those authorities are there, as I mentioned in my earlier
comments.
And we are getting, frankly, nothing but support from OSD
at this point in getting those comments updated and into the
system, and our hope being that that final language represents
and preserves those authorities in their entirety.
Ms. Haaland. So essentially you can assure me today that
will not be any language that dilutes gubernatorial authority
over their Guards?
Ms. Busch. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Haaland. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, in closing, I would like to enter this
bipartisan letter from the Council of Governors into the
record----
Ms. Speier. Without objection.
Ms. Haaland [continuing]. Expressing concern over this
issue.
Ms. Speier. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 59.]
Ms. Speier. All right. Next, Mr. Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. All right. Well, thank you. By the way, this
is like deja vu all over again. You guys look great sitting
there in uniform. So let us get to the heart of the matter
right away.
In any of your deliberations in coming up with the new
proposal did the issue of the 179-day rule come under
discussion, as far as it is an interestingly arbitrary number
that has been used for a long time to, if you will, control and
count Active Duty end strength so that, you know, there were no
violations to the law there.
So I would just ask and just for the sake of, did you
consider any modifications to the 179-day rule in putting this
together?
Ms. Busch. So sir, I would say that in constructing our
proposal, first and foremost our focus was on aligning pay and
benefits----
Mr. Bergman. Okay.
Ms. Busch [continuing]. To the nature of the work our
members performed and working very diligently to eliminate
those disparities where they exist.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Because you know there was a system
whereby you got 179-day orders, then you did a break and the
orders needed 30 days of drills and then you went back onto 179
days of orders. Anybody ever heard of that one? Yes, okay.
So anyway, now having said that, as you look at the
administration, your, you know, admin in the units once this is
implemented, do you sense more or less or the same amount of
administrative time to actually get the orders right, as
opposed to, let us say in the civilian world where someone
works for a company and they can go their HR [human resources],
type in their password, check their benefits, do all of those
things, submit the stuff. And was any of that considered in
this?
Ms. Busch. We certainly did consider that----
Mr. Bergman. Okay.
Ms. Busch. What we needed to do to streamline processes and
procedures. And we think that our proposal as it is currently
drafted today does that.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. So then the assumption that, if you
will, the use of, again, human resources personnel systems that
exist throughout the world rather than reinventing the wheel
when it came to these systems, pick your large corporation that
does some--that has hundreds of thousands of employees that it
works. So to utilize that?
Ms. Busch. Sir, I would say that, you know, as a former
personnel officer myself I was very mindful of the work that
would have to be done down at the field level to administer
this.
Mr. Bergman. Well, it----
Ms. Busch. We do know that in order to implement it,
though, we are going to need changes to our pay and personnel
systems to accommodate this.
Mr. Bergman. So you used the number, 450 laws need to be
changed. You got a list?
Ms. Busch. So there are----
Mr. Bergman. Give us the list. That is what Congress does.
We make and modify laws, do technical corrections. That is our
job here.
Ms. Busch. That we do have a draft----
Mr. Bergman. Okay.
Ms. Busch. Legislative proposal. It is under review right
now at OMB.
Mr. Bergman. Well, is OMB expected to look at all 450
potential changes? Why don't we as the people who will actually
start looking at that, what is the prohibition that we can't
look at it, too?
Regardless of the dollar figure, not scoring it, but for us
who want to look at what we need to change and kind of give us,
you know, running in parallel as opposed to linearly.
Ms. Busch. Sir, I have to say that OMB is tasked and
chartered to review this proposal and to clear it for
transmission to the Congress. And I am unable to----
Mr. Bergman. Okay. Well, then I will thank you for your
very diplomatic answer.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Speier. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of
you.
And quickly I am going to ask sort of a series of questions
and maybe to clarify where we are, even though we don't have
the document and I appreciate that and understand where this
is.
The current activation authorities which we are all aware
of in title 10 have various limitations on which categories a
reservist can be activated, for how long, and for what purpose.
Does the proposed legislation modify these limitations in any
way?
Ms. Busch. Yes, ma'am. I know you have a set of slides in
front of you, so if you would turn to slide 6 I think that
might help you. So if you look at it over to the left is a lot
of the different authorities you have just alluded to.
[The slides referred to were not available at the time of
printing.]
Ms. Busch. Under our proposed construct, our initiative
concept, we would simplify and streamline all of those separate
and distinct statuses and authorities into these four
categories. Approximately eight actual authorities for recall
or for utilization of our Reserves and then key is to align the
pay and benefits to those categories.
So it does. It streamlines across what we need in order to
be able----
Mrs. Davis. I think what I am looking for----
Ms. Busch [continuing]. To utilize.
Mrs. Davis [continuing]. In some of this is just the
rationale in some cases for the changes. And particularly in
light of how you balance, really, the needs of the Armed Forces
for access to the Reserve Components and the impact of
activation that occurs on the reservists and their civilian
counterparts or civilian employment?
Ms. Busch. So ma'am, all I will say to that is that we have
worked very hard to make sure we balance between the demands of
warfighters and the demands of the Nation for the utilization
of our Reserve Component. And to preserve and protect our
individual Reserve Component members against capricious or
arbitrary recall or utilization.
But I will defer to my colleagues to speak specifically.
Mr. Barrett. Ma'am, I would say the initial legislation, it
talked about duty status reform because that is what a number
of studies and commissions have looked at, about six
historically over the last 10 years. It was actually more of a
benefits reform was honestly the target.
The statuses, to a certain degree it is software and you
can type it in and you can build whatever computer system you
want, but it was the benefit mismatch. I think you had heard
there were in particular two mishaps that had occurred in
aviation where members were under different statuses and then
we had to tell families that they receive different benefits.
So that was really the catalyst----
Mrs. Davis. Mm-hmm, right.
Mr. Barrett [continuing]. To focus on benefits.
Mrs. Davis. I think sometimes it is hard for us to, you
know, be in the room, so to speak. And I am just looking for,
you know, in those grey areas when you are trying to make that
determination, I mean, are there some examples like that,
particularly in light of this area about which category could
be activated?
Take also whether or not the duration of training, you
know, regarding 15 days per year, for example. I mean, where
does that factor in in terms of thinking about balancing those
needs? Because when it comes to Reserves, as you know, we are
talking about their civilian employment.
Are there any new issues that came to light as a result of
this more intense look and what did that look like?
General Scobee. So Congresswoman Davis, what I would say to
that is that as we were going through this duty status reform,
a lot of it was looking at how we mobilize and get our airmen
trained and out the door for a combat deployment is really what
it revolved around. So all the work that OSD did was really
focused on those things.
I would say from each of our perspectives, especially as
the Chief of the Air Force Reserve, what I look at is what you
are talking about, is how I do my normal organize, train, and
equip for my airmen?
And so I have a lot of different authorities that we use
for that. It is our normal individual drill periods that we use
along with our annual tour. And we can raise or lower that, or
raise it at least, from 14 days to even more than that if
necessary to get after our readiness issues that we are dealing
with.
But that is something that we do far in advance as we build
that white space, but we build that time in our airmen's lives
but we also build the continuity. So we are looking at giving
them a stable environment that they can work with their
employers to take that time off.
This doesn't change any of that. We would still work that
into our annual training plans for our airmen.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. And taking into account recruitment,
retention, how does that impact even the fact that you have the
Reserves to work with?
General Scobee. Yes, ma'am. So you are exactly right.
Retention is a huge piece of this. The duty status reform is
going to help us with retention because it makes it easier for
our airmen and less confusing for their families.
Mrs. Davis. Okay, thank you. My time is up. Are we ready to
go. Thank you.
Ms. Speier. I thank the gentlelady.
Now Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will be brief.
I understand votes have started.
With changes in elections of Governors we have changes in
TAGs. It has happened in Michigan. There are a number of
States. So my first question would be is how we have ensured
the engagement with those TAGs are not in the dark or trying to
not be behind the curve versus everybody else. How have we done
this to make sure that they are engaged?
Ms. Busch. So Congressman, from an OSD perspective I will
tell you that what we have done is try to be as open and
transparent and make ourselves available to TAGs when called
upon. But we have worked very closely and collaboratively with
our colleagues in the Guard Bureau, so I will defer to my
colleague on that.
General Taheri. Yes, sir. I mean, as we did the build in
this a number of time when the adjutants general might get
together we would make sure that we were giving them briefings.
We were giving them updates. We were doing those kinds of
things along the way.
But as I think I alluded to a little bit earlier, sometimes
it is one thing when you see it on a PowerPoint presentation;
it is another thing when you see words show up on a piece of
paper.
So I think that what we are trying to do, at least at this
point, and we have been now for a couple months, is we have
been very actively working almost daily with a working group
that has been designated by the adjutants general.
And then, you know, just as I was walking in this room I
sent five or six of the key TAGs a quick note of some of the
other language that we are working on right now that are
proposals that might, you know, take care of some of the
concerns that they brought up.
So there is a lot of back and forth, literally almost daily
at this point as we try to come in----
Mr. Mitchell. I would ask is that I know Michigan has a new
one and to make sure we reach out to them and get them up to
speed because with those changes it causes a great deal of
turmoil. I can't be the only State that this is, you know, we
need to make sure what is going on here.
General Taheri. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. It is because they are big changes,
obviously.
One other quick question, the order of this transition. You
noted 450 laws, how many regulations. Do we have to weave this
whole tapestry before we begin the transition? Or how do you
envision this happening?
Ms. Busch. So I think that you can even imagine with our
initiative that it would be several lines of effort as we move
toward implementation. Certainly policies would have to be
positioned, and as we said, there are tremendous numbers of
regulations, including in the CFR [Code of Federal
Regulations], et cetera.
Mr. Mitchell. Yes.
Ms. Busch. But at the same time that that is going on we
envision that there will be an education and communication
going on, that there will also be changes to our pay and
personnel systems as new systems have to be deployed to
accommodate this.
So we imagine much of it will be going on in parallel, but
it will still take a significant time.
Mr. Mitchell. Let me reword the question real quickly,
which is you are not under some anticipation that we are going
to fix all 450 laws in some period of time quickly that is
going to enable you to then proceed, are you? Because after 27
months here I know better.
Ms. Busch. Well, sir, perhaps I am a bit optimistic, but
our proposal as currently drafted does make all those changes.
Mr. Mitchell. In one bill?
Ms. Busch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I will join the General Bergman. And we
can't wait to see that, Jim.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mitchell. So with that, Madam Chair, I will yield back
as we do have votes.
And thank you for the responses. Thank you very much.
Ms. Speier. I thank the gentleman.
For members, we have about 6 minutes left in the vote?
About 5 minutes left in the vote, so feel free to leave as you
deem it appropriate.
I want to thank you all for being here. I am going to be
very quick with my questions. I think everyone has been
wrestling with the same issue. You have said, a number of you
have said, it is going to take many years for implementation.
And that is disquieting to us because we have been dealing
with this for some time now. If it is in one bill and it is
passed, you are then saying it is just the regulations that
have to be crafted in order to implement the bill. Is that what
you mean by that?
Ms. Busch. Well, Madam Chair, as I kind of alluded to,
there will still be several lines of effort, not the least of
which is to make sure our systems can accommodate the change.
And that is a major undertaking----
Ms. Speier. So for instance----
Ms. Busch [continuing]. As well as all the regulatory
matters that need to be taken care of. But I feel that
importantly we have to have time to be able to go out and
educate our members in what this new construct will be like and
also to educate our force managers and to be able to prepare
members for the transition.
Ms. Speier. Well, Lieutenant General Scobee I think made a
very important point when he said that all of a sudden his
family was bare in terms of health care services. I don't think
we want any of our service members, whether they are National
Guard or Active Duty or Active Duty National Guard to be in a
situation where they are without health insurance.
So that, to me, would be a high priority to make sure it is
implemented immediately. Is that your belief as well?
Ms. Busch. So ma'am, I would say that one of the things we
have thought through is to try and make sure that we are, as an
interim measure as things come about, that we address those
sorts of issues that you just raised.
In fact, I would thank the Congress for going ahead and
enacting legislation that allowed us to equalize SBP [Survivor
Benefit Plan] between deaths on Active Duty versus deaths on
Inactive Duty.
And I imagine that over the time we implement this, just as
we did with blended retirement, that we continue to make those
kinds of adjustments as necessary.
Ms. Speier. So for all those Governors that are wringing
their hands about losing authority, once this OMB document is
released everyone will have access to it. You will be willing
to take input from those that feel that the language is not as
clear as it should be? And you are nodding your head yes.
Ms. Busch. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. All right.
Ms. Busch. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. And then finally, I am on page 5. Category one
says, Active service as determined by the Secretary of Defense
in which the members may become involved in military actions.
And then category two is Active service as determined by the
service secretary that does not meet category one.
Category one says may become involved in military actions.
I could conceive of a set of circumstances where you would have
someone in category one that is equal to someone in category
two because they may not be in an military action. They just
may be in military--that language concerns me a little bit.
Ms. Busch. So ma'am, I think what we are trying to say
there is that they could be involved in a military action or an
operation or perhaps a response to a natural disaster. So we
are just trying to talk about the different forms of
operational-type of duty that this category represents.
Ms. Speier. So okay. So what you are saying then are either
involved in A, B, and C as opposed to may be involved in A, B
and C. So that language ``may'' will probably not be in the
document we see. All right. Okay.
I think that answers all of my questions. I think everyone
else has felt compelled to go vote and I will as well, but if
you have any final words we would be happy to hear them.
Ms. Busch. So ma'am, Madam Chair, I just want to echo the
words you started out with. There is a piecemeal patchwork of
authorities today and duty status reform is long overdue. And I
thank the committee for your unwavering support of our Reserve
Component members and their families. But I urge the committee
to support our proposal.
Ms. Speier. All right. Anything else? Ditto.
Okay. With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 27, 2019
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 27, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 27, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 27, 2019
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS
Mrs. Davis. The current activation authorities in title 10 have
various limitations on which categories of reservists can be activated,
for how long, and for what purpose. Does the proposed legislation
modify these limitations in any way? If so, what was the rationale for
the changes? How much weight did you give to balancing the needs of the
Armed Forces for access to the Reserve Components and the impact of
activation on the reservists and their civilian employment? Would the
new authorities permit more frequent use of the Reserve Component,
perhaps to the extent of adversely affecting recruiting and retention?
Ms. Busch. Today, multiple duty statuses produce complex rules and
procedures that are highly inefficient, inhibit volunteerism, and
increase the difficulty of accessing Reserve Component members to
perform operational missions. With the extensive involvement of
stakeholders across government, our draft proposal attempts to
streamline Reserve Component duty statuses and align pays and benefits
according to the nature of the work Reservists and Guardsmen perform.
In developing its draft proposal, the Department has maintained the
duration and strength limitations that exist under current law. It did,
however, reorganize the activation authorities, along with separating
out, streamlining, and reorganizing activation purposes, in order to
achieve the goal of creating four, broad duty-status categories (based
on the nature of the work) and aligning pays and benefits to those
categories. Throughout DOD's reform effort, ensuring judicious and
prudent use of the Reserve Components, i.e., striking the right balance
between employment of/access to Reserve Component forces versus
adversely impacting individual RC members, was a fundamental, abiding
principle in the development of its current draft proposal. Further,
the Department does not expect the draft proposal would permit any more
frequent use of the Reserve Components than is allowed under current
law, and it will not adversely affect recruiting and retention.
Mrs. Davis. At present, title 10 limits the duration of annual
training to ``not more than 15 days per year.'' Does the proposed
legislation modify this cap? If so, what was the rationale for the
changes? How much weight did you give to balancing the needs of the
Armed Forces to train Reserve personnel and the impact of activation on
the reservists and their civilian employment? Might the proposed
legislation permit longer annual training missions for reservists,
perhaps adversely affecting recruiting and retention?
Ms. Busch. The Department's draft proposal focuses upon
streamlining the existing authorities and aligning pays and benefits.
Where possible, our goal was to maintain certain current limitations as
they exist today in law and align pays and benefits with the nature of
the work performed. Our proposal does not modify the limitations in 10
USC Sec. 10147, which specifies that annual training shall be no less
than 14 days per year and shall not exceed 30 days per year.
Furthermore, the Department recognizes and is always sensitive to the
impact and disruption of activation on both the lives of Reserve
Component service members and their civilian employers, as well as the
needs of our operational commanders. Throughout its reform effort, a
fundamental abiding principle of the Department was to ensure its
proposal (as currently drafted) struck the right balance between
employment of/access to Reserve Component forces versus adversely
impacting individual RC members and their employers.
Mrs. Davis. According to the briefing slides provided by the
Department, benefits will be somewhat more generous for those
performing Category I active service in comparison to Category II
active service. Can you tell me how the service member will know if
they are performing Category I or Category II active service? Will it
be clearly annotated on their orders? Will DOD pay systems recognize
the four categories of service and automatically provide the
appropriate benefits?
Ms. Busch. The Department's draft proposal would streamline the
authorities into several categories, aligning each with specific pays
and benefits. Service members will know which category they are in
because, like today, the authority/category will be clearly specified
on their orders [of note: DOD's draft legislation even aligns the
numbering of the proposed U.S. Code duty status authority sections with
the categories] and because the Department intends to spend significant
time, effort, resources necessary to properly educate the Reserve
Component force managers, service members, and families prior to
implementation. Furthermore, part of the implementation process will
include transitioning the Services to integrated personnel and pay
information technology systems, which will better track and administer
a Service member's orders and the requisite pays and benefits
authorized for a given category.
Mrs. Davis. If a service member were to change from Category I to
Category II, would he or she receive official notification of this? Can
you describe the process by which an individual might transition from
Category I active service to Category II active service? Would this be
seamless to the individual? Would a member of the Active Guard and
Reserve program who provides support to a deploying unit be considered
Category I or Category II?
Ms. Busch. Under the Department's draft proposal, the driving force
is the nature of the work the member is performing. If the member's
assignment changes but the nature of the work remains the same the
Category would remain the same and, most importantly, there would be no
disruption to the member's pays and benefits. If the nature of the work
changes significantly, the Category may change. If the category
changes, the member would receive new orders. Once fully implemented
(especially inclusion of the Services' transition to integrated
personnel and pay information technology systems as part of the
implementation), this type of transition from one Category to another
should be seamless. If an Active Guard and Reserve service member is
providing support to a deploying unit, but not deploying with the unit,
the member will remain on Category II duty. If deploying with a unit,
however, they would be treated in the same manner as service members in
the active component who deploy.
Mrs. Davis. According to the briefing slides provided by the
Department, those members of the National Guard and Reserve performing
Category II active service would receive different rates of Basic
Allowance for Housing depending on the duration of their service. What
was the rationale for providing different benefits to individuals
performing the same category of service? Is this consistent with the
intent of the section 513 of the FY2018 NDAA to align benefits with
duty categories?
Ms. Busch. The 30-day threshold to receive Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) (unless supporting a contingency operation) is the same
threshold that exists today. Over the course of our reform effort we
reviewed close to 100 provisions of law relating to pays and benefits
affecting Reserve Component members, including the qualifications for
the pays and benefits. In many cases during our review, we determined a
qualification(s), such as the 30-day BAH threshold, was appropriate/
effective, and therefore, a change was not included in the Department's
draft proposal. Unlike today's pay and benefits system, our draft
proposal minimizes, to the maximum extent practicable, disruptions in
pay and benefits for members, and adheres to the principle that Reserve
Component service members should receive pay and benefits commensurate
with the nature and performance of the their duties. It also creates a
system where members within a category will be eligible to receive the
same benefits provided they meet the requisite eligibility criteria.
For example, just as is the case for an active component member, a
Reserve Component member deployed under Category I would only receive
Imminent Danger Pay (IDP) or Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CZTE) benefits
if the Category I deployment was to a designated IDP area and/or CZ. As
another example, the 90 aggregate days of service threshold would still
need to be met for a Reserve Component service member to receive credit
for reduced age eligibility for retired pay. The Department believes
the approach it took and the determinations it made during the pays and
benefits review portion of its Reserve Component Duty Status Reform
effort is consistent with the intent of section 513 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GALLEGO
Mr. Gallego. I understand that Governors have been clear that they
do not accept that changing the Insurrection Act statute that exists in
title 10, chapter 13, is necessary to complete duty status reform. Are
you changing chapter 13 of title 10 in any way?
Ms. Busch. The provisions of Title 10 Chapter 13 have been
reorganized into Category I duty. In developing the proposal, we worked
transparently and collaboratively with each Service, as well as
stakeholders across government. We specifically worked with the
National Guard Bureau and representatives from the states. To ensure
consistent interpretation with past practice, together we agreed that
it is critical, and our draft proposal specifies, that no current
authorities from the Insurrection Act statute shall have been deemed to
have changed as a result of this reorganization.
Mr. Gallego. Do the Adjutants General support changes to the
Insurrection Act, the requirement to obtain a Governor's permission to
use Guardsmen for domestic operations, or the migration away from unit-
based organization and training?
Ms. Busch. The National Guard Bureau convened a working group,
which included five state representatives, to address the concerns of
various states Adjutants General. Together, we considered and
adjudicated each of the recommendations from that work group in
developing the Department's draft proposal. We consulted and worked
transparently with organizations and stakeholders not just within the
DOD, but across government. As the Department's draft proposal moves
forward, it will require multiple years to implement after enactment,
and we pledge to continue to work with relevant federal departments and
agencies, as well as the states and territories, to address any
concerns and make necessary revisions in the interest of our combatant
commanders, Reserve Component force managers, state governors and
Adjutants General, and, most importantly, Reserve Component Service
members.
Mr. Gallego. Does duty status reform fundamentally change the way
the Guard is controlled and accesses? In what ways?
General Taheri. My understanding is that the Duty Status Reform
(DSR) proposed legislation is not intended to change the authorities of
Governors and the Adjutants Generals to approve all Title 32 National
Guard missions.
Mr. Gallego. How does the National Guard Bureau view this
legislation with respect to limiting or otherwise affecting the
authority of Governors over their State Guards?
General Taheri. The State Adjutants Generals, and the Council of
Governors maintain that the existing authorities of Governors over
their state Guard should remain safeguarded in the proposed Duty Status
Reform (DSR) legislative action process. My understanding is that the
DSR legislation is not intended to nor should it affect the existing
authorities of Governors and Adjutants Generals over their National
Guard and their authority to approve all Title 32 missions.